Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T14:01:09.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conjunction Reduction, Gapping, and Right-Node Raising

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Richard A. Hudson
Richard A. Hudson*
Affiliation:
University College London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is argued that Conjunction Reduction, Gapping, and Right-node Raising are three separate phenomena in English, each having its own set of constraints and therefore needing a separate rule. Contrary to earlier analyses, these rules do not delete, but just raise. This is true even of Gapping, which is shown to be a special case of a more general rule of Conjunct Postposing, which is also responsible for ‘split coördinations’ like John came, and Bill (too). All three rules appear to apply at the level of surface structure, and can be formulated in such a way that they leave that structure perhaps surprisingly unaffected.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , September 1976 , pp. 535 - 562
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bach, Emmon. 1974. Syntactic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Baldi, P. 1971. Conjunction of reflexives: syntax or semantics. LI 2. 603–4.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldi, P. 1974. Questions of form and interpretation. Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics 6. 1–42.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1968. Coördination: its implications for the theory of general linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dougherty, Ray C. 1970. A grammar of coördinate conjoined structures, I. Lg. 46. 850–98.Google Scholar
Dougherty, Ray C. 1971. A grammar of coördinate conjoined structures, II. Lg. 47. 298–339.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. R. 1970. Gapping, deletion and derived constituent structure. Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 210–19.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P. 1973. A note on ‘identity of constituents’. LI 4. 417–20.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert. 1975. On the analysis of passives. Lg. 51. 384–405.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1973. Unacceptable ambiguity. LI 4. 17–68.Google Scholar
Harries, Helga. 1973. Coördination reduction. Working Papers on Language Universals, Stanford University, 11. 139–210.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. 1972. Phonology in syntax. JL 8. 251–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1967. Constituency in a systemic description of the English clause. Lingua 18. 225–50.10.1016/0024-3841(67)90039-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1970. On clauses containing conjoined and plural noun-phrases in English. Lingua 24. 205–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1971. English complex sentences: an introduction to systemic grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1973. Conjunction-reduction. JL 9. 303–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1974. Systemic generative grammar. Linguistics 139. 5–42.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1976. Arguments for a non-transformational grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (to appear).Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1971. Gapping and related rules. LI 2. 21–35.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, Andreas. 1971. Gapping, conjunction reduction, and coördinate deletion. FL 7. 337–86.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Peters, Stanley. 1966. Phrasal conjunction and symmetric predicates. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Computation Laboratory. [Reprinted in Modern studies in English, ed. by David A. Reibel & Sanford A. Schane, 113–42. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969.]Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. The role of semantics in a grammar. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T., 125–70. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan M. 1972. On ‘Gapping and the order of constituents’. LI 3. 101–8.Google Scholar
Omondi, Lucia N. 1975. A transformational approach to Dholuo (Luo) syntax. London University dissertation.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1974. General conditions on reduced coordinations. Paper read to the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, April.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. MIT dissertation. [Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.].Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1970. Gapping and the order of constituents. Progress in linguistics, ed. by Bierwisch, Manfred & Heidolph, K. E., 249–59. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1974. Constraints on coordination. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P., Schachter, Paul; and Partee, Barbara H. 1973. The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Tai, John H-Y. 1969. Coördination reduction. Bloomington: Indiana University dissertation. [Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.].Google Scholar