The Linguistic Review 6: 265-279

THE ATB THEORY OF PARASITIC GAPS

EDWIN WILLIAMS

I would like to explore some considerations that suggest that all parasiticgaps arise äs a consequence of the principle of across-the-board (ATB)rule application. This proposal was first hinted at in ROSS (1967); it wasadopted for Dutch by Huybregts and van Riemsdijk (1984), but rejectedby them for English, which they assume to have 'Chomsky style' parasiticgaps along the lines of Chomsky (1982, 1986). I want to show that thereis an ATB theory which accounts for the basic properties of all parasiticgaps. An account similar to the present one in several respects, butindependently arrived at, is that of Haik (1985). In the course of outliningmy ideas I will point out comparisons with hers. The principle differencesbetween her proposals and mine are that in her view, parasitic gaps arenot traces in s-structure, whereas they are in mine, arising äs any ATBgap arises; and in her view, the coordination that licences the parasiticgaps arises through a restructuring of s-structure (to derive LF) whereasin mine parasitic gaps are licenced by s-structure coordination like allATB gaps.

Consider the following typical parasitic gap (pg):

(1) Who would you warn / before striking/?#

Suppose that (1) is structured in the following way:

(2) Who [[would you warn /]s [before striking pg]$\s

If the juncture between the two interior Ss were nominated "coordinating"instead of "subordinating", then the so-called parasitic gap would ariseäs a normal second gap in a coordinate structure. I will postpone untilsection 7 the question of what it means to call a pair of sisters "coordinative".I will use an abstract marker "COORD" to mark a juncture that is construedäs coordinate; thus (2) will be marked äs follows:

(3) Who [[would you warn r]s COORD [before striking pg]s]s

Clearly the juncture in (2) must be optionally coordinative, eise only (2)would be derived, and not (4):

(4) Who [[would you warn f]s [before striking him]s]s

äs this would otherwise violate the Coordinate Structure Constraint, ästhe extraction is not ATB.The Linguistic Revier 6 (1989-1990) 265-279. 0.167-6318/88/500732X7$ 02.75Copyright © 1990 by Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Holland. U.S.A.

266

In fact, parasitic gaps are always optional, and so the junctures thatgive rise to them are optionally coordinative. The only difference thenbetween such junctures and true coordinative junctures, such, äs thosemarked by and, is that the latter are obligatorily construed äs coordinative.For the conjunction before it is a reasonable Stretch to call it ambiguously"coordinating" or "subordinating". Other cases strain the meaning of theterm however. Consider the cases in which the parasitic gap is in a relativeclause:

(5) Who does everyone who meets pg like t

It is not so obvious what could be construed äs coordinated with whathere; but it is somewhat clearer in the following, where the relative isextraposed:

(6) Who does [[everyone like t] [who meets pg]]

It might be said that in (6) the relative is optionally construed äs coordinatedwith the matrix S, and if it is, then extraction is from both conjunctsin the ATB fashion. We might say of (5) that the derivation of the pgis based on (6) in some manner. We will return to pgs in relative clausesin section 4.

Even more difficult to reconcile with ordinary notions of coordinationare the parasitic gaps that appear in simple subjects:

(7) Who would [pictures of pg] [impress /]

Here, we would be required to say that the juncture between the subjectand the VP was optionally construed äs coordinating.

1. COORDINATION

What dpes it mean to refer to some juncture äs "coordinating" if it doesnot contain a conjunction? I will defer a füll discussion of this questionuntil the end of the paper, but a few remarks are in order here. A truecoordination, one based on a conjunction, consists of three parts: twoidentical nodes, and a governing conjunction:

(8) conj: X X

If we lax the condition that the two nodes must be identical, and thecondition that the governor must be a conjunction, we can generate thefüll set of environments in which pgs occur:

(9) a. before: S'S'

267

(9) b. INFL: NP VPc. verb: NP NPd. the: S' S' (see section 4)

A simple indication that the structures just discussed can have a coordinativecharacter is that they admit Right Node Raising extractions, which areordinarily found only in coordinate structures:

(10) I talked to /, without actually meeting / all of the members whovoted against Hinkly

Even the relative clauses cases are surprisingly amenable to this kind ofextraction:

(11) Anyone who meets / really comes to like / any of our salespeople

The exception is the NP VP cases:

(12) *Full-sized pictures of / really upset t any of the vampires you• can find these days

But these are the most marginal cases for parasitic gaps in the first place,the reason being, if any of this is right, that the NP VP juncture is mostresistant to being construed äs coordinating.

In fact, the cases which have been analyzed in the literature äs pgslicenced by Heavy NP Shift (HNPS) are actually cases of Right NodeRaising (RNR) applying in ATB fashion, äs it always does:

(13) I read t without filing / all of these books

A couple of observations support this. First, Heavy NP Shift cannot removean N P from a PP:

(14) * I talked to t yesterday all of your stupid friends

But RNR can remove an NP from a PP:

(15) I talked to and intimidated all of your stupid friends

And, äs we have seen, the pgs in such cases äs (10) are licenced by tracesin PPs - so these could not have arisen via HNPS. Furthermore, whenthe moved NP does not cross the adjunct, no pg is licenced:

(16) * I säw / yesterday all your friends without talking to t

So, Heavy NP Shift does not licence parasitic gaps; rather, the gaps thought

268

to arise from HNPS are due to ATB application of RNR. Of course, thereis nothing in principle to prevent HNPS from applying in ATB fashionäs well; but, since HNPS does not perform extractions of any sort, äs(14) shows, it could never give rise to ATB gaps.

In sum, then, I am suggesting that a number of junctures that are notstrictly coordinative be optionally construable äs coordinating, and thatthis is the source of all parasitic gaps - they arise äs normal gaps throughthe mechanisms of the ATB formalism.

2. THE C-COMMAND CONDITION

The c-command condition on pgs follows from the ATB theory with someordinary assumptions, in fact ones already made in the literature.

A subject trace cannot licence a pg that it commands (p. 149 fromChomsky 1987):

(17) *Who / warned the men that they were about t o arrest pg

Under the ATB theory, this example would have the following structure:

(18) Who [[/] COORD [warned the men that they were about to arrestpg]]

But it is a general property of ATB constructions that it is impossibleto remove the entirety of one conjunct (a theorem in fact of the ATBformalism of Williams 1978):

(19) *Who did John see t and pictures of /

But in the case of object main gaps, the entirety prohibition would seemto be violated:

(20) Who did you warn t that you would kill /

We might assume, äs Chomsky (1986) following Stowell (1981) does, thatthe complement clause is extraposed; then the structure of (20) will be

(21) Who did you [warn /]VP COORD [that you would kill pg]s]v?

Here, the inner VP is COORDinated with the complement S, and theentirety prohibition is respected. Note that the extraposition must be tothe edge of VP, and not to the edge of S, eise subject gaps would belicenced.

However, it may be an illusion that object traces can licence parasiticgaps. The illusion is based on the fact that the direct object of certainverbs is optional, or implicit:

269

(22) I warned that I would talk to Bill

When the direct object is implicit, it is pragmatically inferred. I thinkthat the direct object in (21) is not a trace, but is an implicit argumentwhich is interpreted äs (optionally) related to the Wh-word, and the tracein the complement is the primary and only extraction. Under this view,verbs which take obligatory direct objects pgs in the complement clausesshould be worse, and this seems to be the case:

(23) *John, who I V'ed / that Bill was looking for t

a. verb = *tell, *persuade, *convince, *informb. verb = warn, promise

The (a) verbs, but not the (b) verbs, require direct objects. It is reasonableto conclude that the pg is systematically excluded in the complement ifthere is a gap.

Why the exclusion, if it is so? In the previous accounts, such äs Chomsky(1982) and Engdahl (1983), these pgs are excluded because of the anti-c-command condition. In the present context, they are excluded becausethere is no juncture that could licence to configuration of the gaps. Thedirect object could be COORDinated with the complement, but, äs wehave seen, the ATB principle does not permit either conjunct to be totallyevacuated, and in this case the direct object is totally evacuated. Assumingthat the object forms a small VP with the verb will not help either, ifwe require there to be a governing COORDinator: there is no candidatefor this in the juncture of the small VP and the complement S.

Of course it will be possible to extract a pari of the direct object andpart of the complement:

(24) John, who I warned friends of t that Bill was looking for i

Here the juncture of the direct object and the complement is governedby the verb, which is taken to be the governing COORDinator. This isan awkward juncture to construe äs COORDinated, and so the result ison the low end of the scale for pg constructions, but it is possible.

3. CONNECTEDNESS

A rather strong argument for the ATB derivation of parasitic gaps is basedon the observation that Kayne's results about the "connectedness" ofstructures with parasitic gaps will follow. A similar account of the relationbetween connectedness and the ATB account is given in Haik (1985).

Kayne observed, contra Chomsky (1982), that there were "movement"-like restrictions pn parasitic gaps, äs illustrated in the following, where

270

the pg seems to violate something like the condition against extractingfrom subjects, even though in other circumstances, pgs inside subjectPosition are alowed (25b):

(25) a. * Which stars do people that think pictures of pg are attractiveannoy /

b. Which stars do pictures of pg annoy t

Apparently, if a pg is to occur in a subject, the true gap must be closeby.

Kayne further observed that pgs such äs the offending one in (25b)bould be "saved" by the insertion of further pgs close by; in other words,a pg could licence a pg:

(26) Which stars do people that think pictures of pg impress pg annoy

Kayne proposed that the second pg served äs a bridge to properly "connect"the first, otherwise illicit, pg to its antecedent Wh-phrase; this connecting,the primary focus of his paper, was accomplished by definitions that Iwill not explore here.

Rather, I will be satisfied to show that the type of examples that Kayneuses to make his point are accounted for by the ATB principle.

This will consist in showing, for example, that there is a consistentassignment of the "COORD" marker to the nodes of (25b) and of (26),but not of (25a). (25b) is marked äs follows:

(27) Which stars do [pictures of /] COORD [annoy t]

That is, the subject and VP are COORDinated, and extraction appliesATB. Since the assignment of COORD is optional, other possibilities are:

(28) a. * Which stars do [pictures of /] [annoy t]b. * Which stars do [pictures of /] COORD [annoy us]c. * Which stars do [pictures of t] [annoy us]

(28a) has ATB rule application but not to a coordinate structure, so i tcounts äs a subject condition violation. (28b) violates the ATB principle.(28c) is a violation of the subject condition.

Now, consider (25a = 20), and recall that relative clauses must appearin extraposition:

(29) * Which stars do [people annoy /] Xi that think [pictures of pg]X2 [are attractive]

XI and X2 mark two junctures in this sentence. Xi must be COORD,since there are two gaps, one in each conjunct of XI. Now, suppose that

271

X2 is COORD. Then (29) violates the ATB principle, äs the conjunctsof X2 do not both contain gaps. On the other band, suppose that X2is not COORD; then (29) is a simple subject extraction violation, justlike (28c). So there is no assignment of COORD that will allow this.

But for (26 = 21) there is an assignment of COORD that results in avalid structure, namely:

(30) Which stars do [people annoy /] COORD [that think [pictures ofpg] COORD [impress/?£]]

The relative must be COORD with the matrix S, and the embedded subjectwith its VP; in that case, all gaps are ATB gaps.

I believe that not only for these cases, but for all possible cases, theATB principle will construct only structures "connected" in the sense ofKayne.

In the preceding examples I have used "pg" to mark parasitic gaps;however it should be clear that the "pg" in these structures is not reallyparasitic on the "real" gap; in fact, both gaps have equal Status, eachoccurring in a conjunct marked with COORD. The sense that one gapis depejident on the other derive from the fact that junctures not markedCOORD but otherwise identical to these permit extraction from only oneterm of the juncture.

Chomsky (1987), citing Kearney, argue that the parasitic gap is trulyparasitic, from the following examples (Chomsky 1987, from Kearney 1983):

(31) a. Which books about himself did John file / before Mary reade

b. * Which books about herseif did John file / before Mary reade

The "real", but not the "parasitic" gap Supports reconstruction, suggestingthat it has a different Status from the "real" gap. But the effect theseexcamples illustrate is actually a "proximity" effect, äs it shows up incoordinate structures äs well, weher both gaps are "real":

(32) a. Which books about himself did John file t and Mary reade

b. * Which books about herseif did John file / and Mary reade

In fact, it is possible to show that parasitic gaps do show reconstructioneffects entirely parallel to real gaps:

(33) Whose mother did we warn t before he arrested pg

He is understood äs not linked to whose, presumably because he c-commands

272

the trace (pg) that whose mother binds, a typical reconstruction effect.Hence, there is every reason to consider the two gaps on a par.

4. PARASITIC GAPS IN RELATIVE CLAUSES

The pgs in relative clauses present a problem for the theory of subjacentmovement, äs they appear to violate Ross's (1967) Complex NP Constraint(CNPC). And äs Kayne (1984) and Chomsky (1987) have shown, anyembedding of a pg in a complex NP other than a relative at the same"level" äs the real gap always leads to ungrammaticality. Chomsky solvesthe problem of the relative clause by positing an abstract operator movementin the derivation of pgs; in the case of relative clause pgs, this yields structuresof the following kind (ex. 136a from Chomsky 1987):

(34) He is a man that [everyone [CP G [that gives presents to B]]] likesA

Presumably in the Spec of CP G is close enough to the chain of the realgap to be Consolidated with it in the manner Chomsky goes on to describe.

But, according to Chomsky, only a very special kind of relative willpermit this, namely one which is formed by "vacuous" movement of thetopmost subject - otherwise the Spec of COMP will be occupied, andG cannot move there. In support of this Chomsky cites the following:

(35) *This is a book that any man to whom we'll give e t will likee

This follows, he says, because to whom occupies Spec of CP, preventingG from moving there. However, this example can be ruled out on othergrounds, namely that it violates the Nested Dependency Condition, äsbook binds e and to whom binds t. And, in fact, if the binders are reversed,(35) improves markedly:

(36) This is a man that any book we give e i please /

And besides this example, there are other examples of relative clauseswith pgs that could not have been formed by vacious movement, but whichdo obey the Nested Dependency Constraint:

(37) This is the book which anyone who I persuade /' to read pg likes

Here, who binds /'. So it appears that the vacuous movement hypothesis(VMH) along with the operator G cannot provide for the füll ränge ofpgs in relative clauses, so the problem of why pgs in relatives do notcount äs severe CNPC violations remains.

273

We might first consider relative clauses that are extraposed; such relativesmight then be construed äs COORDinated with the matrix S:

(38) He is a man that [everyone likes t] COORD [that gives presentsto t]

The extraction from this structure is still a violation of subjacency, butperhaps one on a par with a Wh-island extraction, that is, on the edgeof acceptability, and no longer a CNPC violation. It is not at all clearthat (38) should be accorded higher Status than that; it is certainly betterthan an extraction from a complex NP extraction, but not perhaps perfect.

On the other hand, a primary (nonparasitic) extraction from a relativeclause is worse than primary extraction from Wh-island, even when therelative is extraposed:

(39) He is a man that everyone dies who meets t

This would seem to make the analysis in (38) suspect. But of course aprimary extraction does not involve COORDination. In the next sectionwe will look at the process of Subordination or demotion of adjuncts,which permits weakly grammatical primary extractions from them, puttingthem on a par with Wh-islands; if relative clauses are not subject to thisSubordination, then there will be a reason in addition to subjacency forthe ungrammaticality of a primary extraction, something like Huang's(1982) CED.

Now, what about parasitic gaps in unextraposed relatives? We might,äs Haik (1985) did, consider deriving an extraposed structure, and sanc-tioning the parasitic gaps in that structure, just äs above. Apart fromthe fact that it works, there are some further considerations which suggestthis. First, there is the fact that relatives do extrapose in s-structure. Second,there are languages in which relatives are always extraposed (Hittite,Bangla); these "correlatives" in fact resemble adjunct conditional clauses.There is a sense in which relatives even in English, especially ones withindefinite heads, resemble adjunct clauses; note the close parallel betweenthese two:

(40) a. Anyone can stay who has not finishedb. Anyone can stay if he has not finished

And, in fact, it is the relatives with indefinite heads (the one most easilyparaphrased äs adjuncts) that admit parasitic gaps:

(41) a. ?? What did that friend of yours that bought pg break /b. What did anyone who bought pg break t

Finally, sentential complements to nouns are in the same structural

274

configuration äs relative clauses in all relevant respects, but they do notbear an adjunctual relation to the matrix; rather, they are a part of thetheta structure of the NP in which they appear. And they absolutely donot admit parasitic gaps, äs observed independently by Haik (1985):

(42) * Who did the idea that Bill might kill pg occur to /

But it is perhaps unnecessary to invoke a literal extraposition, and theconcomitant commitment to an LF representation distinct from s-structure.If we return to the idea that a coordinate structure consists of a governingCOORDinator and two phrases, we might consider identifying these itemsin s-structure without restructuring it. The obvious candidate for theCOORDinator is the determiner. In a sense, the relates the relative clauseto the matrix. This relation is expressed in the traditional logical translationof the determiner:

(43) The man who won died

(44) the ((x win) & (x died))there is a unique x such that x won and x died

In this rendition, the relative and the matrix turn out to be parallelconstituents under the operator the, much äs two conjuncts are constituentsunder the moperator and. Perhaps it is this notion of constituency - parallelarguments of a bivalent operator - that permits ATB extraction.

Another bivalent operator is than, and here too we find parasitic gaps,even when the subject is not extraposed, äs in (a) below, and even, äsin (b), when it could not be extraposed without changing the meaning:

(45) a. Who did more people [than we had expected to V /] see /b. What can you eat more of than your father did [V f] without

flinching

The coordinate structure constraint would then read:

(46) If an item is extracted from one argument of a bi- (or multi-) valentoperator, then an extraction must be made from every argumentof that operator.

5. ADJUNCT ASSYMETRIES

The following suggests that there is a second way, besides COORD, inwhich an adjunct may be "adjusted" in its relation to the rest of the sentence:

(47) a. Which boy would you warn / before striking /

275

(47) b. Which boy would you warn t before striking himc. * Which boy would you warn him before striking /

It is ordinarily assumed that adjuncts cannot be extracted from (by a primaryextraction). But (47c) cannot be ruled out simply by prohibiting extractionfrom adjuncts, because it contrasts sharply with the following:

(48) Which boy would you warn Mary before striking t

To generate (48), extraction from an adjunct must be permitted. Perhaps(48) still has a marginal Status; we might suppose that in order to extractfrom an adjunct, it is necessary to put the adjunct in the VP so that itis governed, and that this "demotion" of an adjunct from S dominationto VP domination is what is responsible for the marginality:

(49) Which boy would you [warn Mary before striking t]

Suppose that the adjunct is demoted, and in effect taken to be an argumentof the verb. Then the direct object will c-command it. This will accountfor the contrast between (47c) and (37): in (47c) the adjunct is demoted,so the pronoun him will command it, and the trace it contains, givinga condition C violation. In (48), no demotion takes place.

The other thing that can happen is that the adjunct can be construedäs COORDinated with the matrix; in that case, we get ATB extraction.This accounts for the paradigm in (47):

a b c

demotion * by C OK by ATB * by CCOORD OKbyATB * by ATB * by ATB

There is no need in this account of parasitic gaps for a principle of thekind proposed by Safir (1984) (the PCOB), which says that if an operatorbinds two variables, they must be either both empty categories, or bothnot. The fact that the parasitic gap cases always result in two gaps followsfrom the ATB principle, which is always involved when there are twogaps. Safir's principle has scope beyond parasitic gap structures whichl will not explore here, and so still may be valid.

The different roles of demotion and COORDination in licencing ex-traction can be seen in extraction from preposed adjuncts:

(50) a. This is the boy that I gave a warning to Bill before I shotat /

b.c. This is the boy that [before I shot at t1] l gave a warningtob. r'c. * Bill

276

(50) shows that the adjunct in question can be demoted and can containa primary extraction. But when the adjunct is preposed, äs in (50b), itcannot be demoted to VP domination, and so t1 äs a primary extractionis impossible; however, the adjunct can still be COORDinated with thematrix S, making i1 one of a pair of ATB extractions (50c).

A further argument for demotion comes from the following paradigm:

(51) a. Who did you warn Mary without telling tb. I warned her before striking Maryc. Who did you warn Mary before striking her without telling

td. * Who did you warn her before striking Mary without telling

(51a) shows that the without phrase can be demoted, and extracted from.(51b) shows that the before phrase is optionally demoted, for if it weredemoted in (b), a condition C violation should result. (51c) plausiblyinvolves the demotion of both the before and the without phrases, thedemotion of the latter forcing the demotion of the former; if, for example,the demotion involves putting it into the VP, then this would be the result.And (51d) shows that this is in fact the case: the demotion of the secondadjunct for purposes of extraction forces the demotion of the first adjunct,which leads to a condition C violation.

The same point can be made with the following more succinct examples:in the (a) example, the subordinate character of the adjunct is guaranteedby the extraction from it; the NP which it contains should therefore bestrictly not coreferential with the matrix object, which c-commands thedemoted position:

(52) a. * Who did we arrest herj before Maryj could shoot /b. We arrested he^ before Maryj could shoot Billc. Who did we arrest Bill before Mary could shootd. * Who should I shoot herj if Maryj talks toe. You should shoot her if Mary talks to Billf. Who should I shoot Bill if Mary talks to

Though more succinct than the previous examples, these are perhaps noeasier to judge.

6. DOUBLE EXTRACTIONS

A further argument for the ATB account can be derived from considerationof examples derived from the following model:

277

(53) Which book do you wonder who[Bill told - that Mary bought -] COORD[before Sam persuaded - that Mary wanted -]

The juncture marked COORD is obligatorily so marked, äs each Wh-phrase binds two gaps, one in each of the conjuncts of COORD.

The striking generalization that holds of (53) is that if one of the parasiticgaps is replaced by a pronoun, then the other must be äs well:

(54) Which book do you wonder who[Bill told - that Mary bought - ] COORD[before Sam persuaded - that Mary wanted -]

(55) Which book do you wonder who[Bill told - that Mary bought - ][before Sam persuaded him that Mary wanted it]

(56) * Which book do you wonder who[Bill told - that Mary bought - ]

• (before Sam persuaded him that Mary wanted - ]

(57) * Which book do you wonder who[Bill told - that Mary bought - ][before Sam persuaded — that Mary wanted it]

The explanation is straightforward: if one gap is replaced by a pronoun,then its mate is no longer a member of an ATB pair of gaps: the unaffectedpair of ATB gaps nevertheless requires the presence of the COORD marking,but with that marking, all gaps must be ATB, and so the mate of thepronoun is in violation.

7. WHAT IS A COORDINATE STRUCTURE?

What does it mean to say that the NP and VP of a sentence can be "construedto be coordinate"? What is a coordinate structure?

A true coordinate structure is a bivalent operator governing two perfectlysymmetrical arguments. The relevant points of symmetry are syntactic andsemantic. Syntactic symmetry involves categorial identity; semantic identityinvolves identity of semantic function.

Structures which show one kind of symmetry, but lack another, willbe quasi-coordinate. Often, for example, and involves causal or temporalsequencing, äs in

(58) a. John went to town and bought a bookb. John was wounded and died

278

When the coordination is not perfectly symmetrical, exceptions to the ATBprinciple creep in:

(59) a. What did John go to town and buy tb. * What does John have a pipe and want

The temporal sequencing in (59a) makes the coordination nonsymmetrical,and the non-ATB extraction is tolerable; in (59b) it is not, because thereis no temporal sequencing, hence the nodes remain symmetrical in everyrespect.

Interestingly, when a conjoined structure goes asymmetrical, it is theright conjunct alone that can be extracted from:

(60) a. Who did Tom buy a gun and shootb. * What kind of gun did Tom buy and shoot Bill

This is in fact the general case in English. Extraction is from the rightmostof two sisters, perhaps because government is to the right, though howto apply the notion of government to these cases is not clear.

In sum then, we might regard "coordinate" äs a property that a nodedominating two sisters can have to a degree.

At the opposite extreme of these examples are the many cases of "parasiticgaps", where, according to my view, the property "coordinate" is appliedto pairs of terms that have barely any symmetry:

(61) who do [NP COORD(INFL) VP]

pictures of / upset /

The coordinate label does not sit well with such structures, because thetwo terms exhibit almost no symmetry, syntactic or semantic, and thatis in fact the reason for the marginality of the parasitic gaps.

In fact, the more symmetry exhibited, the better the parasitic gap; so,compared to the fairly awkward subject-predicate COORDination, we havethe relatively good cases of parasitic gaps in adjuncts:

(62) Who did [John warn /] COORD [before he struck /]

This is better because the two terms joined by COORD are at leastsyntactically similar, äs they are both Ss.

There is a wide grade of acceptability in parasitic gap environments,and this calls for some explanation. So, for example, the following is amore or less fully ordered list of cases, from most acceptable to least(on the right I have listed the two COORDinated items in each case, prefixedwith the governor of the junction):

279

Who did you meet t and dislike and: S SWhat did you füe before reading t before: S SThe man who people who meet t like / the: S SWho would pictures of pg upset / INFL: NP VPWho did you promise friends of to try to find/ V: NP S

There is an intuitive sense in which the juncture gets less and less coordinate-like äs one descends the list.

Differences between languages in their use of parasitic gaps maycorrespond to this grading of COORDinatability äs well. Dutch has parasiticgaps only in adjuncts, äs Huybregts and van Riemsdijk (1984) have shown,thus taking only the top of the list. English is simply more liberal.

REFERENCES

Chomsky, N. (1982) Concepts and Consequences, MIT Press.Chomsky, N. (1986) Barriers, MIT Press.Engdahl, E. (1983) "Parasitic gaps", Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 5-34.Haik, I. (1985) "The Syntax of Operators", Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Huang, J. (1982) "Local Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar", Doctoral

Dissertation, MIT.Huybregts, R. and H. van Riemsdijk (1984) "Parasitic gaps and ATB", in NELS 15.Kayne, R. (1984) "Connectedness and Binary Branching", MIT Press, Cambridge.Kearney, K. (1983) "Governing categories", ms., University of Connecticut.ROSS, J. (1967) "Constraints on Variables in Syntax", Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Safir, K. (1984) "Multiple variable binding", Linguistic Inquiry 15, 603-637.Stoweil, T. (1981) "Origins of Phrase Structure", Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Williams, E. (1978) "ATB rule application", Linguistic Inquiry 9, 31-43.

LinguisticsPrinceton UniversityPrinceton, NJ 08540