Right node raising (RNR) is a linguistics term that denotes a sharing mechanism, that sees the material to the immediate right of parallel structures being in some sense "shared" by those parallel structures, e.g. [Sam likes] but [Fred dislikes] the debates. The parallel structures of RNR are typically the conjuncts of a coordinate structure, although the phenomenon is not limited to coordination, since it can also appear with parallel structures that do not involve coordination. The term right node raising itself is due to Postal (1974). Postal assumed that the parallel structures are complete clauses below the surface. The shared constituent was then raised rightward out of each conjunct of the coordinate structure and attached as a single constituent to the structure above the level of the conjuncts, hence "right node raising" was occurring in a literal sense. While the term right node raising survives, the actual analysis that Postal proposed is not (or no longer) widely accepted. RNR occurs in many languages, including English and related languages. RNR is a phenomenon that challenges theories of syntax in significant ways. The difficulties are due to the status of the parallel structures as well as to the status of the shared material. The parallel structures typically do not qualify as constituents, and the shared material can also fail to qualify as a single constituent.
Typical examples The following examples are typical instances of RNR in English. The square brackets mark the conjuncts of the coordinate structures involved and the material shared by the conjuncts is bolded:
a. [Fred prepares] and [Susan eats] the food. b. [Larry has promised] but [Jim refuses] to support reform. c. [Jim can] but [Jerry cannot] make the meeting. d. [When did he] and [why did he] suffer a setback? e. [Sometimes she carefully reads] and [at other times she merely skims] the report. One easily observable fact about these examples is that they prefer a unique intonation pattern. There tends to be emphasis on the contrasting words within the conjuncts, and pauses immediately after the left-most conjunct and immediately before the shared material. This special intonation contour is sometimes indicated using commas, e.g. Fred prepares, and Susan eats, the food. A key observation about the conjuncts is that they are not constituents. Word combinations such as Fred prepares and Susan eats do not qualify as constituents in most theories of syntax. This fact casts doubt on the usefulness of coordination as a test for identifying the constituent structure of sentences.
Some noteworthy traits The following subsections enumerate some noteworthy traits of RNR: 1) RNR is independent of coordination; 2) it occurs at various levels of structure (not just at the clausal level); 3) it is unlike instances of forward sharing in crucial respects; 4) the shared material can fail to qualify as a constituent; and 5) it at times requires the conjunct-final elements to stand in contrast to each other.
RNR without coordination Perhaps the most important trait of RNR is that it can occur in the absence of coordination, e.g.
a. [The man who supports] would never get along with [the woman who rejects] Romney's proposed tax cut. - RNR without coordination b. [Those who admire] are outnumbered by [those who despise], books about grammatical theory. - RNR without coordination c. I [talked to] without [actually meeting] everyone in the committee. - RNR without coordination Since the parallel structures in these cases (marked by brackets) are not adjacent to each other, one really cannot view them as involving coordination. What this means is that the RNR mechanism is independent of coordination. In this regard, exactly what renders two or more structures parallel enough so that RNR can occur is not clear. What is clear, however, is that while coordination does commonly produce the parallel structures that allow RNR to occur, the RNR mechanism is independent of coordination.
At various levels of structure Most discussions of RNR produce examples where the RNR mechanism is occurring at the sentence or clause level, meaning the conjuncts contain finite verbs. One should note in this respect, however, that RNR is not limited to occurring within clauses; it can also occur at the level of phrases. The following examples illustrate the backward sharing of RNR at the VP level, the NP level, and the PP level:
[Having to read] and [being forced to summarize] that theory is horrible. - RNR within VPs She is [trying to examine] and [wanting to explain] the problem. - RNR within VPs [The old] and [the new] submarines submerged side by side. - RNR within NPs [My presentation] and [your explanation] of the new theory could not be understood. - RNR within NPs [Right before his] and [right after her] presentation, we drank coffee. - RNR within PPs [Before a meager] and [after a meager] meal, I am always dissatisfied. - RNR within PPs Whatever the analysis of RNR, one has to acknowledge that the mechanism is flexible insofar it is not reliant on the presence of one specific type of syntactic category (e.g. finite verb), but rather it can occur at various levels of the syntactic structure.
Unlike forward sharing An examination of coordination quickly reveals that the shared material often precedes the coordinate structures. The shared material preceding the conjuncts is now in bold:
Larry [cooks a lot] and [eats everything he cooks]. Sam gave [his girlfriend flowers] and [his mother chocolates]. The shared material in these sentences precedes the coordinate structures. There is a limitation on this sort of forward sharing, however. Certain material preceding the conjuncts of coordinate structures cannot be shared, e.g.
*Too [many boys came] and [few girls wanted to dance]. - Forward sharing fails. *The university's [students are intelligent] and [faculty is committed to freedom]. - Forward sharing fails. *Three [blue cars arrived] and [red cars departed]. - Forward sharing fails. While explanations for the block on forward sharing have been provided in the literature on coordination, the importance of these data for RNR is that there is no such similar block on RNR. The backward sharing of RNR is not limited in this way. What this means is that backward sharing cannot be construed as the mirror image of forward sharing. The acknowledgment of RNR as a separate sharing mechanism is therefore warranted.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
