A long-standing assumption in the syntactic literature is that coordination can only target constituents. This assumption has been a subject of much debate, with many authors questioning its validity. This article enters this debate by reconsidering a constraint on left-sharing in coordination which Osborne & Gross (2017) have recently introduced, namely left node blocking. To account for this constraint, Osborne & Gross propose the Principle of Full Clusivity which states that coordination cannot cut into a constituent. They couch their analysis in a Dependency Grammar, assuming that coordination does not have to conjoin constituents and that syntactic structures should be construed as flat. Given that the empirical ground on which the LNB is based is not firm, I seek to experimentally investigate it by conducting a large-scale experiment. The results of the investigation reveal that LNB is wrong; left-sharing is as permissive as right-sharing. The results of the investigation have the immediate consequence that the assumptions on which LNB is based are wrong as well, namely that syntactic structures should be construed as flat. I spell out an analysis couched in terms of left-to-right syntax to account for major cases of left-sharing in coordination.

中文翻译：

---

选区与左派协调

句法文献中的一个长期假设是协调只能针对成分。这个假设一直是一个争论的话题，许多作者质疑它的有效性。本文通过重新考虑 Osborne & Gross (2017) 最近引入的协调左共享的约束来进入这场辩论，即左节点阻塞. 为了解决这个限制，Osborne & Gross 建议这磷原则F乌尔C好胜心它指出协调不能切入一个组成部分。他们在依赖语法中进行分析，假设协调不必连接成分并且句法结构应该被解释为扁平的。鉴于 LNB 所依据的经验基础并不牢固，我试图通过进行大规模实验来对其进行实验研究。调查结果显示LNB是错误的；左共享与右共享一样宽容。调查结果的直接后果是，LNB 所基于的假设也是错误的，即句法结构应该被解释为扁平的。我用从左到右的句法阐述了一个分析，以解释协调左共享的主要情况。