<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">



















<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">Dear Adam,<br></span></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">I think you’ve
missed the point and some other people did too, so I’ll restate it.<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">Take the
following sentences.<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA"><span>(1)<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-feature-settings:normal">  
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-CA">Adam
read the book and skimmed the article<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA"><span>(2)<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-feature-settings:normal">  
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-CA">Adam
read and Tony skimmed the article<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">Many (not
all)syntacticians give radically different structural interpretations to
these sentences vis-à-vis constituency structure. If you are the type of
linguist who thinks you have to develop a theory of RNR, I understand you are
one of these syntacticians.<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">One
sentence gets a <i>constituency coordination
</i>interpretation, the other a <i>gapping </i>interpretation.<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">Here’s a
constituency coordination interpretation - under this interpretation the
structurally repeated part is a constituent. Imagine giving such an interpretation
to both sentences.<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA"><span>(3)<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-feature-settings:normal">  
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-CA">Adam
[ read the book ] and [ skimmed the article ]<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA"><span>(4)<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-feature-settings:normal">  
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-CA">[
Adam read ] and [ Tony skimmed ] the article<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">Here’s the
gapping interpretation of the same sentences. <span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA"><span>(1)<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-feature-settings:normal">  
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-CA">Adam<i>_i</i> read the book and _____<i>_i</i> skimmed the article<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA"><span>(2)<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-feature-settings:normal">  
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-CA">Adam
read _____<i>_i</i> and Tony
skimmed the article<i>_i</i><span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">Under the gapping interpretation we either have to say there’s some sort of movement (and thus
the gapped part is a constituent) or there’s some sort of deletion (maybe its phonological),
or as Larson has <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/stul.12060">argued</a> the sentence is actually nongrammatical and some sort
of special online parsing sentence repair mechanism accounts for its acceptability.
Either way, the interpretation is different vis-à-vis constituent structure. <span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA"><span>(3)<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-feature-settings:normal">  
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-CA">Adam<i>_i</i> read the book and _____<i>_i</i> skimmed the article<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA"><span>(4)<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-feature-settings:normal">  
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-CA">Adam
read _____<i>_i</i> and Tony
skimmed the article<i>_i</i><span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">(Many) syntacticians
give sentence (1) the constituent coordination interpretation in (3), and
sentence (2) the gapping interpretation in (6). They <i>don't </i>assign both interpretations to the sentences as I have here.<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">After this
all sorts of formal models can be conjured up to capture the facts as we see
them - and it's difficult to do and the papers trying to do so uncover
interesting facts, some of the models are clever etc. But I’m not saying “formal
models are bad”, which seems to be Adam’s interpretation of my claim. I also didn’t mean ‘syntactic
theory’ in the sense of <i>any formal model
whatsoever</i>, which again, seems to be Adam’s interpretation of my statement.
I meant ‘syntactic theory’ in the sense of developing testable hypotheses about
what all languages are like. If you want to have testable hypotheses you have
to know what your models are actually supposed to explain. Your models have to
be independent from the phenomena they capture, otherwise you have a tautology,
not a theory.<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">So, I’m
just asking first …<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA"><span>(5)<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-feature-settings:normal">  
</span></span></span><i><span lang="EN-CA">Why </span></i><span lang="EN-CA">should (1) and (2) be interpreted differently?<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA"><span> </span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">The answer to (7) seems to be that <i>not </i>interpreting these differently would
result in a bracketing paradox vis-à-vis what we already think we know about
English and that constituents are always perfectly nested. But what if I have fewer pieces of evidence for supporting a V-OBJ
constituency in a specific language? So I’m wondering if there is something
else I could rely on … and whether anyone could bring typological evidence to
bear on the question.</span><span lang="IS"><span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA"><span> </span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">The other related question is as follows.<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA"><span> </span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA"><span>(6)<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal;font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-feature-settings:normal">  
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-CA">How
do I tell the difference between gapping and constituent coordination <i>in general? </i><span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">



</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">If I can’t
tell the difference between constituent coordination and gapping, then I
suppose I could never use (co(sub))ordination structures as constituency tests.
If I can’t tell the difference between constituent coordination and gapping
then I would never be able to meaningfully test any claim about how gapping is
supposed to work or coordination is supposed to work cross-linguistically. Sa,
I’m interested in testing some claims about gapping/RNR phenomena in Tupari or Chácobo, how do I start? How do I know that
what I refer to as gapping isn’t constituent coordination and vice-versa?<span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">So, it's not
about formalisms <i>in general.</i> It's about
how to formulate claims about gapping / constituent coordination so they aren’t
self-sealing / self-justifying tautologies. </span><span lang="IS">Somewhere along the line you will have to say
something about how to compare languages, whether you use the term „comparative
concept“ or not. (Unless of course, you are fine with having just a theory about English.) But I'm interested in how to interpret gapping / constituent coordination in same/different subject clauses in Pano, and the current literature is <i>just. simply. not. helpful. </i>for that question ... <span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">Of course,
this assumes that what we call “theories” <i>should
</i>make testable claims, and maybe that’s where the disagreement lies between
myself and confessional “generativists” … If you are happy with a "theory" that states "some gapping theory accounts for gapping phenomena and we identify gapping phenomena as such because it is what is predicted from gapping theory", then we have different views of what a theory is... <span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA">best,</span></span> </font><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace"><span lang="EN-CA"><span></span></span></span></font></p><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">

</span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span lang="EN-CA"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:monospace">Adam</span></font><span></span></span></p>





</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 6:24 PM Adam Singerman <<a href="mailto:adamsingerman@uchicago.edu">adamsingerman@uchicago.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Dear Adam,<br>
<br>
I don't believe that the RNR issue is as damning for syntactic theory<br>
as you do (this shouldn't surprise anyone who's talked with the both<br>
of us, as we generally have different takes on the successes/failures<br>
of syntactic theory). On the contrary, I think the RNR issue nicely<br>
illustrates the fact that there will be empirical generalizations in<br>
individual languages that require some kind of formalization to be<br>
stated in the first place, whatever the ultimate verdict is on the<br>
formal apparatus that the generalizations are first couched in. Even<br>
if we take Chaves's analysis as correct (namely, that RNR is really<br>
the conflation of three separate phenomena: VP/N' deletion,<br>
extraposition, backward periphery deletion), we will still need a<br>
formal apparatus to define these phenomena. A formal syntactician<br>
would probably say that the crosslinguistic version of RNR is not<br>
capturable as a comparative concept in the sense of Haspelmath because<br>
what defines RNR — whether it's taken to be a phenomenon in of itself<br>
or a conflation of three separate phenomena, as Chaves argues — is<br>
still ultimately formal. So this is probably a good example of how<br>
there are parts of speakers' linguistic competence which need to be<br>
described, analyzed and theorized, but which do not lend themselves in<br>
an obvious way to cross-linguistic comparison outside of a formal<br>
framework. Unless of course I have misunderstood Martin's point about<br>
comparative concepts...?<br>
<br>
Abraços,<br>
Adam<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif">Adam J.R. Tallman</font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif">Post-doctoral Researcher <br></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif">Friedrich Schiller Universität<br></font></div><div><font face="times new roman, serif">Department of English Studies<br></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>