Generalizing the antisymmetric analysis of coordination to nominal modification

Rebuschi, Georges

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.010

Cited by 27 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…8 8 However, unlike Rebuschi (2005) and Li (2007), I do not claim that de and conjunctions are semantically similar. A complex composed of a conjunction and two singular conjuncts can satisfy the plurality requirement of collective verbs or predicates, but a complex composed of de and two singular nominals may not: …”

mentioning

confidence: 84%

Explaining the immobility of conjuncts*

Zhang¹

2010

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to explain the well-observed constraint that no conjunct may move. It is claimed that, with respect to final conjuncts, this constraint simply manifests a morphological property of coordinators shared with many other types of head elements: they need to be adjacent to their complement, and thus neither deletion nor movement of their complement is possible. Final conjuncts therefore may not move. Based on the assumption that the categorial features of initial conjuncts are transferred to the coordinator and, it is claimed that this transference keeps initial conjuncts in situ, since elements without category-features may not move overtly. This new account for the immobility of initial conjuncts is supported by two generalizations. Firstly, in the Chinese de construction, kernel elements may not move because they provide categorial features for de, which has no intrinsic categorial features and is the head of the whole complex. Secondly, in the comitative coordinate construction in Chinese, initial conjuncts may move because they do not provide categorial features for the coordinators, which have their own intrinsic categorial features. This paper specifies the semantic condition of initial conjunct movement: the coordination must be non-distributive. This new account of the immobility of conjuncts suggests that the constraint is not a construction-specific syntactic constraint. Instead, it is related to the lexical/ morphological makeup of coordinators. Conjuncts as regular Spec and Complement elements may undergo syntactic movement. It has been generally assumed that movement is driven by morphological considerations. This study further shows that the blocking of movement can also be related to morphological properties of specific syntactic elements in addition to the generally recognized locality restrictions.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 84%

Explaining the immobility of conjuncts*

Zhang¹

2010

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given that no lexical head subcategorizes for a sheer ConjP, the complement phrase must also be identifiedasaDP,anNP,oraPP.Wethereforeneedamechanismallowingthecategorial features of one of the conjuncts to percolate to the Conjunction's maximal projection. Rebushi (2005)observesthattheconfigurationweneedisjustifiedbyJohannessen's(1998)theory, accordingtowhichitistheelementthatoccupiesthespecifierpositionintheConjPthat transmits its relevant features to Conj, (under Spec-head Agreement), whence they percolate toConjP(themaximalprojection).Thus,in(61),theresultingfullyspecifiedphrasewillbe a [+Conj,+N]P. This mechanism is assumed for all the appositive relative clause structures with CommaP, but I will abstract away from it in the tree diagrams that follow. I furthermore propose that a ForceP projection is at play in non-integrated appositives.…”

Section: Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the syntax of post-nominal restrictive relative clauses, I follow Rebushi's (2005) proposal. Rebushi (2005) hypothesizes that since nominal modification is property conjunction at the semantic level, maybe it is its counterpart (some type of coordination) atthesyntacticleveltoo.HethereforeproposesthatafunctionalprojectionConjunctionP 11 Griffiths (2015) claims that appositive relative pronouns are referential. For an explanation as for why appositive relative pronouns need to be E-type and not just referential, see footnotes 14, 15 and references cited there.…”

Section: Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

More appositives in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your Linguistics

Gobbo

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I lay out a proposal for a typology of appositive relative clauses. By studying the characteristics of appositive relative clauses in five languages (Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, French, Italian and English), I identify three types of appositive relative clauses: non-integrated, semi-integrated and (fully)-integrated. The empirical investigation leads to the following findings:1. Mandarin Chinese and Japanese appositive relative clauses belong to the class of fully integrated appositives; 2. English appositive relative clauses are diametrically different from the fully integrated ones.I classify them as non-integrated appositives; 3. Italian and French have two types of appositives: semi-integrated and non-integrated; 4. Reduced relative clauses can also be appositive: if pre-nominal, they are fully integrated; if post nominal, they are semi-integrated.The empirical data is accounted for by a proposal that is based on the following elements:1. the syntax of non-integrated and semi-integrated appositive relative clauses involves a CommaP projection and/or a ForceP projection; fully integrated appositives lack both of these projections; 2. the non-integrated appositives' relative pronoun is E-type; 3. the syntax of prenominal appositive relative clauses prevents them from licensing an overt relative pronoun, and therefore an E-type pronoun; 4. the CommaP triggers the intonational break at PF and, following Koev (2013) in spirit, it introduces a variable for the content of the constituents in its scope, thereby preventing such constituents from being bound from operators and quantifiers in the host clause.The empirical data analyzed and the account proposed leave us with an interesting fine-grained typology of appositives, thereby confirming a trend in the research on appositives pointing to the conclusion that we are dealing with a more variegated set of constructions than previously thought.

show abstract

“…Asimismo, puede introducir un argumento que este considera relevante, o una información de segundo plano, no principal, casi un afterthought (Averintseva, 2008;Fuentes, 2012), o planificada sobre la marcha. (Bobes, 1972;Dik, 1997;Verstraete, 2005;Rebuschi, 2005;RAE, 2009) no suelen detenerse a tratar de forma específica los casos en que la conjunción y relaciona un segmento host con el parentético. Ni los estudios sobre parentéticos en general tampoco.…”

Section: Parentéticos Y Coordinación: Estudios Previosunclassified

Funciones discursivas de las estructuras parentéticas coordinadas

Rodríguez

2017

Onomázein

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

El trabajo realiza un estudio macrosintáctico sobre las estructuras parentéticas que interrumpen la linealidad sintáctica y lo hacen por medio de las conjunciones y, o. La metodología seguida es la lingüística pragmática, que busca identificar las funciones discursivas de estos enunciados y el ámbito de actuación de la coordinación. El análisis nos lleva a la conclusión de que la presencia de las conjunciones en los parentéticos obedece a la necesidad de marcar relaciones macroestructurales: fuerza argumentativa (y) o reformulación (o).

show abstract

Generalizing the antisymmetric analysis of coordination to nominal modification

Cited by 27 publications

References 13 publications

Explaining the immobility of conjuncts*

Explaining the immobility of conjuncts*

More appositives in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your Linguistics

Funciones discursivas de las estructuras parentéticas coordinadas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About