LF Symmetry in Coordination
Yusuke Yoda(Osaka University)
Overview: I propose a novel analysis on Symmetry in Coordinate Structure and its constraint fromfollowing properties; (i) Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC) constraints LF representation (Ruys1993, Fox 2000, Kato 2010 a.o.); (ii) neither symmetry in PF-representation (PF) nor
overt-syntactic representation (hereinafter D(erivation)) concerns CSC. As a consequence, I proposethat the peculiar Case realization (Munn 1993, Johannessen 1998, Camacho2003 a.o.) is possible asa PF representation without violating symmetry of Coordination as a consequence.
Background: Coordination has been regarded as a sentence containing multiple symmetricallyjuxtaposed items (1). While the extraction of items from each conjunct, keeping the symmetry ofeach conjunct, derives grammatical sentences (2a: Across the board (ATB) movement), if thissymmetry is broken, the sentence turn to be ungrammatical (2b). This effect in Coordination is, first,
observed by Ross (1967) and known as the Coordinate Structure Constraint (3:CSC).
Proposal: I claim that PF/D symmetry in Coordination cannot be defended as CSC, but symmetryat LF (Fox 2000, Kato 2010 a.o) is primal concern of CSC. As a theory of LF symmetry, I willassume that Coordination has to satisfy the requirement given in (4) at LF. To evident the current
proposal, (i) c-selection, and (ii) Wh-in situ are looked at.
C-selection: The argument structure of the verb is inherently equipped with the verb and controls
the occurrence of arguments of verb. This requirement from the verb is satisfied by merge,
operation inside D. If the symmetric property needs to be maintained both/either PF/D, then thesentences containing the asymmetric structure should be ruled out, since in Numeration, only single
verb is selected and it is introduced in D. Then, if the symmetry is required within D, the juxtaposedarguments selected by the verb have to be structurally uniform. However, Symmetry requirement at
D cannot be hold, since as indicated in (5) the coordinated items do not have to be structurally
uniform and even the sentence containing structurally different arguments is grammatical. Thus, asa result, there is no symmetry requirement to be satisfied at D, in terms of juxtaposed arguments,
and D does not concern symmetry between juxtaposed items. Although superficially the juxtaposed
items are not symmetric, each component structure at LF is grammatical as depicted in (6).
Therefore, the symmetry at LF is not violated and then the sentence is grammatical.
Wh-in situ: As well as symmetry breaking overt wh-movement as in (2b), covert wh-movement isconstraint by CSC. The subject wh-phrases in both conjunct undergo ATB-movement and the object
wh-phrase does not move in D (7). In this case, both conjuncts contain trace of moved item (t) sinceno extraction takes place. As a result, nothing violates CSC at PF/D. Therefore, the symmetry
between the first and the second conjunct is hold in PF/D. However, the sentence involving cover
operation is ungrammatical. This property cannot be captured, by assuming CSC as a constraint ofD. However, LF approach correctly rules out (6), since one of the component structures of (7) doesnot have correct Op-trace relation (8b).
Consequence: Coordination exhibits some weird Case realization pattern (Munn 1993, Johannessen
1998, Camacho 2003, a.o.) (9). One of the coordinated NPs both in subject and in object positions
optionally exhibits peculiar Case declension. This can be accounted by the definition that Casefeatures are uninterpretable at LF. Since the Case feature is invisible at LF representation and theform is irrelevant in terms of LF component structure (4). Thus the peculiar Case realization does
not yield ungrammaticality.

Data (Selected)(1) John played the guitar and Mary played the violin.
(2)a.
Whati did John played ti and Mary play ti?
b. *Whati did John played the guitar and Mary play ti?

(3) In the Coordinate Structure, no conjunct may be moved nor may any element contained in a
conjunct be moved out of that conjunct.
(4) a. A sentence is well-formed only if each of its component structures independently satisfies
grammatical constraints.
b. Definition: Component structure of a sentence = structures each of which result fromremoving the conjunction and all but one of the conjuncts from each coordinate structure in thesentence.
(Kato 2010)(5) Pat was annoyed by [the children’s noise] and [that their parents did nothing to stop it].
(Progovac 1999)(6) LF Component Structurea. OKPat was annoyed by the children’s noiseb. OKPat was annoyed by that their parents did nothing to stop it.
(7) *I wonder whoi [ti took what from Mary] and [ti gave a book to Fred].
(8)
LF Component Structurea. OKI wonder who what ti took tj from Maryb. *I wonder who what ti gave a book to Fred.
(9) a. She and him will drive will drive to the movies.
b. All debts are cleared between you and I.
(Progovac 1999)
References (Selected)
Camacho. J. 2003. The structure of Coordination. Kluwer. Fox. D. 2000 Ecnomomy and Semantic
Interpretation. MIT Press. Johannnessen. J.B. 1998. Coordination. OUP. Kato. T 2010 Symmetries
in Coordination. –The Nature of CSC and its Implication-. –ms. Munn. A. 1993. Topics in Syntax
and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. unpublished Ph.D diss. Progovac.L. 1999. Structure ofCoordination Part I, II. GLOT international. Ross. J. 1967. Constraints of Variables in Syntax.
Unpublished Ph,D diss. Ruys.E. 1993. The Scope of Indefinites. Unpublished. Ph.D diss.