A Nanosyntactic Approach to the Transitive Use of Vi -Vi compounds in Chinese
Wenwen Ding, Shotaro Namiki, and Tatsuhiro Okubo
University of Tsukuba
Introduction: It has been observed that in Japanese V-V compounding, the argument structure of
V1 needs to be the same type as that of V2 in general. As is also well known, Chinese can makeV-V compounds where the verbs differ in their argument structures (cf. Cheng and Huang (1994),
among others). The examples are given in (1):(1) a. * Kanojo-wa hankachi-onaki-nure-ta.
shehandkerchief-ACC cry-wet -PASTb.
taku shileshoupashe cry wet
PERF handkerchief“She cried her handkerchief wet.”(2) ku-xing ‘cry someone awake’, xiao-si ‘laugh someone to death’, xiao-teng ‘laugh one’s
stomach sore’, etc.
The question arising here is why Chinese, but not Japanese, the V-V compound made by the two
intransitive verbs has the transitive use. The purpose of this paper is to capture the puzzling
characteristic of Chinese V-V compounding in terms of nanosyntax (Stark (2009, 2010)),especially under the framework of the first phrase syntax proposed by Ramchand (2008).
Nanosyntax: This paper employs the framework of nanosyntax advocated by Starke (2009, 2010).
The essence of nanosyntax is “size differences” of lexical items; a lexical item spellouts thefeatures [a, b, c], while the other lexical item spellouts the features [a, b]. Based on thisperspective, Starke (2010) argues that language variation is parametrized by the size differences.
For instance, the lexical item A in a language may have a different structure from the counterpart
B in another language.
Adopting the framework, Ramchand (2008) decomposes a macro event into three types ofsubevents: init(iation), proc(ess), and res(ult). (3) is taken from Ramchand (2008: 79):(3) a.
Michael arrived.
b.
[initP Michael arriveinit [procP <Michael> <arrive>proc [resP <Michael> <arrive>res(XP)]]]
Init is responsible for the causation event and in its spec position, ‘subject’ of cause, namely
Initiator, occurs. Proc specifies the change of state or process and in its spec position, ‘subject’of process, namely Undergoer, occurs. According to Ramchand, it is the core of the dynamic
verbs. Res assigns a meaning of result state to a verb and in its spec position, ‘subject’ of result,namely Resultee, occurs. Based on Ramchand’s framework, the verb arrive has the init, proc,
and res features, as shown in (3b). In (3b), Michael is interpreted as Initiator, Undergoer, andResultee.
Analysis: Drawing on Ramchand’s framework, let us reveal features of the verbs in question.
The V1s Naku and ku ‘cry’ in (1) have init and proc features, because they are activity verbs andtheir ‘subjects’ are Initiator. In contrast to the V1s, the features of V2s nureru and shi ‘(become)wet’ are different from each other. The dynamic intransitive verb nureru has proc and res

features, whereas shi is a state verb and has only the res feature. This difference in feature
contents corroborates Starke’s hypothesis. The feature contents of the verbs are summarized in(4):(4) a.
naku, ku: init, procb.
nureru: proc, resc.
shi: resGiven the feature contents of naku and nureru, naki-nureru has the following syntactic structure:(5) *[initP kanojo nakuinit [procP <kanojo> <naku>proc [resP <hankachi> <nureru[proc]>res(XP)]]]Agree
In (5), naku identifies init and proc and as a result, nureru only identifies res. The proc featureof nureru in (5) remains unchecked, which causes the derivation to crash. According toRamchand (2008), in this situation, Agree occurs between the unchecked feature and the proc
head and due to this operation, the proc feature of nureru is checked. We suggest that Agreeunifies the subevents. In (5), nureru lexicalizing res enters into an Agree relation with proc, sothat proc and res are unified. The proc feature is lexicalized by naku, which also lexicalizes init.
Hence, Agree unifies init, proc, and res. This unification requires that their ‘subjects’ are thesame, but the ‘subject’ of res is different from the others, as shown in (5). Thus (1b) is judged
ungrammatical.
The structure of (1b) from Chinese is represented in (6):(6) [initP She cryinit [procP <she> <cry>proc [resP handkerchief <wet>res (XP)]]]
In contrast to the V-V compound in (1a), Chinese V-V compounds like (1b) and (2) can betransitivized. The reason behind this is that there is no Agree in the Chinese V-V compounds
because V2 has only a res feature. This means that the subevent res is independent from theother subevents. Hence, the former subevent can introduce an argument that is different from anargument introduced by the latter subevents.
Conclusion: To summarize, we have analyzed that the V2 in the Japanese V-V compound has theproc and res features, whereas that in the Chinese one has the only res feature. The lack of proc
in the Chinese verb shi suppresses the unification of the two subevents denoted by the V1 and V2.
The suppression of the event unification allows arguments introduced by the two subevets to bedifferent from each other. This leads to the possibility of the transitive use of Chinese
intransitive V-V compounds.
References: Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and C.-T. James Huang (1994) “On the Argument Structure of
Resultative Compounds,” In Honor of William S-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary Studies on Language
and Language Change, ed. by Matthew Y. Chen, Ovid J. L. Tzeng, 187-221, Pyramid Press,
Taiwan / Ramchand, Gillian (2008) Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / Starke, Michal (2009) “Nanosyntax: A Short Primer to a
New Approach to Language,” Nordlyd 36-1, 1-6. / Starke, Michal (2010) “Towards an Elegant
Solution to Language Variation: Variation Reduces to the Size of Lexically Stored Trees,” ms.,
University of Tromsø. [lingbuzz/001183].

Discourse-Initial Too/Mo and Conventional Implicature
Sumiyo Nishiguchi
Tokyo University of Science
Additive particles such as also and too have been analyzed as focus adverbs without truth-conditional
contribution (König 1991, Iten 2005). Winterstein (2011) argues that the presupposition of too should besatisfied by the antecedent truth-conditionally based on the following examples:(1) #Ritchie solved most problems. Lemmy solved all of them too.
(2) Ritchie solved all the problems. Lemmy solved most of them too.
The presupposition of too that somebody different from Lemmy solved all the problems is not satisfied in(1).
I will argue that the contribution of too is not truth-conditional, based on the data on wide-scope taking
too in English and mo “also/too” in Japanese. (3) can be uttered without having somewhere else nice.
(3) It is nice here too.
Moreover, the Japanese focus marker mo “also/too” can be uttered discourse-initially without sounding
erratic. Instead of a contrastive narrow focus, the discourse-initial mo sentences have a presentational neutral
focus. This paper argues that the semantic contribution of the discourse-initial mo “also/too” is conventional
implicature without truth-conditional effect.
Mo “also/even,” as a focus marker, quantifier-like element (Kuroda 1969), or an additive particle (Lee2000), typically places contrastive focus on a noun phrase, or adds some alternative element to the given setof individuals, as in (4):(4) #(Mai-ga
Mai-NOM

ki-te,)[Ken]F -mo

ki-ta.

come-PAST-and

Ken-alsocome-PAST“Mai came, and Ken came, too.”
The focus-marked Ken contrasts with Mai. Similar to the English too (Karttunen and Peters 1979), a mo-p
assertion is felicitous only when it follows another sentence such as “Someone other than Ken came” or, atleast, when the presuppositions are satisfied by the extralinguistic context. On the other hand, (5)-(10) canbe uttered out-of-the-blue.
(5) Soto-mo
outside-also

hiete-ki-ta.
cold-come-PAST“It is indeed getting chilly outside.”(6) Yo-monight-also

fuke-ta.

Mo

neru-toshi-yo.

become.late-PAST

already sleep-COMP

do-let’s“It’s late, indeed. It’s time to go to bed.”(modified from Sadanobu (1997: 234))(7) Ko-no
this-GENsaifu-mofuruku-nat-ta.

wallet-also

old-become-PAST“This wallet has indeed become old.”
(8)

Yo-mo

sue-da.

world-also

finale-be“This is the end of the world.”(9)Mari-mokashiko-i.

Mari-also

smart-be“Mary is indeed smart.”(10) Omae-mo

aho-ya-na.

you-also

silly-be-EXC“I must say that you are silly.”
The discourse-initial mo in (5) does not contrast its syntactic constituent soto “outside” with any antecedent.
The focus in (5) is neutral and presentational. Instead of a narrow focus on the noun phrase, there is a wide
focus on the whole sentence.
(11)

Haru-motakenawa-ni

nari-mashi-ta.

spring-also

peak-GOAL

become-HON-PAST“Spring has reached its peak.”(Numata 2000: 172)

Numata (2000) suggested that mo in (11) associates itself with a whole proposition and contrasts otherthings reminiscent of the season and the transition of time. The speaker presupposes prior situations such as
blooming of cherry blossoms, green leaves of trees, and comfortably warm weather. It means that mo has
wide scope on the entire proposition. Korean to “too/also” has a similar usage and Hungarian is “and/even”
has emphatic usage (see Piñon 1992, for the Hungarian emphatic is).
(12)

Péter meg

igérte,

hogy

el

Peter

promise.PAST.3SG.DEF

thataway will

VM

is

menni

és

[el]F

go.PRES.3SG

andaway isfog

ment.
go.PAST.3SG“Peter promised he would go, and he went, too!”(Szalai 1996: 12, F-marking by the author)
I claim that mo/too contributes to conventional implicature in line with Potts (2005).
(13)

at-issue meaning of (5): be-cold(outside): ta
CI meaning of (5): undesirable(speaker)(be-cold(outside)): tc

The at-issue meaning is truth-conditional in which the individuals are type ea and the propositions are type ta
whereas the non-truth-conditional CI meaning has different types of ec and tc respectively. Discourse-initial
too does not contribute to the truth-conditional meaning but to the conventional implicature.
References
Iten, Corinne (2005) Linguistic Meaning, Truth Conditions and Relevance, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Karttunen, Lauri and Stanley Peters (1979), “Conventional implicature,” in Oh, C. andDinneen, D.A.

(Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 11, Presupposition, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-56.
König, Ekkehard (1991) Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective, Routledge, London.
Numata, Yoshiko (2000), “Toritate (focus),” in Kinsui, S. et al. (Eds.), Toki, Hitei to Toritate, Iwanami,
Tokyo, pp. 151-216.
Piñon, Christopher (1992), “The preverb problem in German and Hungarian,” Proceedings of the 18th
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, pp. 395-408.
Potts, Christopher (2005), The Logic of Conventional Implicature, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sadanobu, Toshiyuki (1997), “Shinteki prosesu kara mita toritateshi te, demo,” in Masuoka, T. et al. (Eds.),
Nihongo no Shudai to Toritate, pp. 227-260, Kuroshio, Tokyo.
Szalai, Temese A. (1996), “Non-quantificational is,” ms., UCLA, Los Angeles.

A Phonological Approach to Interwoven Dependency Constructions
Kayono Shiobara
Tokyo Woman’s Christian University
Following Shiobara (To appear), I argue against a syntactic analysis forInterwoven Dependency Constructions (IDCs), and present a phonologicalapproach to them. The argument against a syntactic analysis for IDC isprimarily based on island insensitivity.
The IDC examples are shown in (1) and (2).
(1) a. [How many cakes]i and [how many letters]j (respectively) did May
bake _i and John write _j this morning?
b.

%[How many letters]

i and [how many cakes]j did May bake _j andJohn write _i this morning?
(2) a. (Sorezore) [atarashii fuku]i to [atarashii kutsu-o]j John-ga(respectively) new clothes and new shoes-ACC John-NOM
Kiyomi-ga _i ki-te Masami-ga _j haita to itteita (koto)
Kiyomi-NOM put.on-and Masami-NOM put.on C said (fact)‘(the fact that) John said that Kiyomi put on new clothes and Masami
put on new shoes’
b. ?[Atarashii fuku]i to [atarashii kutsu-o]j John-ga [Masami-ga _j hai-te
Kiyomi-ga _i kita to itteita (koto)
The English examples in (1) involve wh-movement and the Japaneseexamples in (2) involve long-distance scrambling. The example (1a)represents a typical IDC, which has been noted in Dougherty (1970) andZhang (2007) among others. Interwoven dependency is possible withlong-distance scrambling as in (2a), if the fronted elements construct a
prosodic unit on their own. Moreover, the order of the fronted elements canbe reversed as in (1b) and (2b), though the acceptability varies depending on
the informant in the English wh-movement case (as indicated by %), and thesentence somewhat degrades in the Japanese scrambling case (as indicatedby ?) (Shiobara (To appear)). The near-freedom in the order of fronted
elements observed above already suggests that IDCs as exemplified in (1)and (2) should not be syntactically derived, on the assumption that this kindof optionality is prohibited in the syntax.
Further evidence supporting this same conclusion comes from the factthat some IDCs are insensitive to syntactic islands:

(3) a.
b.

?Which cakes and which letters did Mary bake before John wrote?
?Which cakes and which homework did Mary bake after

her son finished?
(4) a.

?Atarashii fuku to atarashii kutsu-o John-ga [musuko-ni kise-te

new clothes and new shoes-ACC John-NOM son-DAT put.on-andmusume-ni hakaseta] hito-o sagashiteiru (koto)
daughter-DAT put.on person/people-ACC look.for (fact)‘(the fact that) John is looking for a person who made (his) son
put on new clothes and made (his) daughter put on new shoes’
b. ?Atarashii fuku to atarashii kutsu-o John-ga [musuko-ga ki-te
new clothes and new shoes-ACC John-NOM son-NOM put.on-andmusume-ga haita kara] okotteiru (koto)
daughter-NOM put.on because be.angry (fact)‘(the fact that) John is angry because his son put on new clothes andhis daughter put on new shoes’
In (3), the second wh-phrase is extracted out of an adjunct clause, and thesentences are only slightly degraded. In (4a) and (4b), the fronted phrases
are scrambled out of a complex NP and an adjunct clause, respectively, andthe sentences are again only slightly degraded, a degradation which seems tobe due to irrelevant factors such as the unnatural length of the sentences.
Insensitivity to syntactic islands suggests that IDCs should not be
syntactically derived.
Given the facts i) that a wh-phrase is prosodically prominent and hence
forms its own prosodic unit, and ii) that multiple long-distance scrambling ispossible only when the scrambled element forms its own prosodic unit
(Agbayani et al. (2014)), I argue that IDCs are phonologically derived. It
follows then that fronted phrases in IDCs should be interpreted in their
original positions: wh-phrases are interpreted in situ, in the same way as awh-phrase in situ in multiple wh-movement (e.g. what in Who bought what?),and scrambled phrases are also interpreted in situ.
References: Agbayani et al. 2014. “Syntactic and Prosodic Scrambling inJapanese,” NLLT 33: 47-77. Dougherty, R. 1970. “A Grammar of Coordinate
Conjoined Structures: I,” Lg 46: 850-898. Shiobara, K. To appear. “Toward a
Unified Explanation of Multiple Dependencies,” JELS 32. Zhang, N. N.
2007. “The Syntactic Derivations of Two Paired Dependency Constructions,”
Lingua 117: 2134-2158.

Defective Interveners, Adjuncts, and “Two-Peaked” Structure
Norio SUZUKI

Kobe Shinwa Women’s University (non-full-time)

This paper gives an account of cases involving “defective-interveners (DIs)” or adjuncts intough-constructions (TCs) & subject-to-subject raising constructions (SSRCs) (Bruening2014). It is based on: (i) “two-peaked” structure (Epstein, Kitahara, & Seely (EKS) 2013,2014); (ii) “copy-deletion (CD)”: “Delete all sisters of lower occurrences (OCCs) of a mover”(EKS 2013); & (iii) Recoverability: “Interpret features at least once” (EKS 2013). “Free”
simplest Merge unifying external & internal Merge (EM & IM; Chomsky 2013) allows of
unlabeled structures containing a DI or adjunct (Chomsky’s 2013 Labeling Algorithm).
Moreover, DIs & adjuncts turn out to be in a “two-peaked” structure. When the mover’s
copy in “one set” of the “two-peaked” structure is deleted by CD, a DI (or adjunct) in “theother set” must also be deleted. This is because the mover’s copy & DI (or adjunct) share an
OCC. Deletion of the DI or adjunct ends up violating Recoverability at the sensorimotor(SM) interface because it is the sole copy. This account based on “two-peaked” structure is
not applicable to English SSRCs (John seems to Mary/in meetings to be smart) due to lack ofsuch a “two-peaked” structure (involving to Mary/in meetings).
Consider thesyntactic-object (SO) in need of labeling: ‘{XP, YP}, neither a head,’ with three ‘labeling’possibilities (Chomsky 2013):(1) a. … XP … {(XP), YP}: SO, labeled based on YP; raising of XP
b. {XP[+F], YP[+F]}: SO, labeled based on [+F]; ‘feature-sharing’c. *{XP, YP}:

SO, unlabeled in the absence of (1a) or (1b)Look at (2a, b), which contain an unlabeled SO α:(2) a. *… XP … {α {DI/Adj, {XP, {CF, {TP … to … XP …}}}}}
b. … XP … {α {DI/Adj, {CE, {TP … to … XP …}}}}The SO α consists of a DI (e.g., experiencer-PP)/adjunct phrase & embedded CP. The
C-positions of the infinitival embedded clauses in (2a, b) are occupied by CF & CE (nullprepositional complementizers with French & English properties), respectively (Kayne 1983;
preposition-stranding in English, but not in French). XP has to pass through embedded
SpecCP in the CF case, while it does not in the CE case. English TCs are assumed to involve
embedded CPs with CF as C-head (also Hartman 2009 & Hicks 2009). In (2a), we see a“two-peaked” structure consisting of two intersecting sets: (i) {α{DI/Adj, {CF, TP}}}; & (ii){XP, {CF, TP}}. EM takes place before IM for efficiency reasons (EKS 2013). CD of XP
entails deletion of the DI/Adj due to their shared OCC (‘{CF, TP}’), in violation of
Recoverability at SM because the ‘deleted’ DI/Adj is the sole copy. In (2b), there is no such
“two-peaked” structure because the DI/Adj & XP (lower copy) do not share an OCC. But in(2b) α is still unlabeled as an instance of (1c). Consider (3a, b) as examples exemplifying(2a, b), respectively (Bruening 2014):

(3) a. *Sugar was very hard [α [PP on me/in such conditions] [CP sugar CF [TP … to give up…]]].
(*Sugar was very hard on me/in such conditions to give up; an English TC)
b. Ruprecht seems [α [PP to his subordinates/in meetings] [CP CE [TP Ruprecht to be amasterful commander]]].
(Ruprecht seems to his subordinates/in meetings to be a masterful commander; anEnglish SSRC)
In (3a), on me/in such conditions & sugar in SpecCP share an OCC, ‘[CF , TP],’ & hence CDof sugar entails deletion of on me/in such conditions, violating Recoverability at SM.
In (3b), there is no such “two-peaked” structure because to his subordinates/in meetings &Ruprecht (lower copy) do not share an OCC. But α in (3b) is still without a label. The
availability in English of preposition-stranding allows us to obtain for (3b): ‘{v, {seem + PP +CE, {α {(PP), {(CE), {Ruprecht, {to, …}}}}}}},’ where the PP incorporates into seem tomake CE adjacent to seem & CE incorporates into the complex head (also Baker 1988, López
2012). This makes α labeled based on TP (‘{Ruprecht, {to, …}}’). Consider someconsequences of this analysis:(4) You’ll meet a man [αtomorrow *(who) you’ve seen before]. (= Bruening’s 2014 (25b))
English restrictive relatives are assumed to contain a CF in embedded C. Look at (5), related
to (4):(5) a. *… {v + meet, {a man, {(meet), {tomorrow, {a man, {CF, {TP you’ve …}}}}}}}(for (4), without who)b. … {v + meet, {a man, {(meet), {tomorrow, {a man, {who, {CF, {TP you’ve…}}}}}}}}(for (4), with who; Kayne 1994 for NS-derivation of who & man)
In (4/5a), tomorrow & a man (lower copy) share an OCC, {CF, TP}, & deletion of tomorrowalong with CD of a man (lower copy) induces a violation of Recoverability at SM. In (4/5b),
the OCCs of a man (lower copy) & tomorrow are {who, {CF, TP}} & {CF, TP} respectively,
keeping the structure grammatical.
References: Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.; Bruening, B. 2014. Defects ofdefective intervention. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 707-719.; Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33-49.;
Epstein, S.D., H. Kitahara, and T.D. Seely. 2013. Simplest Merge generates set intersection: Implications forcomplementizer ‘trace’ explanation. In Proceedings of GLOW in Asia IX 2012: The main session, ed. by N. Goto, K.
Otaki, A. Sato, and K. Takita, 77-92. Tsu, Mie: Center for Multicultural Studies, Mie University.; Epstein, S.D., H.
Kitahara, and T.D. Seely. 2014. Labeling by minimal search: Implications for successive-cyclic A-movement and theconception of the postulate “phase.” Linguistic Inquiry 45: 463-481.; Hartman, J. 2009. Intervention in toughconstructions. In Proceedings of NELS 39, ed. by S. Lima, K. Mullin, and B. Smith. Amherst, MA: University of
Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistic Student Association.; Hicks, Glyn. 2009. Tough-constructions and their derivation.
Linguistic Inquiry 40: 535-566.; Kayne, R.S. 1983. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.; Kayne, R. S.
1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.; López, L. 2012. Indefinite objects: Scrambling, choicefunctions, and differential marking. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Merging Adjunct to Coordination
Yusuke Yoda (Toyo Gakuen University)
Synopsis: Recently, the distinction between asymmetric property and anti-asymmetric property of Language
has been an issue within the Minimalist tenet. In this paper, I will shed the light on the one instance of this
distinction, that is complement/adjunct distinction within coordination and propose a novel analysis based on
acyclic merge by Stepanov (2001).
Issues: It is widely accepted that coordinate structure involves symmetric relation between two coordinateditems. For instance, extraction of one of the conjuncts, or one of the coordinated items yields an
ungrammatical sentence (Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC) by Ross: 1967).
(1)

a. *What did you like [apples and t]?

b. *What did you [drink wine and eat t]?

This ungrammaticality in (1) is circumvented iff extraction is the Across-the-Board manner.
(2)What did you like [ t ]b. What did you [drink t and eat t]

Contrary to the data above, Culicover and Jackendoff (C&J 1997) observe cases where the extraction of oneof the coordinated items does not yield an ungrammatical sentence ((3)).
(3) How much can you drink t and still stay sober?
Moreover, utilizing the following instances, where one of the conjunction involves a bound variable, C&J
claim that one conjunct in the asymmetry breaking coordination is, in fact, a subordinate clause, with which
the other clause form the temporal or cause-result relation.
(4) a. You give anyonei too much money and hei will go crazy.
b. If you give anyonei too much money, hei will go crazy.
Machinery: Utilizing the data above, I will point out the problem of Set-merge, which creates a set {α, β}from α and β and Pair-merge, which creates ordered pair <α, β> (Chomsky 2004). According to thismachinery, regular structures are constructed with the Set-merge, while adjunct-structures are constructedwith the Pair-merge. Moreover, Pair-merged structure is on the different plane and it is not in a search domain
for extraction, since the probe cannot search Goal inside a different plane. However, this pair-merge is said tobe stipulate and ad hoc from the theoretical point of view and alternative approaches are investigated among
numerous literature (Lebeaux 1988, Stepanov 2001, Oseki 2014 a.o.). In this paper, I will adopt an acyclic
approach put forth by Stepanov.
Analysis: Now, let us compare two types of coordination.
(5)a. I drank wine and ate cheese. ↔ I ate cheese and drank wine.
b. I drank a bottle of wine and still stay sober. ≠ #I stay sober and drank a bottle of wine.

As the extraction fact in (2)b shows, the example in (5)a is CSC-sensitive-coordination and it isinterchangeable. In contrast, as the extraction fact in (3) shows, the uninterchangeable coordination in (5)b is
CSC-insensitive-Coordination. Two conjuncts of the CSC-sensitive-coordination are interchangeable withoutchanging its logical meaning as in (5)a, so conjuncts are order-irrelevant, while ones in theCSC-insensitive-coordination are not as in (5)b. Now, let us closely look at the cases of
CSC-insensitive-coordination. In (6), two conjoined items are temporary distinct, and the event denoted by
the first conjunction precedes the event dented by the second conjunct. In this case, the extraction from theclause denoting a precedent event is ungrammatical.
(6) a. *What did Tom read t and wrote his article?
b. ?What did Tom read linguistics articles and wrote t?
Given the analysis by C&J, the first conjunct in (6) is, in fact, a subordinate (an adjunct) clause. If theiranalysis is on the right track, one of the conjuncts allows items to be extracted. In fact, the asymmetry inextraction illustrated in (6) is parallel to extraction from an adjunct (adjunct-condition) as in (7).
(7) a. *What did Tom write his article after reading t?
b. What did Tom write t after reading linguistics articles?
Now, given the universal [&P XP [& YP]] structure (Hiraiwa and Chino 2014), label of the coordination
should be uniformly &P, regardless of the way to introduce the first conjunct. To account for the uniformityof labeling between adjunct and coordinate structure yielded by merge of XP and YP, I claim that the first
conjunct is introduced either cyclically or acyclically (Stepanov 2001). Remaining issues of the current
analysis is why (6) are uninterchangeable, while regular adjunctions are interchangeable(matrix-adjunct/adjuct-matix). The answer for the first question is that while an overt complimentizer such as“after” clearly denotes the semantic relation between two clauses, semantics of “and” is vacuous and it
simply connects two sentences. If the semantics of “and” is vacuous, there is no item which indicates that an
event of the first conjunct precedes one of the second conjunct. Thus, two conjunct must follow pragmaticeffect (1st conj > 2nd conj w.r.t temporal sequence).
Conclusion: Current approach explains the symmetry/asymmetry of coordination and eliminates an ad hoc
theoretical instrument, Set-merge and different plane.