LOWER COPY PRONUNCIATION AND MULTIPLE WH-FRONTING IN ATBCONTEXTS∗
Duk-Ho An
University of Connecticut/University of Toronto

1.

Introduction

In this paper, I examine the patterns of lower copy pronunciation in Across-the-Board(ATB) multiple wh-fronting (MWF) in some Slavic languages and argue that the position of
the shared material can be correctly accounted for by adopting Fox and Pesetsky’s (2005)(F&P) system of cyclic linearization (CL) (see Bošković 2001, 2002 for lower copy
pronunciation; see also Nunes 1995, 2004 for relevant discussion). I will also argue that the
proposal can be extended to capture the curious distribution of the shared material in Right
Node Raising (RNR) constructions as well (see An 2007 for extensive discussion on RNR andreferences). Therefore, the current analysis provides a uniform analysis of the distribution of
the shared material in ATB and RNR constructions.
2.

Background2.1. Cyclic Linearization: Fox and Pesetsky 2005
I summarize the gist of F&P’s CL in this section. (1) contains a list of assumptions
adopted by F&P.
(1)a.

Syntactic derivation proceeds through a series of cyclic nodes called phase, whichcorrespond to CPs and vPs, among others (Chomsky 2000, 2001).

b.

Phases determine the points of Spell-Out (SO).

c.

SO determines the linear order of the elements contained in the phase.

d.

The linear order determined by SO of a phase may not be contradicted by thelinear order determined by SO of a later phase.

I would like to express my gratitude to the following people for their help and support: Yasuaki
Abe, Hiroshi Aoyagi, Jonathan Bobaljik, Željko Bošković, Tomohiro Fujii, Keiko Murasugi, Mamoru
Saito, Susi Wurmbrand, and the audience at the Connecticut-Nanzan Joint Workshop on Minimalist
Syntax. All remaining errors are my own.
∗

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2, 1–15
© 2008 Duk-Ho An

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

For expository convenience, I will call the condition in (1) the Principle of Order
Preservation (POP). (2) schematically illustrates how CL works. (X > Y means ‘X precedes
Y.’)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(c)

Syntax[vP A B C]
[CP A B [vP t t C]][CP B A [vP t t C]]

Spell-Out⇒⇒⇒

Linear Order
A>B>C
A>B>C
* B>A>CWhen the derivation reaches (2), the vP is spelled out, resulting in the ordering relation
given in the right column. Suppose that in the course of the subsequent derivation, A and B
move out of the vP. Suppose further that A moves to a position higher than the landing-site ofB, as in (2). When the CP is spelled out, the resulting ordering relation, given in the rightcolumn of (2), is consistent with the previous ordering relation in (2). Therefore, no problem
arises. Suppose on the other hand that B moves higher than A, as in (2). It is easy to see that
SO of the CP will result in an ordering relation that is not consistent with the previous
ordering relation in (2). F&P claim that derivations like (2) are ruled out by the POP.
F&P argue that CL accounts for a peculiar property of Scandinavian languages regarding
object shift (OS), usually subsumed under the so-called Holmberg’s generalization (HG). The
data in (3) illustrates the typical pattern of OS in Swedish.
(3)

a.

Jag
I

kysstekissedhenne
herinte [VPnotb. * … att jag… that I

henne
her

inte [VP kysste to]notkissed

c.

henne
her

inte [VP kysst to]notkissed

* Jag
I

har
have

tv to ]

(F&P, p.17)

Simplifying somewhat, what HG says is that an object can raise out of a VP only if theverb also moves out of it, as in (3) (see Holmberg 1999 for relevant discussion andreferences). F&P argue that this property can be straightforwardly accounted for by CL.
Consider the derivation in (4).
(4)

a.

[VP

V O]

b.

[CP S V O Adv [VP

tv to ]⇒

order:

V> O⇒

order:

S> V> O> Adv(=(3))1

The crucial point in (4) is that the relative order between V and O remains constant after
the SO of the VP and the CP. Therefore, no violation of the POP arises. On the other hand, in(3) and (3), whose derivation is schematically represented in (5), the POP is violated, since a
contradiction with respect to the relative order between V and O arises.
1

F&P assume that in Scandinavian, VP is a Spell-Out domain.

-2-

Lower Copy Pronunciation and Multiple Wh-Fronting in ATB Contexts (D.-H. An)

(5)

a.

[VP

V O]

b.

[CP S (aux) O Adv [VP

V to]

⇒

order:

V> O(=(3), (3))⇒

order: * S> (aux)> O> Adv> V

2.2. Deletion Analysis of ATB Constructions
In this section, I will briefly discuss the assumptions I adopt regarding ATB
constructions. Basically, I assume that an ATB construction like (6) involves a full-clausal
coordination that is subsequently reduced by PF deletion, as shown in (7) (see van Oirsouw
1987, Wilder 1994, 1997, among others, for relevant discussion). 2(6)What did John buy and Mary sell?

(7)[What did John buy] and [what did Mary sell]
Regarding the deletion process in coordinated sentences, I adopt the assumptions in (8).

(8)

a.

Conjunct clauses are spelled out separately (before they are conjoined),determining the conjunct-internal ordering relations.

b.

Part of the conjoining process is an evaluation procedure that applies to all
conjuncts, checking them for various constraints that hold for coordinatedstructures, including identity for deletion.3 (I will call this procedure Scan.)c.

Elements affected by deletion under identity are treated as copies of a single
element, which is a characteristic shared by copy-deletion.4

On these assumptions, the derivation of (7) proceeds as in (9).
(9)

a.

First conjunct: what > did > John > buyb.

Second conjunct: what > did > Mary > sell

2

Various mechanisms have been proposed to explain the nature of ATB constructions, e.g., deletion(van Oirsouw 1987, Wilder 1994, 1997), factorization (Williams 1977, 1978), null operator movement(Munn 1993), parallel movement (Burton and Grimshaw 1992, Ross 1967), sideward movement(Agbayani and Zoerner 2003, Hornstein and Nunes 2002), three dimensional structure (Goodall 1983,
1987, Moltmann 1992), and multi-dominance (Citko 2003, 2005).
3

I believe that in any theory of coordinated structures, there has to be some form of operationequivalent to Scan that checks the well-formedness of the structure, given the various forms ofparallelism requirements (see, e.g., Munn 1993, Fox 2000). It may be that Scan is an interface processthat applies at both LF and PF.
4

I am assuming that copy-deletion is also an operation of PF (Nunes 1995, 2004, Bošković 2001).
Chomsky (1993, 1995) also suggests that deletion of copies may be a subcase of a broader
phenomenon of ellipsis.

-3-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2c.

Conjunction, Scan, Target Selection: {what, did}d.

Deletion: what > did > John > buy > what > did > Mary > sell

One question that arises here is why the target has to delete in the second conjunct, as in(9). In fact, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (10), deletion must not affect the target in
the first conjunct.
(10) *John buy and what did Mary sell?
[what > did > John > buy > what > did > Mary > sell]
Crucially, I suggest that the output of the deletion operation in question must satisfy thePOP. That is, the surface position of the target after the application of deletion must be
consistent with the ordering relations established before the application of deletion. Note thatthe position of {what, did} in (10) after the application of deletion contradicts the ordering
relation in (9), according to which {what, did} has to precede {John, buy}. Therefore, thePOP is violated in (10), correctly predicting the ungrammaticality.
I provide below further evidence that the current proposal is on the right track. First, notethat multiple topicalization in coordinated sentences is possible, as shown by (11).
(11) The rabbit, the hunter followed in vain, and the bear, he caught in his backyard byaccident.
Moreover, topicalization can apply in an ATB fashion as well, as shown by (12). Here,the subject is also ATB-moved.
(12) The rabbit, the hunter followed in vain and caught in his backyard by accident.
Under the current analysis, the derivation of (12) can be represented as in (13).
(13) [The rabbit, the hunter followed t in vain] and [the rabbit, the hunter caught in
his backyard by accident]
The fact that the shared material cannot appear in the second conjunct is predicted, as
before, since that will violate the POP.
(14) *[The rabbit, the hunter followed t in vain] and [the rabbit, the hunter caught in
his backyard by accident].
It is also correctly predicted that the subject may not undergo ATB movement—that is,
PF deletion, if the topicalized elements that precede it are not identical. This is confirmed by
the ungrammaticality of (15).
(15) *The rabbit, the hunter followed in vain and the bear, __ caught in his backyard byaccident.

-4-Lower Copy Pronunciation and Multiple Wh-Fronting in ATB Contexts (D.-H. An)

Note that before the application of deletion, the ordering relations in (16) are established.
(16) a.
b.

First Conjunct: the rabbit > the hunter > followed > in vain
Second Conjunct: the bear > the hunter > caught > in his backyard > by accident

However, after the application of deletion, the position of the shared material {the,hunter} is not consistent with the ordering relation in (16), according to which {the, hunter}must follow {the, bear}. Therefore, the derivation of (15) is ruled out by a violation of thePOP.
3.

Lower Copy Pronunciation

In this section, I will summarize the basic patterns of MWF in some Slavic languages
and also Bošković’s (2001, 2002) analysis of lower copy pronunciation (see also Bobaljik
1995, 2002, Franks 1998).
First, it is well-known that wh-phrases must all undergo fronting in languages like
Bulgarian, Romanian, Russian, and Serbo-Croatian (Rudin 1988, Richards 1997, Stjepanović
1999, Pesetsky 2000, Bošković 2002, among many others).5 This is illustrated below. (Thedata in (17)-(19) are from Bošković 2002:355.)(17) a.

Ko šta kupuje? (SC)
who what buys

b. * Ko(18) a.

kupuje šta?

Koj kakvo e kupil? (B)
who whatis boughtb. * Koj e kupil kakvo?
(19) a.

Kto čto kupil? (Ru)
who what boughtb. * Kto kupil čto?
(20) a.

Cine
who

ce
what

cumpără? (Ro)buys

5There is some controversy regarding the precise landing site of multiple wh-fronting. For ease of
exposition, I will simply assume that wh-phrases in these languages move to CP. See Bošković 2002
for further discussion and references.

-5-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

b. * Cine

ce?6cumpără

Interestingly, there are contexts where multiple wh-fronting (MWF) is systematicallydisallowed in the languages in question. This is illustrated below. (The data in (21)-(24) arefrom Bošković 2002:364-365.)(21) a.

Šta uslovljava šta? (SC)what conditions whatb. * Šta šta(22) a.

uslovljava?

Kakvo obuslavlja kakvo? (B)whatconditions whatb. * Kakvo kakvo(23) a.

Čto obuslovilo
what conditionedb. * Čto čto(24) a.

obuslavlja?

ce

(Ru)

obuslovilo?

Ce precede
what precedesb. * Cečto?
what

ce? (Ro)
what

precede?

It is important to notice that there is a shared property in (21)-(24), which is absent in(17)-(20). That is, in (21)-(24), the relevant wh-phrases have the same phonological form, i.e.,they are homophonous. Given this, the generalization is that MWF is obligatory except when
the wh-phrases are homophonous. In the latter case, one of the wh-phrases has to stay in-situ.
Given this generalization, Bošković (2001, 2002b) argues that the languages in question
have a PF constraint that disallows a sequence of homophonous wh-phrases.7 (I will call thisPF constraint the what-what filter for convenience.) Note that the standard assumption is that
pronouncing the highest copy of a non-trivial chain is preferred (Chomsky 1993, 1995, Nunes
1995, 2004). Following Franks (1998), Bošković argues that this preference can beoverridden, i.e., a lower copy can be pronounced, iff this is necessary to avoid a PF
violation—that is, a violation of the what-what filter (see also Bobaljik 1995, 2002 fordiscussion on lower copy pronunciation). On Bošković’s analysis, the derivation of (21)proceeds as in (25). First, MWF applies normally, as in (25). If the structure surfaces as is, thewhat-what filter will be violated, as shown in (25), since the sentence contains a sequence of6

I ignore the speaker variation regarding the status of (20b) for ease of exposition.

7

Many languages have similar constraints that disallow sequences of homophonous elements. See
Billings and Rudin 1996 and Bošković 2001:102-103, fn.6 for relevant discussion and references.

-6-

Lower Copy Pronunciation and Multiple Wh-Fronting in ATB Contexts (D.-H. An)

homophonous wh-phrases. To avoid this PF violation, pronunciation of a lower copy isallowed, as in (25), correctly deriving the surface form of (21).
(25) a.

[CP šta štai [TP uslovljava štai]]8b. * [CP šta štai [TP uslovljava štai]]⇒*what-what filterc.

⇒√what-what filter[CP šta štai [TP uslovljava štai]]

An important point in this account is that MWF applies in a normal fashion in all thesentences in (21)-(24). In other words, all the wh-phrases actually undergo “overt” whfronting in these sentences. The in-situ-ness of the lower wh-phrase is therefore only apparent,
sanctioned by a low level PF constraint. As evidence for this claim, Bošković points out thatthe in-situ wh-phrase can license a parasitic gap, as shown by (26).
(26)

Ce precede
what precedes

ce fără
să
influenţeze e ? (Ro)what without SUBJ.PART influences‘What precedes what without influencing?’
Note that parasitic gaps are only licensed by overt wh-movement, as shown by (27).
Therefore, if the lower wh-phrase in (26) did not undergo overt wh-fronting, it would be
mysterious how the parasitic gap can be licensed in (26) (Cf. (27)).
(27) a.

* What precedes what without influencing e ?

b.

What does it precede without influencing e ?

4.

ATB Multiple Wh-Fronting

Given this background, we are now ready to examine the patterns of MWF in ATB
contexts. Consider the data below.
(28)

Ko šta razbija
who what is-breakingiuništava?
(SC)and is-destroying‘Who is breaking and destroying what?’(29)

Koj kakvo
who what(30)

Kto čtoslomal ibudet
who what broke and will

8

vze
took

ot
bibliotekata
from libraryiandpročete?
read

razrušat’? (Ru)
destroy

Irrelevant details, e.g., the lower copy of the first šta, are omitted.

-7-

(B)

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2(31)

Cine ce
who what

a
has

spart
şi
a
broken and has

distrus? (Ro)destroyed

The data in (28)-(31) show that MWF is possible in an ATB fashion. On the deletion
analysis of ATB constructions, the derivation of these sentences proceeds as in (32).
(32) a.

First conjunct: cine > ce > a spart ⇒

MWF

b.

Second conjunct: cine > ce > a distrus⇒c.

Conjunction, Scan, Target Selection: {Cine, ce}d.

Deletion: cine > ce > a spart > cine > ce > a distrus ⇒MWF

Deletion/ATB (= (31))

In each conjunct, MWF applies normally. When the conjuncts are conjoined, the targetof deletion is determined under identity, and deletion applies to it in a way that conforms to
the POP, correctly deriving the surface form of the sentence in (31).
5.

Lower Copy Pronunciation and ATB Multiple Wh-Fronting

Let us now examine the patterns of lower copy pronunciation in ATB MWF contexts
based on a set of novel data given below.
(33) a.

* Šta šta ruši
what what is-breakingiuništava? (SC)and is-destroyingb.

Šta ruši i uništavašta?

(34) a. ?* Kakvo kakvo udari
what
what
broke
b.

Kakvo

udari

(35) a. ?* Čto čto
what whatb.
(36) a.

b.

Čto

Ce

i izgorislomal i
broke andslomalo* Ce
cewhat whataiizgori?
(B)
and destroyed

i

kakvo
budet
will

budet razrušat’razrušat’? (Ru)
destroy
čto?

a
spart
şi
a
distrus?
(Ro)
has broken and has destroyed
spart

şi

a distrusce?

Note that when the wh-phrases are homophonous in coordinated sentences, one whphrase appears in the initial position of the first conjunct, while the other goes all the way
down to the end of the second conjunct. This peculiar distribution is correctly predicted by the-8-Lower Copy Pronunciation and Multiple Wh-Fronting in ATB Contexts (D.-H. An)

current analysis. The derivation of the grammatical sentences in (33)-(36) is given in (37).
(37) a.

[Ces ceo a spart] şi [ces ceo a distrus]

⇒

MWF

b.

[Ces a spart ceo] şi [ces a distrus ceo]⇒

The what-what filter9c.

[Ces a spart ceo] şi [ces a distrus ceo]⇒

Deletion/ATB(= (36))

How F&P’s CL captures this derivation should now be straightforward. For instance, forces, applying deletion in the second conjunct is the only way to be consistent with the ordering
relations in (38) and (38). On the other hand, for ceo, applying deletion in the first conjunct isthe only way that is consistent with both (38) and (38).
(38) a.
b.

First conjunct: ces > a spart > ceo
Second conjunct: ces > a distrus > ceo

Given this, the prediction is that the in-situ wh-phrase will not be allowed to appear in
the first conjunct, since in that position, the in-situ wh-phrase will necessarily contradict theordering relation established internally to the second conjunct (see the position of ceo in (38)).
This prediction is borne out by the ungrammaticality of the sentences in (39).
(39) a.

* Kakvo udari
what brokeb. ?? Cewhat

kakvo iwhat and

a
spart
ce
has broken what

izgori? (B)10
destroyedşiadistrus?
(Ro)and has destroyed

9

An implicit assumption here is that the what-what filter is part of the linearization process in thelanguages in question, given that it deals with the linear position of the relevant wh-phrases. Therefore,
the POP applies to the outcome of the what-what filter.
10

There seems to exist an apparent exception, where the in-situ wh-phrase appears in the first
conjunct.
(i)a.(?) Čto slomalo čto
what broke
what
b.

Šta
what

i
and

razrušilo?
destroyed

ruši
šta i
is-breaking what anduništava?
is-destroying

(Ru)
(SC)

However, Željko Bošković (p.c.) and Natasha Fitzgibbons (p.c.) note that a pause must clearly appear
after the first conjunct in (i), unlike in (33b) and (35b). Given this, I assume that the apparent second
conjunct in (i) is an afterthought, which is not coordinated with the preceding clause. In other words, I
assume that the sentences in (i) are not a genuine instance of ATB construction.

-9-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 26.

Extension: Right Node Raising

I argue in this section that the current analysis can be extended to capture the peculiar
distribution of the shared material in RNR constructions as well. Without going into details, I
adopt here a PF deletion analysis of RNR, according to which an RNR sentence like (40) is
derived as in (41).11(40)

Tom believes, and John suspects, that Einstein is from Mars.

(41)[Tom believes that Einstein is from Mars] and [John suspects that Einstein is fromMars]

6.1. The Distribution of the Shared Material in RNRFirst, the shared material in RNR can only appear in the final conjunct, as shown in (42).
Under the deletion analysis of RNR, this means that deletion should affect all and only nonfinal conjuncts, i.e., deletion must not affect the final conjunct, as shown in (43).
(42) a.

Tom believes, Mary suspects, and John denies, that Einstein is from Mars.

b.

* Tom believes, that Einstein is from Mars, Mary suspects, and John denies.

c.

* Tom believes, Mary suspects, that Einstein is from Mars, and John denies.

(43) a.

[first conjunct] [target] [second conjunct] [target] [third conjunct] [target]b.

* [first conjunct] [target] [second conjunct] [target] [third conjunct] [target]c.

* [first conjunct] [target] [second conjunct] [target] [third conjunct] [target]

Second, the shared material must form an unbroken string, as shown by the contrast in(44). This is also schematically represented in (45).
(44) a.

* Lydia-nun _____
L-top
Nina-nun Ana-ka
N-top
A-nom

ppang-ul ___________________
bread-acc
bap-ulmekess-tako malhaessta
rice-acc ate-compsaidkuliko (Korean)and‘Lydia (said that Ana ate) bread and Nina said that Ana ate rice.’

11

In the literature, basically three different approaches exist regarding RNR constructions: ATB
movement (Ross 1967, Sabbagh 2003), multiple dominance (McCawley 1982, Wilder 1999, 2001,
Abels 2003, Chung 2004, Park 2005), and PF deletion (Wexler and Culicover 1980, van Oirsouw
1987, Swingle 1993, Wilder 1994, 1997, Hartmann 2000, Abels 2003, Mukai 2003, Bošković 2004, te
Velde 2005, Ha 2006, An 2007). I refer the reader to An 2007 for extensive arguments for the PF
deletion analysis of RNR.

-10-

Lower Copy Pronunciation and Multiple Wh-Fronting in ATB Contexts (D.-H. An)b.

Lydia-nun Ana-ka
L-top
A-nom
Nina-nun Tomo-ka
N-top
T-nom

___________________________
bap-ulrice-acc

kulikoandmekess-tako malhaessta
ate-comp
said‘Lydia (said that) Ana (ate rice) and Nina said that Tomo ate rice.’(45)* [A B 1 C 2] & [D E 1 F 2]

Third, the deleted string, i.e., the shared material, must occupy the edge of its conjunct,as shown by the contrast in (46). This is also schematically represented in (47).
(46) a.

* Tomo-nun Lydia-ka
T-top
L-nom
Nina-nun Ana-ka
N-top
A-nom

___________________________
pang-eyse chayk-ul ilkess-takoroom-atbook-acc read-compssesstakulikowrote
andmalhayssta
said‘Tomo wrote (that) Lydia (read a book in the room) and Nina said that Ana read abook in the room.’b.

Tomo-nun Lydia-ka
T-top
L-nom
Nina-nun Ana-ka
N-top
A-nom

_____________________________________
pang-eyse chayk-ul
room-atbook-acc

kulikoandilkess-tako malhayssta
read-comp said

‘Tomo (said that) Lydia (read a book in the room) and Nina said that Ana read abook in the room.’(47)* [A B 1 2 C] & [D E 1 2 F]
I will show below that the current analysis can derive these properties by adopting F&P’s

CL.
6.2. Deriving RNR
Let us first see why the fact that the shared material can only appear in the final conjunct.
(48) schematically illustrates how an ordinary RNR sentence like (40) is derived.
(48) a.

First conjunct: A> B> 1> 2> 3b.

Second conjunct: C> D> 1> 2> 3c.

Conjunction, Scan, Target Selection: {1, 2, 3}d.

Deletion: A> B> 1> 2> 3> C> D> 1> 2> 3

Note that the surface position of the shared material in (48) does not lead to a-11-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

contradiction with respect to (48) and (48). Note that if deletion affects the target in the final
conjunct, as in (49), a contradiction arises with respect to (48). The ungrammaticality of (50)thus confirms this conclusion.
(49)* A> B> 1> 2> 3> C> D> 1> 2> 3

(50)

* Tom believes that Einstein is from Mars and John suspects.

This way, the current analysis derives the fact that the shared material in RNR must
appear in the final conjunct.
Next, let us see how the current analysis derives the fact that the shared material must
form an unbroken string. The derivation of the ungrammatical sentence in (44), repeated hereas (51), is schematically represented in (52).
(51)* Lydia-nun _____
L-top
Nina-nun Ana-ka
N-top
A-nom

ppang-ul ___________________ kuliko
bread-acc
andbap-ulmekess-tako malhaessta
rice-acc ate-comp
said(Korean)‘Lydia (said that Ana ate) bread and Nina said that Ana ate rice.’(52) a.

First conjunct: A> B> 1> C> 2b.

Second conjunct: D> E> 1> F> 2c.

Conjunction, Scan, Target Selection: {1, 2}d.

Deletion: *A> B> 1> C> 2> D> E> 1> F> 2

The output of (52) contradicts the ordering relation in (52), according to which 1 should
precede C.12
Finally, let us see how the requirement that the shared material occupy the edge of its
conjunct can be derived. I repeat the relevant example below as (53).
(53)* Tomo-nun Lydia-ka
T-top
L-nom
Nina-nun Ana-ka
N-top
A-nom

___________________________
pang-eyse chayk-ul
room-atbook-acc

ilkess-takoread-compssesstakulikowrote
andmalhayssta
said‘Tomo wrote (that) Lydia (read a book in the room) and Nina said that Ana read abook in the room.’
12

Recall that applying deletion in the final conjunct always leads to an ordering contradiction, as
discussed based on (48)-(50). Therefore, deleting the target in the second conjunct in (52) will not do
any good.

-12-Lower Copy Pronunciation and Multiple Wh-Fronting in ATB Contexts (D.-H. An)

The derivation of (53) proceeds as in (54).
(54) a.

First conjunct: A> B> 1> 2> Cb.

Second conjunct: D> E> 1> 2> Fc.

Conjunction, Scan, Target Selection:{1, 2}d.

Deletion: * A> B> 1> 2> C> D> E> 1> 2> F

The output of deletion in (54) contradicts the ordering relation in (54), according towhich the shared material {1,2} must precede C. Therefore, the sentence is ruled out by aviolation of the POP. Again, deleting the target in the second conjunct will not help, since italways leads to a violation of the POP.
I have argued in this section that the current analysis can be extended to capture thepeculiar distribution of the shared material in RNR constructions as well.
7.

Conclusion

I have argued in this paper that adopting F&P’s CL allows us to derive several
generalizations regarding the position of the shared material in ATB and RNR constructions. I
have shown that the current analysis accounts for a set of novel data from some Slavic
languages that involve lower copy pronunciation in ATB MWF contexts. In addition, thecurrent analysis provides indirect support for the PF deletion analysis of ATB and RNR
constructions in the sense that in explaining the properties examined above, the deletion
analysis does not require any additional machinery, although its alternatives do.

References
Abels, Klaus. 2003. Right Node Raising: Ellipsis or Across the Board Movement? In Proceedings of
NELS 34, ed. by Keir Moulton and Matthew Wolf, 45-59. GLSA, Amherst.
Agbayani, Brian and Ed Zoerner. 2003. A sideward movement approach to non-constituent deletion.
Paper presented at WECOL 2003 University of Arizona, September.
An, Duk-Ho. 2007. Syntax at the PF interface: Prosodic mapping, linear order, and deletion. Ph.D.
dissertation. University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Billings, Loren and Catherine Rudin. 1996. Optimality and superiority: A new approach to multiplewh ordering. In Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The College Park meeting, (1994) J.
Toman (ed.), 35-60. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Ph.D. dissertation.
MIT.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002. A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and ‘covert’ movement. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 20:197-267.

-13-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Bošković, Željko. 2001. On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface: Cliticization and Related
Phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33:351-383.
Bošković, Željko. 2004. Two notes on right node raising. In University of Connecticut Working
Papers in Linguistics 12, ed. Miguel Rodriguez Mondonedo and M. Emma Ticio, 13-24.
Department of Linguistics, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Burton, Strang and Jane Grimshaw. 1992. Coordination and VP-internal subject. Linguistic Inquiry
23:305-313.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from building 20:
Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1-52.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor ofHoward Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 53-87. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz,
1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chung, Dae-Ho. 2004. Multiple dominance analysis of Right Node Raising. Language Research
40:791-812.
Citko, Barbara. 2003. Parallel Merge and across-the-board wh-movement. Ms. University ofConnecticut.
Citko, Barbara. 2005. On the nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge, and Parallel Merge.
Linguistic Inquiry 36:475-496.
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Fox, Danny and David Pesetsky. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical
Linguistics 31:1-45.
Franks, Steven. 1998. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax revisited: A minimalist retrospective. In
Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Connecticut meeting, 1997, ed. Željko
Bošković, Steven Franks and William Snyder, 134-165. Ann Arbor.: Michigan Slavic
Publications.
Goodall, Grant. 1983. A three-dimensional analysis of coordination. CLS 19, 146-154.
Goodall, Grant. 1987. Parallel structures in syntax: Coordination, causatives, and restructuring.
London: Cambridge University Press.
Ha, Seungwan. 2006. Multiple dominance CAN'T, but PF-deletion CAN account for Right Node
Raising. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society,
April.
Hartmann, Katharina. 2000. Right Node Raising and Gapping: Interface conditions on prosodic
deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Holmberg, Anders. 1999. Remarks on Holmberg’s generalization. Studia Linguistica 53:1-39.
Hornstein, Norbert and Jairo Nunes. 2002. On asymmetries between parasitic gap and across-theboard constructions. Syntax 5, 26-54.
McCawley, James D. 1982. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry
13:91-106.

-14-

Lower Copy Pronunciation and Multiple Wh-Fronting in ATB Contexts (D.-H. An)

Moltmann, Frederike. 1992. Coordination and Comparatives. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT.
Mukai, Emi. 2003. On verbless conjunction in Japanese. In Proceedings of North East LinguisticSociety 33, ed. by Makoto Kadowaki and Shigeto Kawahara, 205-224. Amherst, Mass.:
GLSA.
Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. Ph.D. dissertation.
University of Maryland, College Park.
Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The Copy Theory of Movement and Linearization of Chains in the Minimalist
Program. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Maryland at College Park.
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
van Oirsouw, Robert R. 1987. The syntax of coordination. London: Croom Helm.
Park, Myung-Kwan. 2005. When things are coordinated or distributed across coordinate conjuncts.
Paper presented at the 7th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar. Konkuk
University, Seoul.
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Richards, Norvin W. 1997. What moves where when in which language? Ph.D. dissertation. MIT.
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT. [Published as
Infinite Syntax! Norwood, N. J.: Ablex (1986)]
Rudin, Catherine. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 6: 455-501.
Sabbagh, Joseph A. 2003. Ordering and linearizing rightward movement. In Proceedings of the 22ndWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Gina Garding and Mimu Tsujimura,436-449. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla.
Stjepanović, Sandra. 1999. What do second position cliticization, scrambling, and multiple whfronting have in common? Ph.D. dissertation. University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Swingle, Kari. 1993. The role of prosody in Right Node Raising. Syntax at Santa Cruz 2:84-111.
te Velde, John R. 2005. Unifying prosody and syntax for right- and left-edge coordinate ellipsis.
Lingua 115:483-502.
Wexler, Kenneth and Peter Culicover. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Wilder, Chris. 1994. Coordination, ATB and Ellipsis. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen
Linguistik (GAGL) 37, 291-329.
Wilder, Chris. 1997. Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. In Studies on universal grammar andtypological variation, Artemis Alexiadou and T. Alan Hall (eds), 59-107.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wilder, Chris. 1999. Right node raising and the LCA. In Proceedings of the 18th West Coast
Conferences on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Andrew Carnie Sonya F. Bird, Jason D. Haugen,and Peter Norquest, 586-598. Cascadilla Press.
Wilder, Chris. 2001. Shared constituent and linearization. Ms. ZAS, Berlin.
Williams, Edwin. 1977. Across-the-board application of rules. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 419-423.
Williams, Edwin. 1978. Across-the-board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 31-43.

-15-