Linguistic Inquiry Early Access Corrected Proof - 麻省理工学院人工智能研究专业

Linguistic Inquiry Early Access Corrected Proof
https:/ /doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00468
(西德:2) 2022 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
根据知识共享署名发布 4.0 国际的 (抄送 4.0) 执照.

Deducing the Coordinand
Constraint

Jordi Fortuny

Assuming Grosu’s (1973) decomposition of Ross’s (1967) Coordinate
Structure Constraint into the Conjunct Constraint and the Element
Constraint, this article searches for a principled account for the Con-
junct Constraint, rebaptized as the Coordinand Constraint. It defends
the proposal that different families of effects of the Coordinand Con-
straint are related to different factors: (A) the lexical information pro-
vided by a coordinator, (乙) the economy of syntactic displacement
运营, 和 (C) an interface condition prohibiting self-coordination.
These three factors are not primitive, but derive from Chomsky’s
(1991) Least Effort Principle. 所以, the Coordinand Constraint
is deduced, 最终, from the Least Effort Principle.

关键词: Coordinate Structure Constraint, Conjunct (Coordinand)
Constraint, locality conditions, 协调, categorial features, Least
Effort Principle

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

1 Delimiting the Object of Inquiry

A coordination is commonly defined as follows:

(1) The term coordination refers to a linguistic operation that combines two or more con-
stituents, typically of the same semantic and syntactic type, into a larger unit of that
semantic and syntactic type, by means of one or more linking elements. (Zamparelli
2019:135)

The linking elements and the combined constituents are called, 分别, coordinators and
coordinands. The larger unit that results from this combination is called coordinate structure, 共-
ordinate phrase (abbreviated CoordP), or simply coordination. Coordinators can be conjunctive
(like and in English), disjunctive (like or), and adversative (like but). 因此, we identify
three different types of coordinate structures: conjunctive, disjunctive, and adversative.1 Coordi-

This work has been supported by the research project PID2019-104453GA-I00 of the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia
e Innovacio´n. I would like to express my gratitude to two anonymous LI reviewers for bringing to my attention several
analytical complications that forced me to revise and strengthen my original proposal. I am especially indebted to them
for indicating some of the constructions analyzed in Illustrations 3, 4, 和 5 of section 2.2.1 as well as the phenomena
discussed in the online appendix (https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00468). I also thank Eric Reuland for his help and ad-
vice during the revision process.

1 For a classification of coordinate structures and a survey of the crosslinguistic variation concerning coordination,

see Haspelmath 2007.

Linguistic Inquiry, Early Access Corrected Proof
1–35
(西德:2) 2022 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published under
a Creative Commons Attributions 4.0 国际的 (抄送 4.0) 执照.
https:/ /doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00468

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

nands are more precisely called conjuncts in conjunctive coordinate structures and disjuncts in
disjunctive coordinate structures.2

This article begins a novel research line on a particular restriction that affects coordinate
结构: Ross’s celebrated Coordinate Structure Constraint (Ross 1967:89), understood as in
(2).

(2) Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC)

In a coordinate structure, no coordinand may be moved, nor may any element contained
in a coordinand be moved out of that coordinand.

Examples (3) 和 (4) illustrate the CSC in conjunctive, disjunctive, and adversative coordinations.
在 (3a–f), the extraction of the first or the second coordinand yields an ungrammatical sequence,
as does the subextraction of an element contained in the first or the second coordinand in (4a–f).
Silent (base-generated) copies are written with overstrikes.

(3) A. *How was Emma [how and sleepy]?
乙. *How was Emma [tired and how]?
C. *How was Emma [how or sleepy]?
d. *How was Emma [tired or how]?
e. *How was Emma [how but tired]?
F. *How was Emma [excited but how]?

(4) A. *Who will you buy [a picture of who] 和 [a portrait of Watson]?
乙. *Who will you buy [a picture of Crick] 和 [a portrait of who]?
C. *Who will you buy [a picture of who] 或者 [a portrait of Watson]?
d. *Who will you buy [a picture of Crick] 或者 [a portrait of who]?
e. *Who will you buy [a picture of who] 但 [a portrait of Watson]?
F. *Who will you buy [a picture of Crick] 但 [a portrait of who]?

As defended by Grosu (1973), the CSC is not a unified principle; 反而, it must be decom-
posed into two principles that must be independently investigated (see especially Zhang 2010,
Oda 2019): the Coordinand Constraint and the Element Constraint.

(5) Coordinand Constraint (CC)

No coordinand may be moved.

(6) Element Constraint (EC)

No element may be moved out of a coordinand.

2 尽管如此, it is very common in the literature to use the term conjunct to refer to any type of combined constituent
of a coordinate structure—strictly speaking, to any type of coordinand. I systematically avoid this use, which is confusing
(De Vries 2006:239), since the term conjunct is ambiguously used both as a hyponym and as a hypernym. For the sake
of coherence, I introduce the term coordinand in Ross’s (1967) definition of the Coordinate Structure Constraint (2) 作为
well as in Grosu’s (1973) definition of what he called the Conjunct Constraint, which I rebaptize as the Coordinand
Constraint (5).

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

The examples in (3) 和 (4) illustrate the CC and the EC, 分别; 那是, they illustrate the
two negative statements coordinated in the CSC (2).

The CSC has been regarded as “the most problem-free syntactic constraint ever discovered”
(Postal 1998:52). In favor of this claim, it must be said that the CSC is one of the few generative
principles that is widely accepted in typological studies (see Haspelmath 2007), and it is even a
syntactic criterion commonly used to decide whether a given construction involves sentential
coordination or subordination.

更确切地说, it is fair to state that, although the CC is remarkably robust crosslinguistical-
莱 (but see Agbayani, Golston, and Henderer 2011, Oda 2017), there exist apparently important
counterexamples to the EC, some of which were noted by Ross as soon as he formulated the
CSC, an issue that was brilliantly investigated in Goldsmith’s (1985) and Lakoff’s (1986) seminal
作品; such counterexamples typically involve across-the-board movement (7) and asymmetric
coordinations (8).3

(7) Which book [does Mark like which book] and/or/but [Sue hate which book]?

(8) A. How much can you drink how much and not end up with a hangover the next

早晨?
(Goldsmith 1985:135)

乙. What kind of herbs can you eat what kind of herbs and not get cancer?

(Lakoff 1986:156)

C. Who did he pick up the phone and call who?

(Lakoff 1986:156)

d. What thesis did he want to try and finish what thesis?

(Zwart 2005:1)

e. What troops did he want to go and address what troops?

(Zwart 2005:1)

Researchers commonly attempt to derive the CC from syntactic general principles; for in-
姿态, Sag (1982) and Pesetsky (1982) defend the view that the CC derives from the A-over-A
Principle, and Pollard and Sag (1994:172) account for the CC by appealing to their Trace Principle
(“Every trace must be subcategorized by a substantive head”).4 As for the EC, the predominant
看法, since the appearance of Lakoff 1986, has been that it is not a syntactic primitive but a by-
product of interpretive extralinguistic constraints formulated as “principles of cognitive organiza-
化” (Lakoff 1986:154) or inference processes involved in the establishment of coherence relation-
船舶 (Kehler 2002).5

3 See De Vries 2017 for a comprehensive overview of the literature on across-the-board dependencies and Weisser

2015 for a thorough study on asymmetric coordination.

4 See Zhang 2010:81–83 and the discussion concerning pattern 1 of section 2.2.2 below for a critical review of the

idea that the CC effects derive from the A-over-A Principle.

5 But see Zwart 2005 and Weisser 2015, 除其他外, for two independent syntactic accounts of the EC.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

That the CSC, as an empirical generalization, is a by-product of a conjunction of general
conditions of the computational system and external conditions imposed by the external systems
should be a welcome conclusion for linguistic theory, and especially for the Minimalist Program,
given that there is no place within this framework for primitive principles that are specific to
particular constructions (such as coordinate ones). If constructions are epiphenomenal, the proper-
ties we attribute to them cannot be primitives of the language faculty, but should emerge from
general properties or interface conditions (Chomsky 2004). Needless to say, we are far from un-
derstanding not only the pervasiveness of the CSC effects in prototypical case studies, 但是也
the apparent counterexamples to this constraint under restricted circumstances (see the examples
在 (7) 和 (8)).

The study presented here is concerned precisely with investigating the CC. It develops a
novel account of this constraint that does not capitalize on extralinguistic factors; 相当, it capital-
izes strictly on syntax-semantics interface conditions (see especially Zhang 2010 for a Minimalist
analysis of the CC). The EC as well as its apparent counterexamples are left aside.

The remainder of this article is organized as follows. 部分 2 argues for the central thesis:
the CC can be deduced from Chomsky’s (1991) Least Effort Principle once the CC is decomposed
into three different factors: (A) the lexical information provided by a coordinator, (乙) 经济
of syntactic displacement operations, 和 (C) an interface condition prohibiting self-coordination,
a particular instance of vacuous syntactic operation. 部分 3 emphasizes the novelty of the pro-
posal by comparing it with a selection of previous accounts. 最后, the online appendix (https://
doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00468) investigates certain potential complications that offer interesting
challenges for the proposed account and more generally for the understanding of coordination.

2 The Coordinand Constraint Effects

部分 2.1 proposes a categorematic definition of coordinator (10) that requires coordinands and
the resulting coordinate structure to be categorially identical. As will become clear, it will be
crucial to define categorial identity in terms of featural identity, and more precisely, in terms of
identity of (generalized) categorial features (12). 随后, 部分 2.2 develops a particular
derivation of the CC effects based on the categorematic definition of coordinator but also on an
economy condition on movement operations (the Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures
(50)) and an interface condition (the Prohibition against Self-Coordination (71)). 部分 2.3
derives these three factors from Chomsky’s (1991) Least Effort Principle, so that the CC is ul-
timately deduced from Chomsky’s “overarching” principle.

2.1 A Categorematic Definition of Coordinator

The standard definition of coordination introduced in (1) expresses a requirement that can be
considered a fundamental property of coordination.

(9) Parallelism Requirement

The coordinands and the resulting coordinate structure are of the same syntactic and
semantic type.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

One can conceive multiple ways to formally encode the Parallelism Requirement between a
coordinate structure and its coordinands. A possible approach consists in assuming that coordina-
tors can be formally treated as functions that select the coordinands as their arguments. 但有
is an important difference between coordinators and other linguistic categories that are typically
analyzed as functions, such as verbs, 介词, or determiners: coordinators in general do not
select arguments of a particular grammatical type or category. Coordinators do not require their
arguments to be, 例如, nominal, verbal, or sentential. 反而, the requirement coordinators
impose on coordinands is that they be of the same type or category X, as mentioned; 而且,
the category that coordinators project (IE。, the category of the coordinate phrase) is also of type
or category X.

These considerations lead to the possibility of providing a categorematic definition of coor-
dinator that can be very naturally expressed using the formalism of Categorial Grammar. Let X
stand for an arbitrary syntactic category; then a coordinator (Coord) is defined as follows:6

(10) Coord :(西德:3) (X/X)/X

Coord is thus interpreted as a function that selects an argument (西德:2) of category X—called the
second or internal coordinand—and yields as output the function X/X, which selects a new ar-
gument (西德:3)of category X—called the first or external coordinand—and yields as output a coordinate
phrase of category X. In brief, Coord, or the coordinating head, selects two arguments, the coordi-
nands (西德:3)和 (西德:2), which are of the same category X as the resulting coordinate structure. This can
be represented graphically by the following tree diagram:7

(11)

X/X

(X/X)/X

The analysis I am developing is especially concerned with finding out why a syntactic probe
cannot target a coordinand (参见部分 2.2). In order to investigate probe-goal relationships, 它
will be convenient to treat categories not as syntactic atoms but as clusters of grammatical features.

6 This definition is slightly simplified from Steedman 1985:540n19. Although Steedman suggests this categorematic
definition in his footnote 19, he follows in all respects a syncategorematic definition of coordination based directly on
Gazdar’s (1981) proposal. See Carpenter 1997:secs. 6.1–6.2, where Steedman’s categorematic definition of Coord is
adopted and investigated in more detail.

7 This formalism provides a transparent notation for function-combining operations that determines which category
is the function and which the argument. I follow Steedman’s (1985) proposal regarding the usage of the slash “/”: 这是
not intended to be a forward slash entailing that the argument follows the function, as opposed to a backward slash “\”
requiring that the argument precede the function; 反而, directionality or constituency order derives from other syntactic
factors and does not need to be encoded in the definition of categories. In Steedman’s article, directionality is specified
by two different rules of functional application, the Forward and Backward Rules, or by introducing a related directional
类别, as with postmodifiers.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

更确切地说, I will be especially interested in determining the categorial feature of a given syn-
tactic constituent, understood as follows:

(12) Definition of generalized categorial feature

is a categorial feature of a syntactic constituent (西德:3)if and only if it determines the

syntactic distribution of (西德:3).

This definition is not the historical definition of categorial feature originated in the Extended
Standard Theory; 相当, it is—as stated—a generalization of it intended to capture the existence
of a much larger set of syntactic categories. As is well-known, categorial features were originally
considered to be [氮] 和 [V]. The feature [(西德:4)氮] is the traditional substantive and the feature [(西德:4)V]
the traditional predicative. 因此, nouns, 动词, 形容词, and pre- and postpositions were
defined by the following matrices of these two binary categorial features:

(13) A. 氮 (西德:3) [(西德:4)氮, (西德:5)V]
乙. V (西德:3) [(西德:5)氮, (西德:4)V]
C. A (西德:3) [(西德:4)氮, (西德:4)V]
d. 磷 (西德:3) [(西德:5)氮, (西德:5)V]

Lexical items selected from the lexicon with a particular specification for these categorial features
were assumed to project such a specification to the phrase marker they headed. 因此,
terminals and phrases with different categorial specifications would display different syntactic
distributions that would correlate with different interpretive possibilities. 然而, given that the
inventory of syntactic categories (terminals and projections) is currently much larger than sug-
gested in (13), I will work with the definition of generalized categorial feature provided in (12).
Note also that my conception of categorial feature differs from the traditional one. I will not
attempt to characterize different syntactic categories in terms of a small set of binary and more
primitive categorial features; 反而, I will investigate which particular features determine the
syntactic distribution of constituents. This point will become clear immediately.

根据 (12), a syntactic constituent can appear in a given syntactic position if it carries
the appropriate categorial feature. 通常, a syntactic constituent can appear in an argument
position of a particular head depending on its categorial features. 例如, a transitive verb
like eat selects a DP (14A) as complement (but not a PP), whereas a locative verb like live selects
a PP as complement (14乙), and a verb like think selects a CP as complement (14C). 最后,
I will consider [D], [磷], 和 [C] to be categorial features. Since an IP appears in the complement
position of a selecting C head, I will also include [我] in the class of categorial features. 自从
VPs (14d) and AdjPs (14e) can appear in complement positions of selecting I heads, I add [V]
和 [Adj] to the class of categorial features as well.

(14) A. [V [V eat] [DP two apples]]

乙. [V [V live] [PP in Rome]]
C. [V [V think] [CP that I am leaving]]
d. [我 [I is] [VP going into the shop]]
e. [我 [I is] [AdjP really unpleasant]]

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

Let us thus assume, preliminarily, that the set of categorial features contains at least [D], [磷],
[C], [我], [V], 和 [Adj]. In section 2.2, I will enlarge this set by adding more categorial features.
In the online appendix, I will observe that not all grammatical features are categorial features.

用英语, one can coordinate different kinds of maximal projections, such as DPs, VPs,
AdjPs, PPs, 和 (目的) CPs (15). 在每种情况下, the coordinands share the relevant categorial
feature with each other (and with the resulting coordinate structure).8

(15) A. Sophia ate [DP [DP two apples] 和 [DP four carrots]].

乙. Sophia often [副总裁 [VP goes into the shop] 和 [VP buys red wine]].
C. Sophia is [AdjP [AdjP really unpleasant] 和 [AdjP somewhat selfish]].
d. Sophia wants to live [PP [PP in Rome] 和 [PP in Palermo]].
e. Sophia thinks [CP [CP that I am coming] 和 [CP that you are staying at home]].

相似地, one can apparently coordinate different kinds of heads or minimal projections, 这样的
as Ds, Vs, Adjs, Advs, Ps, and Cs (16), and perhaps even certain types of intermediate projections
(17). Again the coordinands (and the resulting coordinate structure) share categorial features.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

(16) A. Sophia ate [D [D two] 或者 [D three]] carrots.

乙. Sophia [V [V peeled] 和 [V washed]] the potatoes.
C. Sophia is [Adj [Adj happy] 和 [Adj excited]] with her new life.
d. Sophia is [磷 [P under] 或者 [P beside]] 床.
e. [C [C Can] 和 [C will]] Sophia do the right thing?

(17) A. My friends all [V [V like football] 和 [V hate basketball]].

乙. WHO [C [C has Sophia invited] 和 [C does Bill want to see]]?

It is customary to assume, implicitly or explicitly, that in order to be coordinated, categories must
share not only categorial features but also bar-level features (see Borsley 1994:233): minimal cat-
egories can be coordinated with minimal categories only, intermediate categories with intermediate
categories only, and maximal categories with maximal categories only. I will consider bar-level
features to be [projected] 和 [maximal], following Muysken’s (1982) 系统: a minimal category
是 [(西德:5)projected, (西德:5)maximal], an intermediate category is [(西德:4)projected, (西德:5)maximal], and a maximal
category is [(西德:4)projected, (西德:4)maximal].

因此, the category X of the coordinations contained in (15)–(17), as well as of their
respective coordinands, can be characterized by the feature matrices in (18)–(20), 哪个是
equivalent to the standard phrase marker labels used in (15)–(17).

8 As is well-known, some languages display coordinators with c-selection restrictions (佩恩 1985:5); 例如,
in Japanese to selects nominals, si selects finite clauses, and te selects nonfinite verbs and adjectives (张 2010:46–47).
Naturally, the definitions of coordinators in these languages must be consistent with this observation, by taking into con-
sideration their specific c-selection requirements.

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

(18) A. X ≡ [(西德:4)D; (西德:4)projected, (西德:4)maximal] ≡ DP
乙. X ≡ [(西德:4)V; (西德:4)projected, (西德:4)maximal] ≡ VP
C. X ≡ [(西德:4)Adj; (西德:4)projected, (西德:4)maximal] ≡ AdjP
d. X ≡ [(西德:4)磷; (西德:4)projected, (西德:4)maximal] ≡ PP
e. X ≡ [(西德:4)C; (西德:4)projected, (西德:4)maximal] ≡ CP
(19) A. X ≡ [(西德:4)D; (西德:5)projected, (西德:5)maximal] ≡ D
乙. X ≡ [(西德:4)V; (西德:5)projected, (西德:5)maximal] ≡ V
C. X ≡ [(西德:4)Adj; (西德:5)projected, (西德:5)maximal] ≡ Adj
d. X ≡ [(西德:4)磷; (西德:5)projected, (西德:5)maximal] ≡ P
e. X ≡ [(西德:4)C; (西德:5)projected, (西德:5)maximal] ≡ C
(20) A. X ≡ [(西德:4)V; (西德:4)projected, (西德:5)maximal] ≡ V(西德:4)
乙. X ≡ [(西德:4)C; (西德:4)projected, (西德:5)maximal] ≡ C(西德:4)

With these considerations in mind, I propose the following feature-based definition of cate-
((西德:3)) refer respectively to the set of categorial features and

((西德:3)) 和

gorial identity, 在哪里
bar-level features of (西德:3).

(21) Definition of categorial identity

Two syntactic constituents (西德:3)和 (西德:2)belong to the same category X if and only if

((西德:3)) (西德:3) ((西德:2)) 和

((西德:3)) (西德:3) ((西德:2)).

Note that the definition of Coord (10) states that Coord selects two arguments of the same
类别. But this categorematic definition of Coord does not state in what terms two constituents
are categorially identical. I provide a definition of categorial identity in (21), where categories
are viewed as clusters of categorial features and bar-level features.

最后, if two constituents (西德:3)和 (西德:2)can be coordinated if and only if they are categorially
identical (by the definition of Coord (10)), and if they are categorially identical if and only if
they have the same specification for bar-level features and categorial features (by definition (21)),
然后, by transitivity, we arrive at the following condition:

(22) Coordinability Condition

Two syntactic constituents (西德:3)和 (西德:2)can be coordinated if and only if
和

((西德:3)) (西德:3) ((西德:2)).

((西德:3)) (西德:3) ((西德:2))

所以, the Coordinability Condition is a consequence of the categorematic definition of Coord
(10) and the feature-based definition of categorial identity (21).

2.2 A Threefold Decomposition of the Coordinand Constraint

迄今为止, I have conceived coordination as a grammatical operation that combines syntactic constitu-
ents of the same semantic and syntactic type into a larger unit of the same semantic and syntactic
类型 (see the definition (9) of the Parallelism Requirement). This standard conception of coordina-
tion has been formally expressed as a categorematic definition of Coord (看 (10)), which requires

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

coordinands and the coordinate structure to be categorially identical. Categorial identity is defined
in terms of identity of categorial and bar-level features (21), which leads to the Coordinability
Condition (22).

The objective of this section is to investigate the CC effects in relation to the categorematic
definition of coordination (10) and the definition of categorial identity (21). I will argue that the
CC effects can be deduced from the definition of Coord (10) (and the definition of categorial
身份 (21)) plus two other factors: a syntactic economy condition and an interface condition.
This leads to a threefold decomposition of the CC.

At this point, it is important to investigate formally the mechanics of syntactic displacement
in relation to the categorematic definition of Coord and the featured-based Coordinability Con-
迪迪 (22). With this purpose, I adopt Chomsky’s Minimalist approach to internal Merge (看
particularly Chomsky 2000). In brief, I will say that a syntactic probe—that is, a functional head
enter into an

—searches for a suitable goal
Agree relationship with respect to

carrying a particular feature
,

和
can be remerged to the specifier of P.

; 一次

Recall that categorial features determine the distribution of those categories that bear them,
agrees with with respect
, 因为它
是一个 [(西德:4) ] 类别. For clarity, I state the

by definition (12) of categorial feature. 所以, I emphasize, 如果
到
determines its syntactic distribution; 在这种情况下,
following remark:

and is consequently remerged in Spec, 磷, 然后

is a categorial feature of

(23) Remark on probe-goal relations

Grammatical features involved in internal Merge operations are categorial features.

With this perspective on syntactic displacement and the categorematic definition of Coord in
头脑, in the following sections I investigate the effects of extracting syntactic constituents out
of a coordinate structure. 更确切地说, I investigate why a single coordinand cannot be extracted
out of a coordinate structure in narrow syntax (案件 1) and why extracting both coordinands out
of a coordinate structure in narrow syntax is not permitted (案件 2).

2.2.1 案件 1: Why a Single Coordinand Cannot Be Syntactically Extracted from a Coordinate
Structure Assume that the coordinand (西德:3), but not the coordinand (西德:2), of a given coordinate structure
carries a categorial feature
outside the
coordinate structure. Then we have (24), in which case

that triggers an Agree relationship of (西德:3)with a probe

((西德:3)) (西德:2) ((西德:2)).

(24) (西德:2) ((西德:3)) ^ (西德:2)/

((西德:2))

因此, by definition (21) of categorial identity, (西德:3)和 (西德:2)are categorially distinct. 正如我将要
说, (西德:3), 但不是 (西德:2), 是一个 [(西德:4) ] 类别.

This situation is incompatible with the categorematic definition of Coord provided in (10),
自从 (西德:3)和 (西德:2)are different categories and no category can be projected to the resulting coordinate
结构.

所以, the definition of Coord does not permit the situation where only one coordinand
leaves the coordinate structure as a result of Agree and internal Merge operations, while the other
coordinand remains in its base position within the coordinate structure.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Typical CC violations indeed display the extraction of a single coordinand that differs cate-
gorially from the coordinand that remains within the coordinate structure. 在这方面, consi-
der the following five illustrations.

在 (25A), the coordinand who
2.2.1.1 插图 1: A Single Coordinand Cannot Be Wh-Moved
undergoes wh-movement, unlike the coordinand a girl. As shown in (25乙), who is a [(西德:4)wh] 短语
that is coordinated in its base position with the DP a girl, which lacks the categorial wh-feature.
Assuming Rizzi’s cartographic work on the left periphery (Rizzi 1997 et seq.), 这 [(西德:4)wh] 短语
who should move to Spec,ForceP because it bears the criterial feature [wh]; it would agree with
Force and move to Spec,ForceP to satisfy the so-called Wh-Criterion. 然而, 这 [(西德:5)wh] 短语
a girl should remain within the coordinate structure. 至关重要的是, the constituents who and a girl
are of different syntactic categories: the former but not the latter is a [(西德:4)wh] 短语. This situation
is incompatible with the definition of Coord (10): the coordinands are of different categories and
no category can be projected to the coordinate structure, as indicated in (25乙) with a question
mark subscripted to the bracket opening the ill-formed coordinate structure.

(25) A. *Who did John kiss and/or a girl?

乙.

[ForceP [WHO][(西德:4)wh] [Force0 did] [IP John kiss [? [WHO][(西德:4)wh] 和/或 [a girl][(西德:5)wh]]]]?

2.2.1.2 插图 2: A Single Coordinand Cannot Be Focalized or Dislocated Focalization
and clitic left-dislocation of a single coordinand are also grammatically impossible in, 例如,
a language like Catalan (看 (26A) 和 (26C)). As represented in (26乙), A [(西德:4)focus] 短语 (国际米兰-
preted as a contrastive focus) is coordinated in its base position with a DP that lacks the categorial
[focus] feature; and as represented in (26d), A [(西德:4)话题] phrase is coordinated in its base position
with a DP that lacks the categorial [话题] feature. Again adopting Rizzi’s cartographic approach,
这 [(西德:4)focus] constituent should move to Spec,FocP, because it carries the [(西德:4)focus] feature, 和
这 [(西德:4)话题] constituent should move to Spec,TopP, because it carries the [(西德:4)话题] feature. 这
focal constituent then agrees with the Focus head and moves to Spec,FocP to satisfy the Focus
Criterion (26A), whereas the topical constituent agrees with the Topic head and moves to Spec,
TopP to satisfy the Topic Criterion (26C). 再次, these constructions contain ill-formed coordina-
tions according to the categorematic definition of Coord (10): 在这两种情况下, the coordinands are
categorially different and no category can be projected to the coordinate structure (as indicated
with a subscripted question mark).

(26) A single coordinand cannot be focalized
A. *LES PASTANAGUES, sembra i/o

les mongetes.

乙.

grows and/or the beans

the carrots
[FocP [Les pastanagues][(西德:4)focus] Foc0 [IP sembra [? [les pastanagues][(西德:4)focus] i/o [les
mongetes][(西德:5)focus]]]].

A single coordinand cannot be left-dislocated
C. *Les pastanaguesi, lesi

sembra i/o

les mongetes.

the carrots
‘The carrots, he/she grows them and/or the beans.’

them grows and/or the beans

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

[TopP [Les pastanagues][(西德:4)话题] Top0 [IP les sembra [? [les pastanagues][(西德:4)话题] i/o
[les mongetes][(西德:5)话题]]]].

A single coordinand cannot be syntactically extracted from an adversative coordination either,
for the same reason: the extracted coordinand has a different categorial specification than the co-
ordinand that remains within the coordinate structure. The coordinands are thus categorially dis-
tinct and no category can be projected for the coordinate structure.

(27) Wh-movement of a single coordinand in adversative coordinations

A. *How was Peter but tired?
乙.

[ForceP [如何][(西德:4)wh] [Force0 was] [IP Peter [? [如何][(西德:4)wh] 但 [tired[(西德:5)wh]]]]]?

(28) Focalization of a single coordinand in adversative coordinations in Catalan

A. *EXCITAT estava pero` cansat.

但

excited was
‘EXCITED, he was but tired.’
[FocP [Excitat][(西德:4)focus] Foc0 [IP estava [? [excitat][(西德:4)focus] pero` [cansat][(西德:5)focus]]]].

tired.

乙.

(29) Clitic left-dislocation of a single coordinand in adversative coordinations in Catalan

A. *Excitati, hoi estava pero` cansat.

但

excited CL was
‘Excited, he was but tired.’
[TopP [Excitat][(西德:4)话题] Top0 [IP ho estava [? [excitat][(西德:4)话题] pero` [cansat][(西德:5)话题]]]].

tired

乙.

I emphasize that I assume, along with Rizzi’s work on the left periphery (see Rizzi 1997 et seq.),
that constituents interpreted as focal or topical are endowed with a [focus] 或一个 [话题] feature,
分别. In Rizzi’s (1997:287) 字, “There are thus Focus and Topic Criteria, 哪个是
reminiscent of the Wh and Neg Criteria (Rizzi 1991, Haegeman 1995).” This assumption, 哪个
seems to be necessary on independent grounds, given that [(西德:4)话题] 短语, [(西德:4)focus] 短语,
和 [(西德:4)wh] phrases have distinctive syntactic distributions, is consistent with Rizzi’s (1997) carto-
graphic approach to A¯ -movement, where these syntactic phrases are argued to occupy specifier
positions of semantically devoted functional projections.

2.2.1.3 插图 3: A Single Coordinand Cannot Be Pied-Piped The Parallelism Requirement
(9), or more precisely the feature-based definition of categorial identity (21), does not extend to
elements inside the coordinands. 例如, 在 (30) DPA and DPB can be coordinated although
the former contains a DP and the latter a CP (constructions (30), (31), (33), 和 (34) were brought
to my attention by an anonymous reviewer).

(30) [[DPA The belief in [DP resurrection]] 和 [DPB the desire [CP to preserve one’s life]]]

are sometimes at odds.

But now observe the following ill-formed interrogative clause and its corresponding representa-
的:

(31) A. *The photo of which applicant did you compare and his CV?

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

乙. *[ForceP [DPA The photo of which applicant] [Force0 did] [IP you compare [[DPA the

photo of which applicant] 和 [DPB his CV]]]]?

The sequence in (31A) illustrates that the whP (在这种情况下, which applicant) cannot pied-pipe
an entire coordinand (the photo of which applicant) out of a coordinate structure. If pied-piping
consists in the percolation of a wh-feature up to the constituent that moves, 然后 (31A) is ungram-
matical because it contains the coordination of two coordinands that are categorially distinct, 作为
indicated in (32): 一方面, the photo of which applicant bears a categorial [D] feature,
as a result of the projection of the D head, but it also possesses a [wh] categorial feature as a
result of feature percolation; 另一方面, the second coordinand, his CV, 是一个 [D] 短语
that lacks a wh-feature.

(32) A. [the photo of which applicant] ≡ [(西德:4)D, (西德:4)wh; (西德:4)投影, (西德:4)maximal]

乙. [his CV] ≡ [(西德:4)D, (西德:5)wh; (西德:4)投影, (西德:4)maximal]

([the photo of which applicant]) 然后 [wh] (西德:2)/

鉴于 [wh] (西德:2)
([his CV]), 这
constituents [the photo of which applicant] 和 [his CV] are categorially distinct, by the definition
(21) of categorial identity, and cannot be coordinated, by the categorematic definition of Coord
(10).

An interesting issue is whether feature percolation is optional or mandatory. Observe, 在这个
看待, that it is possible to account for (33) by assuming that the wh-feature may either percolate
up to the external DP or not; in the first case the whole DP moves (33A), whereas in the second
case only which girl moves (33乙).

(33) A. [[(西德:4)wh]P A portrait of which girl] did you see [[(西德:4)wh]P a portrait of which girl]?
乙. [[(西德:4)wh]P Which girl] did you see [[(西德:5)wh]P a portrait of [[(西德:4)wh]P which girl]]?

然而, if feature percolation is optional and does not take place in (33乙), 然后 (34) is errone-
ously predicted to be grammatical, because it contains a (well-formed) coordination of two [(西德:5)wh]
短语.

(34) A. Which king did you buy that painting and a portrait of?

乙. *[[(西德:4)wh]P Which king] did you buy [[(西德:5)wh]磷 [[(西德:5)wh]P that painting] 和 [[(西德:5)wh]P a portrait

的 [[(西德:4)wh]P which king]]]?

所以, assuming that feature percolation is optional makes incorrect predictions.

或者, one may consider that the [(西德:4)wh] feature percolates up to the external DP a
portrait of which girl in (33A) but also in (33乙); 如果是这样, then the external DP is syntactically
attracted by the relevant probe in both (33A) 和 (33乙). If the same constituent is moved in both
constructions, then the apparent differences can be accounted for in term of spell-out options,
那是, in terms of what fragment of what copy is overt (or covert). 在 (33A) the entire derived
copy is phonologically overt and the entire base-generated copy is phonologically covert, 然而
在 (33乙) which girl is pronounced in the derived copy and a portrait of in the base copy.

(35) A. [[(西德:4)wh]P a portrait of Which girl] did you see [[(西德:4)wh]P a portrait of which girl]?
乙. [[(西德:4)wh]P A portrait of which girl] did you see [[(西德:4)wh]P a portrait of which girl]?

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

If wh-feature percolation is mandatory, 然后 (34A) is expected to be ungrammatical because it
contains an ill-formed coordination of a [(西德:5)wh]P and a [(西德:4)wh]磷.

(36) *[? [[(西德:5)wh]P that painting] 和 [[(西德:4)wh]P a portrait of [[(西德:4)wh]P which king]]]

There is independent reason to think that this sort of discontinuous spell-out of chains is possible.
至关重要的是, the present analysis of (33) is reminiscent of Radford’s (2004:194) analysis of the fol-
lowing wh-movement operations:

(37) A. What hope could there be of finding survivors?

乙. What proof have you found that he was implicated?

在 (37), there is no pied-piping, and no wh-feature percolation, because the wh-phrases consist
of a projecting wh-determiner (什么) that selects a [(西德:5)wh] NP complement (hope of finding sur-
vivors and proof that he was implicated). Apparently, what hope and what proof undergo wh-
movement and leave the PP of finding survivors and the CP that he was implicated, 分别,
stranded in situ. 但, as Radford observes, this analysis is problematic, because what hope and
what proof are not syntactic constituents and thus should not be the target of syntactic operations,
such as wh-movement. The copy theory can be used to construct a better analysis, as proposed
by Radford: if the whPs what hope of finding survivors and what proof that he was implicated
move as a whole and leave literally identical copies in their base positions, then we expect
phonological deletion operations to target different fragments of each copy; 更确切地说, 这是
possible that the whole derived copy is pronounced and the whole base-generated copy phonologi-
cally deleted (38), but also that different fragments of different copies are phonologically null,
leading to a discontinuous spell-out of the A¯ -chain (39).

(38) A. [[(西德:4)wh]P What hope of finding survivors] could there be [[(西德:4)wh]P what hope of

finding survivors]?

乙. [[(西德:4)wh]P What proof that he was implicated] have you found [[(西德:4)wh]P what proof

that he was implicated]?

(39) A. [[(西德:4)wh]P What hope of finding survivors] could there be [[(西德:4)wh]P what hope of finding

survivors]?

乙. [[(西德:4)wh]P What proof that he was implicated] have you found [[(西德:4)wh]P what proof that

he was implicated]?

In the analysis of illustrations 1–3, it is not extraction per se that rules out the extraction of a
single coordinand; 相当, it is the Parallelism Requirement, expressed in terms of categorial
身份 (21). The source for the ungrammaticality of the constructions under discussion is not
part of syntactic movement theory, but part of coordination theory. I explore this thesis in more
detail in relation to illustrations 4 和 5.

2.2.1.4 插图 4: An In-Situ Wh-Phrase Cannot Be Coordinated with a [(西德:5)wh] DP Consider
multiple questions with partial wh-in-situ in a language like English. Expression (40A) is grammati-
cal because a [(西德:4)wh] Force0 in English can (overtly) attract only one whP. Force0 attracts who to

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Spec,ForceP, whereas what stays in situ, because who asymmetrically c-commands what and is
thus syntactically closer to the probe Force0 than what.9

(40) A. Who said that John bought what?

乙. [ForceP [whP Who] Force0 [whP who] [said that John bought [whP what]]]?

But crucially, expressions (41) 和 (42) are ungrammatical although there is no (overt) movement
of the coordinand what; they are ungrammatical not because what overtly moves (它不是),
but because what and beer are categorially different: the former is a [(西德:4)wh] phrase and the latter
A [(西德:5)wh] phrase.10

(41) A. *Who bought what and beer?

乙. *[ForceP [[(西德:4)wh]P Who] Force0 [whP who] bought [?? [[(西德:4)wh]P what] 和 [[(西德:5)wh]P beer]]]?

(42) A. *Who bought beer and what?

乙. *[ForceP [[(西德:4)wh]P Who] Force0 [whP who] bought [?? [[(西德:5)wh]P beer] 和 [[(西德:4)wh]P what]]]?

2.2.1.5 插图 5: A Coordinand Cannot Pied-Pipe a Coordinate Structure A whP contained
within the complement (43A) or the specifier (43乙) of a DP can pied-pipe such a DP to the speci-
fier position of a [(西德:4)wh] Force0.

(43) A. The photo of which applicant do you think is lost?

乙. Which girl’s gift do you think is lost?

更确切地说, 在 (43A) the wh-feature of which applicant percolates all the way up to the DP,
crossing the NP headed by photo and the PP headed by of; 因此, the whole DP, endowed
与一个 [(西德:4)wh] categorial feature, moves to Spec,ForceP. (For the sake of clarity, 在 (44) maximal

9 The metrics for movement operations in terms of c-command are considered in more detail in section 2.2.2; 看

especially the discussion of the definition of the Minimal Link Condition (54).

10 An anonymous reviewer brings to my attention the constructions with partial wh-in-situ in (我), which are considered
to be ungrammatical. A possible way to account for their ungrammaticality may capitalize on the idea that the wh-feature
percolates up to the external DP when the wh-phrase moves overtly, but crucially not when the wh-phrase remains in
situ in a multiple question in English. 因此, a portrait of which king and a container for what in (我) 将会
[(西德:5)wh]Ps. 的确, feature percolation is a reasonable hypothesis when there is (overt) pied-piping, but it is unclear why
we should assume that the wh-feature of an in-situ wh-phrase percolates up to a higher node. If feature percolation does
not take place when the wh-phrase remains in situ, then the expressions in (我) must be analyzed as in (二).

(我) A. *Who bought that painting and a portrait of which king?

乙. *Who bought what and a container for what?

(二) A. *[[[(西德:4)wh]P Who] Force0 [[(西德:5)wh]P who] bought [[(西德:5)wh]磷 [[(西德:5)wh]P that painting] and a [[(西德:5)wh]P portrait of which king]]]?

乙. *[[[(西德:4)wh]P Who] Force0 [[(西德:5)wh]P who] bought [? [[(西德:4)wh]P what] 和 [[(西德:5)wh]P a container for what]]]?

Given this reanalysis, expression (iib) contains a coordination of categorially distinct constituents and is thus expected
to be ungrammatical; 然而, (iia) contains a coordination of two categorially identical constituents and is still ungram-
马蒂卡尔. 所以, the alleged ungrammaticality of (iib) must derive from constraints other than the Coordinability Con-
迪迪. 笔记, in this regard, that simple questions and multiple questions in English are interpreted differently: 多种的
questions such as Who bought a portrait of which king? admit a pair-list reading that is unavailable in a simple question
such as Who bought that painting? Perhaps this interpretive difference creates difficulties in finding an appropriate context
为了 (iia). 诚然, this suggestion, as well as the acceptability judgments behind constructions such as (ia–b), deserves
closer inspection.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

projections with percolated features are decomposed into feature matrices and percolated features
appear in boldface; the e symbol indicates the base-generated copy of the pied-piped constituent.)

(44)

ForceP

[(西德:2)wh,(西德:3)D;(西德:3)maximal,(西德:3)投影]

力量(西德:2)

[(西德:2)wh,(西德:3)氮;(西德:3)maximal,(西德:3)投影]

力量

知识产权

这

氮

[(西德:2)wh,(西德:3)磷;(西德:3)maximal,(西德:3)投影]

do you think is lost e

photo

磷

whP

的

哪个

applicant

并且在 (43乙) the wh-feature of which girl, the specifier of the DP headed by ’s, percolates up to
the DP; as a consequence, the whole [(西德:4)wh] DP undergoes wh-movement to Spec,ForceP.

(45)

ForceP

[(西德:2)wh,(西德:3)D;(西德:3)maximal,(西德:3)投影]

力量(西德:2)

whP

D(西德:2)

力量

知识产权

哪个

女孩

’s

gift

do you think is lost e

所以, a whP contained in a complement of a DP or in the specifier of a DP can pied-pipe
such a DP. This is in contrast with the following observation: A [(西德:4)wh] coordinand placed within
the complement or the specifier of a coordinate structure does not have the ability to pied-pipe
the coordinate structure in its entirety (this observation and the constructions in (46) are due to
an anonymous reviewer).

(46) A. *[ForceP [? [Which girl][(西德:4)wh] 和 [塞缪尔][(西德:5)wh]] [Force0 do] you think are [VP lost

[[which girl] 和 [塞缪尔]]]]?

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

乙. *[ForceP [? [塞缪尔][(西德:5)wh] 和 [which girl][(西德:4)wh]] [Force0 do] you think are [VP lost

[[塞缪尔] 和 [which girl]]]]?

According to the current proposal, it is not necessary to resort to constraints on pied-piping or
feature percolation to filter out the structures in (46); they are are ungrammatical because they
contain ill-formed coordinations of categorially distinct coordinands: which girl, A [(西德:4)wh]磷, 和
塞缪尔, A [(西德:5)wh]磷.

总共, I account for the ungrammaticality of extracting a single coordinand in narrow syntax
on the basis of the definition of Coord (10) and the feature-based definition of categorial identity
(21). The types of constructions just illustrated are ungrammatical because they contain ill-formed
coordinations. It is not possible to coordinate one constituent with a positive value of a categorial
feature and another with a negative value of the same categorial feature. In the circumstance just
描述的, no category or label can be projected for the coordinate structure; whether the coordinate
phrase has either the positive or the negative value of the relevant categorial feature cannot be
determined. This reasoning applies as well to partial wh-movement and to pied-piping—that is,
to structures that inherit a particular feature, crucially a wh-feature, by percolation and not by
strict projection.11

2.2.2 案件 2: Why Both Coordinands Cannot Be Syntactically Extracted from a Coordinate
Structure As for the impossibility of extracting both coordinands out of a coordinate structure,
there are two relevant subcases: the coordinands (西德:3)和 (西德:2)each carry a different categorial feature,
j (subcase I), 或者 (西德:3)和 (西德:2)share all relevant categorial features (subcase II). I discuss these

我,

two situations in turn.

11 Agbayani and Golston (2010A,乙, 2016) and Agbayani, Golston, and Henderer (2011) defend the view that hyperba-
ton in languages like Classical Greek, Latin, and Colloquial Russian involves postsyntactic movement, because it targets
prosodic constituents but not syntactic constituents and obeys prosodic constraints but ignores syntactic constraints such
as the CC and the Left-Branch Constraint. 例如, they argue that in the Latin example (我) the fronted material is
not a syntactic but a prosodic constituent, which appears to the left of its prosodic phrase, and crucially that the coordinand
sapientiae is extracted out of the coordinate structure in (二). Examples are borrowed from Agbayani, Golston, and Henderer
2011:234.

(我) (in eodem)(西德:5) occiderint in eodem castello

死了

in same
‘died in the same castle’
(Caesar, Bello Gallico 37)

castle

(二) sapientiae laudem sapientiae et

eloquentiae

wisdom reputation
‘a reputation for wisdom and eloquence’
(Cicero, De Oratione 2.363)

and eloquence

If prosodic movement operations take place postsyntactically, they are expected to be able to extract a coordinand out
of a coordinate structure (二) because they have no effect on the syntactic application of the categorematic definition of
Coord, which takes place in narrow syntax and thus before postsyntactic operations. This may open up a possible explana-
tion for at least some of the exceptions to the CC observed in the literature (看, 例如, Johannessen 1998, Oda 2019); 这
possibility deserves further attention.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

2.2.2.1 Subcase I Let the coordinands (西德:3)和 (西德:2)of a given coordinate structure each carry a
j might enter into an Agree relationship with two
different categorial feature,
probes outside the coordinate structure:
j. 在这个
situation, (西德:3)和 (西德:2)are categorially distinct, by the feature-based definition of categorial identity
(21), because each has a different set
of categorial features. As in case 1, two categorially
distinct constituents are not valid arguments of Coord.

i with the head

j with the head

i and

我,

The ungrammatical Catalan construction (47), where the external coordinand is left-dislo-
cated and the internal one is focalized, illustrates this hypothetical situation. Note that it is possi-
ble to focalize one phrase and topicalize another phrase in the same sentence when these phrases
are not coordinands (48).12

(47) *[Les pastanagues][(西德:4)话题], [LES MONGETES][(西德:4)focus], les sembra i.

the carrots
‘The carrots, THE BEANS, he/she grows.’

the beans

CL grows and

(48) [Les verdures][(西德:4)话题], [EN PERE][(西德:4)focus], les sembra.

the vegetables
‘The vegetables, PERE grows.’

ART Pere

CL grows

在 (47), the ill-formed coordination contains the base-generated copy of a [(西德:4)话题] DP (les pas-
tanagues ‘the carrots’) and the base-generated copy of a [(西德:4)focus] DP (les mongetes ‘the beans’).
因此, 这 [(西德:4)话题] DP should move to Spec,TopP and the [(西德:4)focus] DP to Spec,FocP.
Since the coordinands carry different categorial features, they are different syntactic categories;
as a consequence, they are not valid arguments for Coord and no category can be projected to
the coordinate structure (it cannot be decided whether the coordinate structure is either a [(西德:4)话题]
DP or a [(西德:4)focus] DP).

(49) [TopP [Les pastanagues][(西德:4)话题] Top0 [FocP [LES MONGETES][(西德:4)focus] Foc0 [IP les sembra

[? [les pastanagues][(西德:4)话题] 我 [les mongetes][(西德:4)focus]]]]].

2.2.2.2 Subcase II Let the coordinands (西德:3)和 (西德:2)of a given coordinate structure share all categor-
ial features (as well as all bar-level features), in which case they are categorially identical, 经过
定义 (21) of categorial identity. Assume them to be of category X. More particularly, consider
that they both carry a categorial feature
that might enter into an Agree relationship with a
. But in this case recall that, as a result of the definition of Coord (10), the same category
probe
X is projected to the coordinate structure, which also carries the categorial feature
under consid-

12 As Rizzi (1997:290–291) observes, “[A] focus and one or more topics can be combined in the same structure.
In that case, the focal constituent can be both preceded and followed by topics (A Gianni, QUESTO, domani, gli dovrete
dire ‘To Gianni, THIS, tomorrow, you should tell him’).”

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

进化. We will observe that, under this circumstance, the entire coordinate structure is identified
, and moves to Spec, 磷. I formulate
with respect to
as the sole possible goal, agrees with
the preeminence of the coordinate structure over its coordinands with respect to movement in the
following terms:

(50) Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures

Assume that X is a well-formed coordinate structure of the same category as its coordi-
nands (西德:3)和 (西德:2)and let the coordinate structure X, 也 (西德:3)和 (西德:2), carry a categorial
searching for a [(西德:4) ] category can target the coordinate
feature
structure X, but not any [(西德:4) ] category contained within X.

. Then a probe

The Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures is on a par with the Coordinability Condition
(22). As I will illustrate, the former is the source for the impossibility of extracting coordinands
when they are categorially identical, whereas the latter is the source for the impossibility of
extracting coordinands when they are categorially distinct. The Coordinability Condition can be
considered to be part of the lexical meaning of a coordinator: a coordinator selects two arguments
of the same category X and projects a larger unit of category X as well. And the Integrity Condition
on Coordinate Structures as formulated in (50) is a construction-specific syntactic constraint.
因此, the Coordinand Constraint derives in part from the lexical definition of coordinator
and in part from a construction-specific constraint; 然而, as I will defend, there is reason to
think that the Integrity Condition of Coordinate Structures is not a primitive, but can be related
to more general syntactic economy conditions.

To illustrate the Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures and motivate it on the basis
of more general economy factors, I will take into consideration the impossibility of patterns 1,
2, 和 3.

图案 1. The coordinands (西德:3) 和 (西德:2) cannot each move to a different specifier of P. 俄语
allows multiple wh-movement in general (51A), but not out of a coordinate structure (51乙): 移动-
ment of coordinands is not available when they are both wh-phrases.

(51) A. Kto ?到

kogda skazal?

who what when said
‘Who said what when?’
(Rudin 1988:446)

乙. *[Kokogo mal’?ika]我 [kakuju devo?ku]j ty

l’ubi’’ [ei i

ej]?

boy

哪个
(张 2010:66)

which girl

you love

和

在 (51乙), the two moved coordinands are categorially identical to the extent that they both bear
a wh-feature; 而且, there is reason to think that there is enough space for the two coordinands
to be interpreted as wh-phrases separately, since Russian in general provides a different specifier
for each wh-phrase in the CP area (51A). According to the Integrity Condition on Coordinate
结构, the key factor in the ungrammaticality of (51A) is that the coordinate structure kokogo

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

mal’?ika i kakuju devo?ku ‘which boy and which girl’ carries the wh-feature and thus must be
wh-moved in its entirety (52).

(52) [whP [whP Kokogo mal’?ika]i i [whP kakuju devo?ku]j]k ty l’ubi’’ ek?

‘Which boy and which girl do you love?’

Let us thus consider the contrast between the ungrammatical sequence (51乙) and the grammatical
顺序 (52) in more detail. As noted, these two constructions present three constituents sharing
a wh-feature: the two coordinated wh-phrases (kokogo mal’?ika and kakuju devo?ku) 和
resulting coordinate structure kokogo mal’?ika i kakuju devo?ku, which indeed contains the two
coordinated wh-phrases. A priori, the three constituents all seem valid goals and might all undergo
wh-movement. But what we observe is that the only legitimate option is to move the coordinate
structure in its entirety (52); moving the two parallel coordinands separately to different specifiers,
leaving the coordinator i stranded, is not possible (51乙), nor is moving the coordinate structure
in its entirety as well as the two categorially identical coordinands (53).

(53)

ForceP

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

[(西德:3)wh]磷

whP

kokogo
mal’?ika

Coord whP

kakuju
devo?ku

whP

kokogo
mal’?ika

whP

力量(西德:2)

kakuju
devo?ku

Force0

. . .

whP

kokogo
mal’?ika

Coord whP

kakuju
devo?ku

The unavailability of patterns (51乙) (where arguably the two categorially identical coordinands
are subextracted to multiple specifiers of the same projection in Russian) 和 (53) (where both
the coordinate structure and the two coordinands are moved to multiple specifiers of the same
projections) is accounted for by the Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures. I will now
entertain the possibility of relating this construction-specific constraint to more general economy
状况.

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

One possibility is that the preeminence of a coordinate structure over its coordinands, 指出
by the Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures, could be a consequence of the Minimal Link
Condition (Chomsky 1995), which can be adapted to the current technical proposal as follows:13

(54) Minimal Link Condition (MLC)

A probe
if there is no X(西德:4), also endowed with

searching for a suitable goal carrying
, closer to

attracts X, endowed with
than X.

, 仅有的

然而, the closer to structural relation must be broadened if one attempts to apply the MLC
to account for the impossibility of extracting categorially identical coordinands. 的概念
closer to commonly assumed in the application of the MLC capitalizes on c-command (看
Chomsky 1995:299) and is thus irrelevant to present concerns, since the node resulting from
coordinating two constituents does not c-command its coordinands. 尽管如此, intuitively, 这
coordinate structure is hierarchically closer to the relevant probe than its coordinands because it
dominates them. 所以, one might suggest the following more general definition of the closer
to structural relationship:

(55) X is closer to

X(西德:4).

than X(西德:4) if and only if X asymmetrically c-commands X(西德:4) or X dominates

Defining closer to in terms of (不对称的) c-command permits us to account for standard cases
of relativized minimality; 和, a priori, also defining closer to in terms of dominance may permit
us to account for the impossibility of extracting categorially identical coordinands out of a coordi-
国家. Syntactic distance is defined as a disjunction of two conditions, one based on c-command
and the other on dominance.

But incorporating dominance into the metrics of probe-goal relations implies that the defini-

tion of the MLC we arrive at subsumes Chomsky’s (1964) A-over-A Principle (56).

(56) A-over-A Principle

If a rule ambiguously refers to a category A in a structure of the form

[ . . . [A . . . [A . . .

then the rule must apply to the higher, more inclusive, node A. (Chomsky 1973:235)

的确, the account I suggest here for the impossibility of extracting categorially identical coordi-
nands is equivalent to the A-over-A Principle: if a goal searches for a category A in a structure
of the form [ . . . [A . . . [A . . . , then it must target the higher, more inclusive, constituent of
category A.

然而, the status of the A-over-A Principle has always been doubtful, even since Chom-
sky’s (1964) formulation and especially since Ross’s (1967) thorough examination; 的确, 这

13 Chomsky’s (1995:311) MLC definition is as follows: “K attracts (西德:3)only if there is no (西德:2), (西德:2)closer to K than (西德:3),

such that K attracts (西德:2).”

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

principle is commonly considered to be descriptively inadequate (see Zhang 2010 for a summary)
and currently plays no role in the investigation of movement operations.14

总共, for the MLC to account for the preeminence of a coordinate structure over its
coordinands with respect to movement, it is necessary to take dominance into consideration, 自从
c-command is irrelevant, in such a way that the revised MLC subsumes the A-over-A Principle.
因此, it is necessary to base the current account of the unextractability of categorially identical
coordinands particularly on the A-over-A Principle. 然而, given that this principle plays no
role in contemporary research and seems empirically dubious, I must set aside the thesis that the
Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures is a consequence of the A-over-A Principle, or of
the MLC once the closer to relationship is properly defined to include dominance.

At this point, I will argue that the Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures is related to
more general economy conditions on Agree/Attract operations to the extent that it both restricts
the number of categorially identical goals that are actually available to a given probe and avoids
a certain type of redundant syntactic derivation.

attracts the coordinate phrase if it carries

The Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures restricts the number of categorially identi-
searching for a goal carry-
cal goals that are available to a given probe to the extent that a probe
英
, but does not consider any of the phrases categori-
ally identical coordinands. The categorially identical coordinands of the coordinate phrase are
; they are invisible to it (I represent them
not actual candidates for probe-goal relations with
in gray in (57)). The coordinate phrase is the single candidate. 因此, it is not possible to
move the coordinands and leave the coordinator stranded; the only possibility is to extract the
coordinate structure in its entirety.

(57)

(西德:2)

. . .

[(西德:3)

]

(西德:3)(西德:2)
[

]

Coord

(西德:3)(西德:3)
[

]

14 It is fair to note that Ross (1967:158–162) claimed that what I call the CC derives from the A-over-A Principle,
but not what I call the EC; on this basis, he concluded that the CSC is a necessary constraint of the metatheory (p. 161).
然而, he assumed (p. 158) that what sofa and some table are both NPs, as well as the coordination what sofa and
some table. This analysis contradicts current categorial analyses of these expressions: what sofa and some table are an-
alyzed as a [(西德:4)wh]P and a [(西德:5)wh]DP, 分别. This situation forces one to appeal to the Parallelism Requirement, 或者
more precisely to the Coordinability Condition.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

The Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures avoids redundant derivations where both
the categorially identical coordinands and the coordinate structure would move to different speci-
磷. 直观地, these hypothetical (and clearly unattested) derivations are redundant
fiers of
is involved: probed
because each coordinand moves twice although just one categorial feature
by the searching
, each coordinand moves to its own Spec, 磷; then the two coordinands move
再次, this time as part of the coordinate phrase attracted by the same searching probe

(58)

磷

[(西德:3)

]

(西德:3)(西德:2)
[

]

Coord

(西德:3)(西德:3)
[

]

(西德:3)(西德:2)
[

]

(西德:3)(西德:3)
[

]

(西德:2)

. . .

[(西德:3)

]

(西德:3)(西德:2)
[

]

Coord

(西德:3)(西德:3)
[

]

The Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures can then be understood as a construction-specific
instantiation of more general economy considerations relative to Attract operations.

Observe, 最后, that the Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures accounts for the ob-

servation that coordinands cannot undergo A-movement.

(59) A. *Peter often and/or Mary goes out for dinner.

乙. *Peter seemed to and/or Mary enjoy the movie.

Assume that nonempty DPs must value their initially unvalued case feature [uC] with respect to
an appropriate probe, in order to satisfy (a version of ) Vergnaud’s Case Filter (see Vergnaud
2008). 然后, [uC] features are categorial features of DPs to the extent that they determine the
syntactic distribution of DPs: typically, A [(西德:4)finite] T head attracts a nonempty DP with a [uC]
(这里, Mia) to its specifier and assigns it a nominative value (60).

(60) A. [TP Mia[(西德:4)名义] 时间[(西德:4)fin] [often Mia[uC] goes out for dinner]].

乙. [TP Mia[(西德:4)名义] 时间[(西德:4)fin] [VP seemed [to Mia[uC] enjoy the movie]]].

如果 [uC]s are categorial features of DPs, then the coordination of two DPs each with a [uC] becomes
a DP with a [uC]. 所以, by the Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures, A [(西德:4)fin] T at-

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

tracts the coordination in its entirety (61) and assigns it a nominative value that percolates down
to each coordinand.

(61) A. [TP [Mia[(西德:4)名义] and Mary[(西德:4)名义]][(西德:4)名义] 时间[(西德:4)fin] [经常 [Mia[uC] and/or Mary[uC]][uC] 去

out for dinner]].

乙. [TP [Mia[(西德:4)名义] and Mary[(西德:4)名义]][(西德:4)名义] 时间[(西德:4)fin] [VP seemed [到 [Mia[uC] 和/或

Mary[uC]][uC] enjoy the movie]]].

Note that if a single coordinand were raised to Spec,TP, then there would be two nonempty DPs
与一个 [uC]: the in-situ coordinand and the coordinate structure (62).

(62) A. [TP Mia[(西德:4)名义] 时间[(西德:4)fin] [经常 [Mia[uC] and/or Mary[uC]][uC] goes out for dinner]].

乙. [TP Mia[(西德:4)名义] 时间[(西德:4)fin] [VP seemed [到 [Mia[uC] and/or Mary[uC]][uC] enjoy the movie]]].

因此, the Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures ensures that the Case Filter is not violated
by DP coordinations.

图案 2. The coordinands (西德:3) 和 (西德:2) cannot form interwoven dependencies. Observe that
the coordinands (西德:3)和 (西德:2)of a CoordPB cannot move by sideward movement to the coordinated
positions of a c-commanding CoordPA, leaving the coordinator of CoordPB stranded.15 For in-
姿态, 在 (63) the coordinands which nurse and which hostess cannot move from the CoordPB
into the c-commanding CoordPA, nor can the topic phrases Greek and economy.

(63) A. *[ForceP [CoordPA Which nurse and which hostess] [力量 [Force0 did] [IP they date

[CoordPB which nurse and which hostess]]]], 分别?

乙. *[TopP [CoordPA Greek and economy] [Top Top0 [IP they teach [CoordPB Greek and

经济]]]], 分别.

反而, it is the base-generated CoordP that must be fronted as a whole, via wh-movement in
(64A) or via topic movement in (64乙).

(64) A. [ForceP [CoordP Which nurse and which hostess] [力量 [Force0 did] [IP they date

[CoordP which nurse and which hostess]]]], 分别?

乙. [TopP [CoordP Greek and economy] [Top Top0 [IP they teach [CoordP Greek and

经济]]]], 分别.

The basic question concerning the proposal I am developing is what factor permits (64) 和
prohibits (63). As I will argue in what follows, the Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures
defined in (50) can account for this grammaticality contrast.

15 Regarding sideward movement, see Bobaljik and Brown 1997, Nunes and Uriagereka 2000, Hornstein 2001, Nunes
2001, Kayne 2002, Boeckx 2003, Hornstein and Kiguchi 2003, Agbayani and Zoerner 2004, Boeckx and Hornstein 2005,
and Zhang 2010.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

考虑, 一方面, the generation of (63), which illustrates the inability of coordi-
nands to form interwoven dependencies. According to the definition of Coord (10), the coordi-
nator head andA of the c-commanding CoordPA bears the category X/(X/X). This enables it to
act as a syntactic probe, searching for two suitable categorially identical goals carrying the same
. This feature is a wh-feature in (63A) and a topic feature in (63乙). Observe
categorial feature
now that the coordinands of the lower CoordPB bear the relevant feature, as does the CoordPB itself.
然而, as a consequence of the Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures, the coordinands of
the CoordPB cannot move, whence the ungrammaticality of (63).

Note also that moving the CoordPB in its entirety by sideward movement to a coordinate
position of CoordPA would provide only one of the two arguments required by the head andA.

(65) *[ForceP [

AndA [CoordPB which nurse and which hostess]] [力量 [Force0 did] [IP they

日期 [ CoordPB which nurse and which hostess]]]], 分别?

The structure where CoordPB lands would contain a coordinator requiring two categorially identi-
cal coordinands, but only one coordinand would be present (which nurse and which hostess); 它
would thus be an incomplete or unsaturated structure of category wh/wh (66).

(66)

wh/wh

和(西德:2)(wh/wh)/wh(西德:3)

whP(西德:2)wh(西德:3)

which nurse and which hostess

另一方面, in the generation of the well-formed constructions in (64), no sideward
movement of coordinands needs to be invoked. 反而, the CoordP moves from the complement
position of a verb to a specifier of a projection in the left periphery. 更确切地说, the heads
Force0 and Top0 search for a suitable goal in (64A) 和 (64乙), 分别; Force0 finds the
coordinate structure which nurse and which hostess and attracts it to Spec,ForceP, whereas Top0
finds the coordinate structure Greek and economy and attracts it to Spec,TopP.

图案 3. A syntactic constituent cannot form an across-the-board dependency with coordi-
nated positions. Apparently, across-the-board (ATB) rules associate a syntactic constituent to a
gap within all coordinands of a coordinate structure; 因此, the constituent which students
can form a dependency with a gap within the two coordinands in (67). 尽管如此, ATB rules
cannot associate a syntactic constituent to all coordinated positions of a coordinate structure (68)
(Sag 1982, Gazdar et al. 1985).

(67) [Which students]i did you say [CoordP [Peter likes ei] 和 [Mary hates ei]]?

(68) A. *[Which students]i did Peter meet [CoordP ei and ei]?
乙. *[The Pre-Raphaelites]我, we found [CoordP ei and ei].

Note that the same constituent is reconstructed in the gaps of the two coordinated positions in
the ungrammatical constructions (68a–b), whereby the coordinate phrases consist in coordinating

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

a constituent to itself. 例如, the coordination which students and which students carries
A [wh] categorial feature and is formed by coordinating the wh-phrase which student to itself.
因此, given the Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures, it is the coordinate structure
which student and which student, a whP, that should move to Spec,ForceP after agreeing with
Force0. But the output of this movement operation is unacceptable as well.

(69) *[ForceP [whP Which students and which students] [力量 [Force0 did] [IP Peter meet

[whP which students and which students]]]]?

At this point, it is important to note that, when a constituent is coordinated to itself and neither
this constituent nor the resulting coordinate structure moves, the resulting string is still ungram-
马蒂卡尔 (70).

(70) A. *I met the student and the student.

乙. *I’m looking for my bag and for my bag.
C. *Peter lives in a small city and in a small city.

The fact that constructions (69) 和 (70a–b) are not acceptable shows that the ungrammaticality
的 (68a–b) is not related to movement constraints such as the Integrity Condition on Coordinate
结构; 相当, it is related to the following general constraint on coordination:

(71) Prohibition against Self-Coordination

A syntactic constituent cannot be coordinated to itself; 那是, it cannot appear in more
than one position of a coordinate structure.

All the strings under consideration are problematic for the same reason: they involve a vacu-
ous coordination of a syntactic constituent to itself. Each of the constituents which students, 这
Pre-Raphaelites, the student, my bag, and in a small city is coordinated to itself in (68a–b) 和
(70a–c).

Note that coordinating a constituent to itself is also problematic in disjunctive (72) 和

adversative (73)–(75) coordinations.

(72) A. *I met [the student or the student].

乙. *I’m looking [for my bag or for my bag].
C. *Peter lives [in a small city or in a small city].

(73) A. I didn’t meet [the student but (西德:6)*the student / the professor(西德:7)].

乙. I’m not looking [for my bag but (西德:6)*for my bag / for my coat(西德:7)].
C. Peter doesn’t live [in a small city but (西德:6)*in a small city / in a large city(西德:7)].

(74) 他是 [excited but (西德:6)*excited / tired(西德:7)].

It is important to observe that the following examples do not involve coordinations of a constituent
对自己:

(75) A. A dog and/or another dog met.

乙. I like reading novels and/but only novels.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

(76) Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens are/*is the same person.

在 (75), the coordinations involve two different constituents, made up of different lexical items:
a dog and another dog, and novels and only novels. 在 (76), 再次, we observe a coordination of
two different constituents: two different proper names, Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens. A dif-
ferent issue is that these proper names, which are formally different, have the same extension, 作为
(76) itself states.

更确切地说, self-coordinations involve coordinations of different occurrences of the same
constituent. 一般来说, a constituent may be selected at different times, or at different steps, 在
a syntactic derivation. Each time it is selected, the constituent becomes a different occurrence,
which may have different properties in the conceptual-intentional (CI) 系统. Expression (77A)
contains two occurrences of the complex noun New York. 相似地, (77乙) contains two occur-
rences of the plural NP dogs, one interpreted as an external argument and the other as an internal
争论, 和 (77C) contains two occurrences of the singular NP tree.16

(77) A. New York City is in New York State.

(Chomsky 1975:109–110)
乙. Dogs always chase dogs.
C. Tarzan swung from tree to tree.

Although in general we find different occurrences of a constituent in different base positions (77),
we do not find different occurrences of a constituent specifically in different coordinated positions
((70), (72), (74)), 因为, as stated in (71), a constituent cannot be readily merged in different
coordinate positions of a given coordinate structure.

Coordinating a constituent to itself is a vacuous syntactic operation that makes no obvious
semantic contribution. Such a coordination seems entirely redundant from a semantic viewpoint
both in conjunctions and in disjunctions. 相似地, 这 (reflexive) adversative coordination of a
constituent to itself is interpretively vacuous: if adversative coordination expresses a contrast be-
tween coordinands and if coordinands are the same constituent, there can be no contrast. Accord-
英利, it is not possible to coordinate the AdjP excited adversatively to itself in (74), or the DP
the student adversatively to itself in (73A).

在这个意义上, the Prohibition against Self-Coordination is a syntax-semantics interface condi-
的, quite similar in nature to the Prohibition against Vacuous Quantification (Chomsky 1982,
1991, Kratzer 1995).

(78) Prohibition against Vacuous Quantification

For every occurrence of a variable x there must be a quantifier Q that binds x, 并为
every quantifier Q there must be a variable x such that Q binds x.

16 See Chomsky 1975, 1995 regarding the need for a notation to distinguish among occurrences of a constituent, 作为
well as Fortuny and Corominas-Murtra 2009 and Fortuny 2018. In the latter works, a constituent becomes an n-occurrence
when it enters the syntactic computation at step n.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

Natural languages do not have pleonastic expressions such as Peter and Peter came late, 国际米兰-
preted, redundantly, as ‘There is a single individual denoted by Peter who came late’, or I wake
up at noon or at noon, interpreted exactly as ‘I wake up at noon’, or I feel tired but tired, interpret-
ed vacuously as ‘I feel tired’, just as they do not have expressions such as Who John saw Bill,
interpreted as ‘John saw Bill’, and Every some person left, interpreted as ‘Some person left’
(Chomsky 1991:438). Reflexive coordinations are semantically as superfluous as operators bind-
ing no variable.

2.3 Deducing the Threefold Decomposition of the Coordinand Constraint from the Least

Effort Principle

This article decomposes the CC into three factors: the categorematic definition of Coord (10),
the Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures (50), and the Prohibition against Self-Coordina-
的 (71).

第一的, the categorematic definition of Coord requires the coordinate structure and its coordi-
nands to be categorially identical, 那是, to carry the same categorial features. Syntactic extraction
of a single coordinand that is categorially different from the coordinand that remains within the
coordinate structure is not possible because it presupposes the coordination of categorially distinct
constituents, such as a [(西德:4)wh] phrase and a [(西德:5)wh] 短语, A [(西德:4)话题] phrase and a [(西德:5)话题] 短语,
或一个 [(西德:4)focus] phrase and a [(西德:5)focus] 短语 (案件 1). Syntactic extraction of two categorially
distinct coordinands to specifier positions of different projections is prohibited for the same reason
(案件 2, subcase I).

第二, when a coordinate structure is well-formed and carries the same category as its
coordinands, the Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structure applies: the coordinate structure,
but not its categorially identical coordinands, can be targeted by a searching syntactic probe. 这
prohibits the extraction of multiple categorially identical coordinands to multiple specifier posi-
tions of a given head (案件 2, subcase II, pattern 1) and the extraction of a DP out of a DP
coordination to an A-position.

第三, the Prohibition against Self-Coordination does not permit a constituent to be merged
in more than one coordinated position; 最后, the prerequisite for forming an ATB depen-
dency with coordinated positions is not fulfilled (案件 2, subcase II, pattern 3).

This reasoning leads to a decomposition of the CC into three factors that are independently
motivated. The categorematic definition of Coord, or an equivalent statement, is necessary to
characterize the lexicosyntactic contribution of Coord, its relation to the coordinands, 和
syntactic makeup of coordinate structures. The Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures is a
construction-specific instantiation of more general economy considerations on movement opera-
tions that (A) restrict the number of categorially identical goals visible to a particular probe and
(乙) avoid certain redundant derivations. And the Prohibition against Self-Coordination is a syn-
tax-semantics interface condition that bans a particular case of semantically vacuous operation,
即, the coordination of a constituent to itself.

The novelty of the present investigation of CC effects is that it clarifies how these effects
are related to several components of the language faculty. The CC reflects how different factors

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

belonging to different components interact with each other. Some effects of the CC are related
to the categorematic definition of Coord (or the Parallelism Requirement), others to the Integrity
Condition on Coordinate Structures (or to the more general conditions on internal Merge behind
他们), and others to the Prohibition against Self-Coordination.

所以, each of these factors has a very specific task: only the categorematic definition
of Coord accounts for the impossibility of extracting a single coordinand; only the Integrity Con-
dition on Coordinate Structures accounts for the impossibility of extracting both coordinands
when they are categorially identical; and only the Prohibition against Self-Coordination accounts
for the inability of a syntactic constituent to form an ATB dependency with coordinated positions.
I would like to conclude this investigation by observing that the proposed decomposition of
the CC effects based on the three factors just discussed can be deduced from what Chomsky
(1991:437) calls “least effort,” a principle considered to be specific to the language faculty. Ad-
hering to Chomsky’s original considerations, I define this principle as follows:

(79) Least Effort Principle

Grammatical derivations contain no vacuous or superfluous steps.

This “overarching” linguistic principle states that grammatical operations do not apply vacuously;
there are no vacuous or superfluous rule applications. Grammatical operations take place as a
last resort—that is, only when they are required, only when they make a difference. The Least
Effort Principle, an economy principle relative to derivations, has an “analogous principle for
陈述,” Full Interpretation (Chomsky 1991:437), understood as follows:

(80) Full Interpretation

Grammatical representations contain no vacuous or superfluous symbols.

I will show that ill-formed instances of coordinand extractions involve instances of vacuous or
superfluous coordinations and thus contravene the Least Effort Principle (and Full Interpretation).
第一的, the extraction of a single coordinand—for instance, a single wh-phrase—presupposes
a vacuous derivational step: given the categorematic definition of Coord, two constituents of
category X are coordinated to yield a new constituent of category X; if two categorially distinct
constituents, such as a [(西德:4)wh] phrase and a [(西德:5)wh] 短语, were selected as the arguments of Coord,
then no category would be yielded as output. It could not be decided whether or not the coordina-
tion would be [(西德:4)wh]. Coordinations of categorially distinct constituents are incomplete structures,
with no categorial specification; 因此, they cannot be properly interpreted in the C-I system.17
第二, given a well-formed coordinate structure of category X carrying a categorial fea-
还有, the Integrity Condition on
真实
Coordinate Structures permits extraction of the coordinate structure in its entirety and prohibits
extraction of the categorially identical coordinands. As argued above, this condition bans moving

, whose coordinands are of category X and carry

17 This agrees with Chomsky’s view (see especially Chomsky 2013, also Rizzi 2015) that labeling must be complete

at the interfaces.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

the coordinate structure in its entirety (coordinands included) and each coordinand independently
to multiple specifiers of the same projection, as represented in (53). Such a derivation would be
superfluous to the extent that a coordinand moves twice due to the same probe: once on its own
and once as part of the coordinate structure. The Least Effort Principle bans this type of redundant
or superfluous derivation, where a constituent and a subconstituent of the same category move
due to the same probing feature.

第三, the grammatical operation that would coordinate a syntactic constituent to itself is
vacuous. The Prohibition against Self-Coordination avoids derivations that have no effect in the
C-I system and is thus analogous to the Prohibition against Vacuous Quantification, as noted
多于. This type of vacuous derivation, with no effect in the C-I system, is filtered out by the
Least Effort Principle.

所以, the CC effects can be deduced, 最终, from a very general linguistic principle:

the Least Effort Principle.

I emphasize that in the end, the value of decomposing the CC in terms of the three factors
just mentioned lies in their heuristic nature. The CC, which states that “no coordinand can be
moved,” does not manifest any obvious connection to general linguistic principles, but the three
factors presented in section 2.2 are conspicuously related to Chomsky’s overarching principle:
grammatical operations are not superfluous or vacuous. The three factors into which I have de-
composed the CC are construction-specific, but they clearly instantiate the demands of the over-
arching requirement of avoiding superfluous grammatical operations, which is not construction-
specific. They seem necessary mediators: only if we resort to them can we appreciate how the
CC reduces to the Least Effort Principle.18

3 讨论

Now that the proposed deduction of the CC effects has been developed, it may be useful to
compare it with a selection of alternative accounts defended by other researchers (see Zhang
2010:秒. 4.1.2 for a more comprehensive review of CC accounts).

It must be acknowledged that the idea that the Parallelism Requirement (9) plays an important
role in understanding the CC effects can already be found in Schachter 1977. Schachter proposes
that his Coordinate Constituent Constraint, which is similar to the Parallelism Requirement, 交流电-
counts for the Coordinate Structure Constraint.19 Three important differences between Schach-

18 Decomposing the CC in terms of construction-specific factors is not necessarily a shortcoming of my proposal.
I am concerned with coordination (并不是, 例如, with subordination, verbal predication, or binding) 因此
need to be specific about the contribution of coordinators as well as the function and interpretation of coordinate structures.
A different issue is whether or not those factors that are specific about a particular domain, such as coordination, 可
connected to general linguistic principles.

19 Schachter (1977:90) defines his Coordinate Constituent Constraint as follows: “The constituents of a coordinate
construction must belong to the same syntactic category and have the same semantic function.” Note that this constraint
is not equivalent to the Parallelism Requirement, since it refers only to the coordinate structure’s constituents, not to the
coordinate structure itself.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

ter’s proposal and mine are these: (A) Schachter attempts to derive both the CC and the Element
Constraint from the Coordinate Constituent Constraint, whereas my proposal is concerned with
the CC only;20 (乙) Schachter addresses the impossibility of extracting one coordinand only, 但
he does not consider the impossibility of extracting multiple wh-phrases out of a coordinate
structure in a language like Russian (see the discussion above about the ungrammatical string
(51乙)); (C) unlike Schachter, I capitalize on a featural definition of categorial identity.21

Schachter’s “account” of what I call the CC effects is not sufficiently developed; 关键地,
in relation to the ungrammatical string *What sofa will he put the chair between some table and?
Schachter states the following:

[时间]he constituents of the ‘coordinate construction’ some table and would, presumably, have to be some
table plus (和) Ø. Obviously these constituents neither belong to the same category nor have the
same semantic function. The construction thus disobeys the CCC [Coordinate Constituent Constraint],
and its ungrammaticalness can be explained on this basis. (Schachter 1977:95)

很遗憾, Schachter does not spell out the obvious differences in syntactic category or seman-
tic function between some table and (和) Ø that he has in mind. Nor does he mention any of
their syntactic and semantic similarities; note in this regard that the presumed categories appear
in the same syntactic position and are selected by the same categories. 清楚地, Schachter’s
discussion of the CC is superficial; he is primarily concerned with the Element Constraint.

Napoli’s (1993) approach to the CC is also based on the idea that the CC is a result of the
Parallelism Requirement. In her proposal, it is not possible in general to coordinate a full DP and
a gap left by the extraction of a further coordinand, because the gap and the coordinand in some
sense would not be parallel. This intuition echoes Schachter’s (1977) assumption that some table
和 (和) Ø are syntactically and semantically alike. But again, multiple wh-movement becomes
ungrammatical in expressions such as (51乙), although the two categories left within the coordinate
structure after the extraction of both wh-phrases are arguably parallel, since they are both gaps.
Recall that, in the approach proposed here, moving categorially identical coordinands is not pos-
sible because the resulting coordinate structure is identified by the Integrity Condition on Coordi-
nate Structures as the only suitable goal.

总共, the impossibility of patterns like (51乙) casts doubt on the idea that the CC can be
derived simply from the Parallelism Requirement. Such a requirement is necessary, but not suffi-
cient. Other factors need to be incorporated: the Integrity Condition on Coordinate Structures and
the Prohibition against Self-Coordination.

A different account is suggested by Sag (1982) and Pesetsky (1982): that the CC effects
derive from the A-over-A Principle. In brief, if the coordinands and the coordinate phrase are
analyzed as NPs in (24A), then the A-over-A Principle claims that a syntactic rule can apply only

20 Schachter (1977) does not use the expressions Coordinand Constraint and Element Constraint, which were coined

by Grosu (1973), four years before the publication of Schachter’s article.

21 Schachter (1977) capitalizes on certain “superficial” category distinctions, such as relative clause and nonrelativized

句子, and certain semantic functions, such as properties and relations.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

to the higher NP (IE。, to the coordinate phrase); extraction of lower NPs (IE。, of coordinands) 是
prevented. 然而, as observed in section 2.2.2, the A-over-A Principle does not seem to be
empirically valid (see Zhang 2010:81–84) and currently plays no role in the investigation of the
locality of movement. 而且, it is crucial that a wh-phrase like who and a DP like a girl are
not fully identical categories given that their distribution differs (as does their semantics): 这
以前的, but not the latter, carries a categorial wh-feature; the former, but not the latter, undergoes
wh-movement.

This entails that typical illustrations of the CC effects, such as those analyzed in section
2.2.1, involve coordinations of categorially distinct constituents, in which case the A-over-A
Principle is irrelevant. It is the Parallelism Requirement—or more precisely, the Coordinability
Condition—that must apply.

最后, in her attempt to explain the CC effects, 张 (2010) argues that the external and
the internal coordinand cannot move for different reasons: the external coordinand cannot move
because it loses its categorial features after transferring them to Coord (p. 87), and the internal
coordinand cannot move because Coord, “like certain other head elements, may not have silent
complements” (p. 86). It is crucial for Zhang’s analysis that it is only the external coordinand
that transfers its categorial features to Coord and that the external and the internal coordinands
need not be categorially identical. 然而, it is not tenable to build an explanation of the CC
effects on the idea that coordinands need not be categorially identical, since there are reasons to
be skeptical about this hypothesis, as shown by Bruening and Khalaf (2020) and discussed in the
online appendix of this article.

The proposal developed here is both novel and broad. I have analyzed the impossibility of
extracting a single coordinand not only with respect to wh-movement, but also with respect to
topic movement (clitic left-dislocation), focus movement, and A-movement; and I have analyzed
the impossibility of extracting multiple wh-phrases out of a coordination in languages like Russian,
which in general allow multiple wh-movement. 而且, my investigation has taken into consid-
eration the impossibility of coordinating a [(西德:4)wh] phrase and a [(西德:5)wh] phrase in partial wh-move-
蒙特, and the inability of a wh-phrase to pied-pipe either a single coordinand or the whole co-
ordinate structure.

The discussion of what grammatical features count as categorial features also has important
implications that go beyond the study of the CC, since it makes predictions about what feature
mismatches are lethal for coordinate structures. The online appendix discusses three families of
phenomena that are relevant for clarifying the Parallelism Requirement in general, as an essential
component of virtually any analysis of coordination, and in particular for clarifying my account
of the CC effects, which expresses the Parallelism Requirement in terms of a categorematic
definition of Coord (10) and conceives categorial identity between two constituents in terms of
coincidence of their categorial and bar-level features (21). In the remainder of the article, 我
summarize the basic ideas contained in the online appendix.

第一的, I review certain familiar cases of acceptable coordinations in predicative (81A) 和
争论 (81乙) positions whose coordinands nonetheless seem to be categorially distinct
(Schachter 1977, Sag et al. 1985).

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

(81) A. He spoke [[AdvP fluently] 或者 [PP with ease]].

乙. You can depend on [[NP my assistant] 和 [CP that he will be on time]].

I observe that these categorial mismatches may be only apparent. 至关重要的是, I account for (81A)
on the basis of left-peripheral deletion and for (81乙) on the basis of unpronounced N heads,
following Bruening and Al Khalaf (2020). 所以, 建造 (81A) involves the coordination
of two CPs with the deletion of he spoke in the second conjunct, 和 (81乙) the coordination of
two NPs with a null N heading the second conjunct. In relation to left-peripheral deletion, I also
investigate why the construction *Who did you meet and a friend of? is ungrammatical: why ex-
tracting who in both conjuncts and subsequently deleting who did you meet in the second conjunct
is grammatically impossible.

第二, I discuss certain grammatical features of nominal expressions that are not categorial
特征 (of nominal expressions): 数字, 性别, 人, and case. 通常, having different
values for number and gender does not correspond to different distributional patterns of DPs.
因此, number and gender are not categorial features of DPs; 因此, DPs with
different number and gender specifications can be coordinated. Similar considerations lead to the
conclusion that person features are not categorial features of pronouns. Case inflection mismatches
pose a particularly interesting case study for my proposal; I investigate Finnish patterns, as pre-
sented by Kiparsky (2001) and further discussed by Kalin and Weisser (2019) and Weisser (2020),
and argue that apparent mismatches involve morphological case, but not syntactic case. Whereas
syntactic case distinctions correspond to categorial features, morphological case distinctions do
不是. My proposal is compatible with Weisser’s (2020:43) generalization that syntactic case is
“evenly distributed amongst all of the conjuncts in nominal conjunction.”

第三, I analyze the possibility of coordinating an echo wh-phrase with a [(西德:5)wh] DP, 如
You bought a car and what? I argue in detail that echo wh-constituents can be coordinated with
[(西德:5)wh] DPs because echo wh-constituents are negatively specified for the [wh] categorial feature.
Echo and nonecho constituents are categorially identical and thus can be coordinated. I also
discuss certain coordinations that apparently contain a declarative and an interrogative clause,
such as John left last month, and who has seen him since? 我认为, although in general it is
not possible to coordinate clauses belonging to different types (比照. *Close the door!, and why are
you here?), a declarative clause can be coordinated with an interrogative clause when the latter
is interpreted not as a question but as an assertion; 尤其, the second coordinand who has
seen him since? is not uttered to request information from an addressee but is closely equiva-
lent to No one has seen him since.

参考

Agbayani, Brian, and Chris Golston. 2010A. Phonological movement in Classical Greek. 语言 86:

133–167.

Agbayani, Brian, and Chris Golston. 2010乙. Second-position is first-position: Wackernagel’s Law and the

role of clausal conjunction. Indogermanische Forschungen 115:1–21.

Agbayani, Brian, and Chris Golston. 2016. Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin. Phonol-

奥吉 33:1–42.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

Agbayani, Brian, Chris Golston, and Dasha Henderer. 2011. Prosodic movement. In Proceedings of the 28th
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 编辑. by Mary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney-
Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer, and Barbara Tomaszewicz, 231–239. Somerville, 嘛: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project.

Agbayani, Brian, and Ed Zoerner. 2004. Gapping, pseudogapping and sideward movement. Studia Linguis-

tica 58:185–211.

Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Samuel Brown. 1997. Interarboreal operations: Head movement and the Ex-

tension Requirement. Linguistic Inquiry 28:345–356.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. (在)direct binding. Syntax 6:213–236.
Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein. 2005. On eliminating D-structure: The case of binominal each.

Syntax 8:23–43.

Borsley, Robert D. 1994. In defense of coordinate structures. Linguistic Analysis 24:218–246.
Bruening, 本杰明, and Eman Al Khalaf. 2020. Category mismatches in coordination revisited. Linguistic

Inquiry 51:1–36.

Carpenter, Bob. 1997. Type-logical semantics. 剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界.
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. Mouton: The Hague.
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformation. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, 编辑. by Stephen R.

Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232–286. 纽约: 霍尔特, 莱因哈特和温斯顿.

Chomsky, Noam. 1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. 纽约: Plenum. Excerpted from 1956

revision of 1955 ms., Harvard University and MIT.

Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. 凸轮-

桥, 嘛: 与新闻界.

Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Principles and param-
eters in comparative syntax, 编辑. by Robert Freidin, 417–454. 剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界. Reprinted
in Noam Chomsky, The Minimalist Program, 129–166. 剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界 (1995).

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. 剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: 框架. In Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax
in honor of Howard Lasnik, 编辑. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155.
剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界.

Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond, 编辑. by Adriana Belletti,

104–131. 牛津: 牛津大学出版社.

Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130:33–49.
Fortuny, Jordi. 2018. Structure dependence and linear order: Clarifications and foundations. 语言 94:

611–628.

Fortuny, Jordi, and Bernat Corominas-Murtra. 2009. Some formal considerations on the generation of hierar-

chically structured expressions. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8:99–111.

Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structures. Linguistic Inquiry 12:155–184.
Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey Pullum, and Ivan Sag. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar.

牛津: 布莱克威尔.

Goldsmith, John A. 1985. A principled exception to the Coordinate Structure Constraint. In CLS 21: 部分
我, Papers from the General Session, 编辑. by William H. Eilfort, 保罗·D. Kroeber, and Karen L. 彼得-
儿子, 133–143. 芝加哥: 芝加哥大学, Chicago Linguistic Society.

Grosu, 亚历山大. 1973. On the nonunitary nature of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry

4:88–92.

Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The syntax of negation. 剑桥: 剑桥大学出版社.
Haspelmath, 马丁. 2007. Coordination. In Language typology and syntactic description, 2nd 版。, 编辑. 经过

Timothy Shopen, 1–51. 剑桥: 剑桥大学出版社.

Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist theory of construal. 牛津: 布莱克威尔.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Hornstein, Norbert, and Hirohisa Kiguchi. 2003. PRO gate and movement. In Proceedings of the 25th Annu-
al Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 编辑. by Sudha Arunachalam, Elsi Kaiser, and Alexander Williams.
University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 8(1). https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl
/vol8/iss1/9.

Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. 牛津: 牛津大学出版社.
Kalin, Laura, and Philipp Weisser. 2019. Asymmetric DOM in coordination: A problem for movement-

based approaches. Linguistic Inquiry 50:662–676.

Kayne, 理查德. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist

程序, 编辑. by Samuel David Epstein and T. Daniel Seely, 133–166. Malden, 嘛: 布莱克威尔.

Kehler, 安德鲁. 2002. Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar. 斯坦福大学, CA: CSLI出版物.
Kiparsky, 保罗. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 111:315–376.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The generic book, 编辑. by Gregory

氮. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 125–175. 芝加哥: 芝加哥大学出版社.

Lakoff, 乔治. 1986. Frame semantic control of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. In CLS 22: 部分 2,
Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, 编辑. by Anne M. Farley, 彼得
时间. Farley, and Karl-Erik McCullough, 152–167. 芝加哥: 芝加哥大学, Chicago Linguistic
社会.

Muysken, Pieter C. 1982. Parametrizing the notion “head.” Journal of Linguistic Research 2:57–75.
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1993. Syntax: Theory and problems. 纽约: 牛津大学出版社.
Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32:303–344.
Nunes, Jairo, and Juan Uriagereka. 2000. Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3:20–43.
Oda, Hiromune. 2017. Two types of the Coordinate Structure Constraint and rescue by PF deletion. In NELS
47: Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 编辑. by Andrew
Lamont and Katerina Tetzloff, 343–356. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistics
Students Association.

Oda, Hiromune. 2019. Decomposing and deducing the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Ms., 大学

康涅狄格州.

佩恩, 约翰. 1985. Complex phrases and complex sentences. In Language typology and syntactic description,

编辑. by Timothy Shopen, 3–41. 剑桥: 剑桥大学出版社.

Pesetsky, 大卫. 1982. Paths and categories. Doctoral dissertation, 和.
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. 芝加哥: 大学

Chicago Press.

Postal, Paul M. 1998. Three investigations of extraction. 剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界.
雷德福, 安德鲁. 2004. Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. 剑桥: 剑桥

大学出版社.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1991. Residual verb second and the Wh Criterion. Technical Reports in Formal and Computa-

tional Linguistics. Universite´ de Gene`ve.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative

syntax, 编辑. by Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. 多德雷赫特: 施普林格.

Rizzi, Luigi. 2015. The left periphery: Cartography, freezing, labeling. In Studies on syntactic cartography,

编辑. by Fuzhen Si, 9–46. 北京: Beijing Language and Culture University.
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, 和.
Rudin, Catherine. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic

理论 6:445–501.

Sag, Ivan. 1982. Coordination, extraction, and Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry

13:329–336.

Sag, Ivan, Gerald Gazdar, Thomas Wasow, and Steven Weisler. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish

类别. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:117–171.

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

D E D U C I N G T H E C O O R D I N A N D C O N S T R A I N T

Schachter, 保罗. 1977. Constraints on coo¨rdination. 语言 53:86–103.
斯蒂德曼, 标记. 1985. Dependency and coo¨rdination in the grammar of Dutch and English. 语言 61:

523–568.

Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 2008. Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on “Filters and Control.” In
Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 编辑. by Robert
Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 3–16. 剑桥, 嘛: 与新闻界. (起初
written 1977.)

Vries, Mark de. 2006. The syntax of appositive relativization: On specifying coordination, false free relatives,

and promotion. Linguistic Inquiry 37:229–270.

Vries, Mark de. 2017. Across-the-board phenomena. In The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd 版。,

编辑. by Martin Everaert and Henk C. van Riemsdijk, 1–31. 霍博肯, 新泽西州: 威利.

Weisser, Philipp. 2015. Derived coordination: A Minimalist perspective on clause chains, converbs and

asymmetric coordination. 柏林: Walter de Gruyter.

Weisser, Philipp. 2020. On the symmetry of case in conjunction. Syntax 23:42–77.
Zamparelli, Roberto. 2019. Coordination. In Semantics: Sentence and information structure, 编辑. by Paul
Portner, Claudia Maienborn, and Klaus von Heusinger, 135–170. 柏林: Walter de Gruyter.

张, Niina Ning. 2010. Coordination in syntax. 剑桥: 剑桥大学出版社.
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 2005. The Coordinate Structure Constraint: A Minimalist perspective. Paper presented

at the Workshop on Verb Clusters and Coordination. Leiden.

Jordi Fortuny
Departament de Filologia Catalana i Lingu¨ı´stica General
Universitat de Barcelona

jordifortuny@ub.edu

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你

/
我
我

n
G
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

我

F
/

d
哦

我
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
2
0
6
0
2
3
1

/
我
我

n
G
_
A
_
0
0
4
6
8
p
d

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
下载pdf