LINGUIST List 2.13

Wednesday, 23 Jan 1991

Disc: CSC

Editor for this issue: <>


  1. George Lakoff, Re: CSC
  2. Younghee Na, CSC
  3. John Goldsmith, CSC

Message 1: Re: CSC

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 15:20:07 -0800
From: George Lakoff <>
Subject: Re: CSC
Concerning my paper in CLS about the lack of existence of the
CSC in syntax:

The examples not only showed that there is no purely
syntactic CSC, but that the only plausible explanation for
the phenomena I cite in the paper is that the
whole idea of movement rules in syntax is wrong.
Each so-called movement rule in syntax has an alternative formulation
in semantics as a principle of predication.
The paper discusses what such principles would have to be like
in order to account for the data presented there.

All this is of course old news -- almost five years old.
More recently, Rob Kluender of UCSD (
has been working on a dissertation showing that other
anomalies in the syntactic treatment of so-called movement
rules also work by principles of predication.

If anyone is interested, I suspect that both my old paper
and some of Rob's recent work could be posted on the
bboard for discussion. 

Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: CSC

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 1991 10:01:49 -0500
From: Younghee Na <>
Subject: CSC

Those who find Lakoff's analysis of exceptions to CSC (CLS 1986) interesting
may want to take a look at a paper by Younghee Na and Geoff Huck, "On Extract-
ing from Asymmetrical Structures." It traces the sources of Lakoff's cons-
traint(s) to a single, more general principle, thereby providing an account of
why something like the Final Conjunct Constraint seems to be at work. The
paper is in Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 10 (1989), available
from: Editor, TWPL, Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1. Or write to the authors: youngheevm.epas.utoronto.
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 3: CSC

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 09:29:23 CST
From: John Goldsmith <>
Subject: CSC
In response to John Bro's and Geoff Nathan's remarks about the recent
discussions of the CSC, I hope it won't be considered out of place for
me to point out that it is actually my paper ("A Principled Exception to the
Coordinate Structure Constraint", CLS 21 1985) that proposes a semantico-
syntactic account of the CSC, pointing out such sentences as
 "How much can you drink and not end up with a hangover
 the next morning?" and
 the following, from ROPES OF SAND: America's Failure in
 the Middle East:
 If the CIA could give hidden money for arms aid to Nasser
 and get nothing in return, why couldn't such funds be
 used to subsidize a Syrian refinery and avoid the
 ponderous formal agreements that I doubted any Syrian
 government would be able to sign with the United States
 and survive?
That was the sentence that launched my paper, in fact. But I offer
an account of how semantics influences syntax, and link this construction
to one studied some years back by Lawler, the one involved in answers
such as "Not and stay sane, they can't" , answers to questions such as
"Can linguists study negation?". Lakoff proposes an alternative account
of some of this material, and adds other cases of VP coordination with
even more aberrant extraction patterns. His paper was in the following
CLS volume (1986).
John Goldsmith
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue