This is a follow-up to my syntax quiz from Sunday. Kai von Fintel was the first to correctly note that it was a trick question: swallow hard is probably intransitive in the relevant McCain quote, and so this is (probably) neither an instance of a parasitic gap nor of "across-the-board movement, coupled with right node raising out of a coordinate structure". There were various good attempts by others to show that it is actually an example of one or the other, though, of course under the assumption that swallow hard is, or at least could be, transitive (one reader even urged me not to concede defeat — even though I hadn't, I had only admitted to planting a trick question). Thanks to those commenters who accepted that the 'intransitive camp' had a point but that they'd like to give the quiz a go on the terms that I laid out.
Interestingly, not one commenter seemed to have bothered to try employing the one diagnostic noted by Jon Nissenbaum in the second of the two
Resnick Resnik posts on LL ClassicTM that I linked to in the quiz post. If you read the post you'll see that Resnik called the evidence from this diagnostic "the smoking gun" that proves his identification of a parasitic gap to be incorrect, and that the across-the-board + right-node raising analysis must be right. Employing the diagnostic would have worked like this: try adding another object to McCain's "go forward with"; if the result sounds fine, you have a parasitic gap, and if not, you have ATB+RNR. So here goes (the added object is in boldface):
This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with our original plan.
I hope this sounds as awful to everyone else as it does to me, pointing to ATB+RNR. But of course, there's the whole transitivity-of-swallow-hard issue to deal with: maybe the added object makes it impossible to interpret something as being the object of anything in this sentence! Personally, I think swallow hard is ambiguous enough in its valency for this factor to have little if anything to do with the badness of the sentence above. We can even prove that this factor is irrelevant by replacing swallow hard with the completely unambiguously transitive think about. The result still sounds bad:
This is something that all of us will think about and go forward with our original plan.
But hey, like Kai said, I'm just a phonologist here. What the hell do I know about syntax?
Finally: I was struck by these three comments, in which the commenters felt the need to mention their lack of understanding of the syntactic terms that I (misleadingly) said were relevant to the quiz. Being something of a link fanatic, I explicitly pointed to the Resnik posts on LL ClassicTM that defined these terms (complete with knock-down diagnostic) in ways that I think are more than sufficient for interested readers to have gone to work on the (again, admittedly misleading) quiz. So follow your links, people. That's what they're there for (well, most of the time).