In this recent blog post, I emphasize the importance of offsetting commas in right node raising. (“Right node raising” is a linguistics term used to describe a sentence in which two or more coordinated clauses each end with a shared constituent, as in Himari likes, and Jorge dislikes, blueberry pie.)
But offsetting commas in right node raising can lead to a dispute if the first clause can conceivably be read as a complete thought, leading one party to argue that the coordinated clauses don’t share a constituent. An example: Himari likes blueberry pie, and Jorge likes apple pie, with Ben & Jerry’s Salted Caramel Brownie ice cream topped with whipped cream and sprinkles.
To avoid this kind of syntactic ambiguity, it’s best to have each of the coordinated clauses offer incomplete thoughts. In the first example, Himari likes and Jorge likes each offer incomplete thoughts, because they’re ungrammatical without the shared constituent. And you can avoid any confusion in the second example by revising it to read as follows: Himari likes blueberry pie with, and Jorge likes apple pie with, Ben & Jerry’s Salted Caramel Brownie ice cream topped with whipped cream and sprinkles. Does ending each coordinated clause with a dangling preposition make the prose a little awkward? Yes, but you get to decide whether the economy offered by right node raising with offsetting commas is worth the awkwardness.
MSCD ¶¶ 12.39–.43 offers an example from a contract of using incomplete thoughts for right node raising.
To explore this further, here’s an example from a contract I’ve been reviewing:
shall have performed in all material respects all obligations and complied in all material respects with all covenants required by this Agreement to be performed or complied with by them prior to the Closing
Three observations about this example:
First, a coordinated clause can be incomplete not because it’s ungrammatical but because the context tells you it’s incomplete. Ending the first coordinated clause with all obligations is grammatical, but it would lead an informed reader of contracts to ask, What obligations? I suggest we refer to this kind of incompletion as “pragmatic incompletion,” as opposed to “grammatical incompletion.” Relying on pragmatic incompletion leaves more room for dispute than does grammatical incompletion.
Second, in this example, use of performed and complied with in the shared constituent tracks use of performed and complied … with in the first coordinated clause and second coordinated clause, respectively. That reinforces that the shared constituent is indeed shared, but it would be best not to expect to confirm use of right node raising by relying on an element of each coordinated clause being tracked in the shared constituent—it’s a possible symptom of, but not a defining feature of, a shared constituent.
And third, these coordinated clauses don’t use offsetting commas. Aways use offsetting commas in right node raising, to make the right node raising clearer and to avoid right-node-raising pivot ambiguity, which I describe in the post I link to above. But don’t rely only on commas to establish right node raising.
At some point, the intricacies involved in right node raising outweigh the economy offered. That’s when you’d be better off eliminating right node raising and repeating what would have been the shared constituent.
(Reminder: MSCD ¶¶ 12.79–.87 uses the term “delimiting commas in coordination.” I now refer to them, in this post and elsewhere, as “offsetting commas in right node raising.”)
