Chapter 3 - LOT publications

More documents

Recommendations

Info

68 Reduplicative coordination constructions It should be noted that ReCo examples can sometimes be a little clumsy. For instance, while an objectless ReCo construction is perfectly grammatical its counterpart with a direct object is sometimes less well-formed, but not outright ungrammatical. 8 (55) a. John read and read ‘John read (a book) but didn’t finish it’ [Durative, unbounded] *‘John read a book twice’ [Bounded] b. John read and read a book %‘John read a book but didn’t finish it’ [Durative, unbounded] ‘John read a book twice’ [Bounded] Often, but not always, a ReCo construction with a definite object has a natural interpretation as a bounded predicate. For some speakers, this is most naturally interpreted iteratively (see also Rothstein 2004). The effect is ameliorated somewhat with indefinite objects. The reason for this is that verbs and direct objects are together construed as telic. Thus, the use of an object (and by corollary the extraction of an object) is relatively marked. Nevertheless, extractions of objects are grammatical as shown by examples like (54). It might be suggested that (54) is merely ATB extraction: in other words the subject is coindexed with two extraction sites, one in each conjunct. This would reduce ReCo to OCo. As has been demonstrated in section (2.1.1), ATB extractions cannot occur from pseudo-coordinative constructions. Consider the following examples illustrating extraction of benefactives. (56) a. The peasant kept trying to pump and pump and pump a glass of water for the soldier b. What did the peasant keep trying to pump and pump and pump for the soldier? c. Who did the peasant keep trying to pump and pump and pump a glass of water for? d. *Who did the peasant keep trying to pump for and pump for and pump for a glass of water for? Imagine a context in which a troop of soldiers walk through a rural village. A soldier might ask a peasant to pump some water from the well in order to drink it. Example (56a) is the basic example. (56b,c) show that both the direct and beneficiary objects can be extracted, the latter optionally stranding the preposition. The stranding of the preposition in final position marks the extraction site and thus (56d) illustrates that ATB extraction is not possible. In conclusion, extraction of arguments from ReCo is possible without recourse to ATB movement. Such extractions constitute exceptions to the CSC and are indicative that ReCo is a pseudo-coordinative structure. 8 Some speakers are able to distinguish a slightly clumsy durative reading, even with a definite, direct object. For other speakers, a direct object always implies boundedness of the predicate and thus immediately triggers a serial reading.
Pseudo-coordinative try and reduplicative coordination 69 Adjunct extraction With respect to adjunct extraction, there are somewhat mixed results as a result of the semantics of ReCo. Although low, manner adjuncts can be extracted, occasionally the result is somewhat degraded, although still grammatical. (57) I know how well John can argue and argue (58) ?I wonder how quickly John worked and worked at his project? (59) ??I wonder how carefully John worked and worked at his project The explanation for this lies in the semantics of ReCo constructions: they encode a manner component indicating intensity of the activity. For this reason it is simply pleonastic and incongruous to ask, in the previous examples, how quickly, or how carefully the action was carried out. The very nature of the ReCo construction denotes that the arguing or working actions were done ‘intensively’ which could subsume speed and carefulness. In contrast, note that it is possible to extract low manner adjuncts which have nothing to do with ‘intensiveness’ (57). What this means, of course, is that extraction of low adjuncts is indeed possible, but is often blocked for independent reasons. In summary, extraction of higher adjuncts and arguments is possible. Thus, although ReCo constructions may appear to be selective islands (like SceCo), the cause of the islandhood does not seem to be necessarily related to whatever causes islandhood in SceCo. In ReCo, it seems to be an ‘intensiveness’, manner component which causes islandhood. The case is not as clear for SceCo, where the first verb sets the scene for the activity depicted in the second to take place. In other words, the first verb does not necessarily suggest a manner component in SceCo contexts. If this is true then the similarity with SceCo could be illusory. In short, the extraction facts argue that ReCo patterns with ConCo. 3.2.6 Quantifier raising In the cases of ConCo and SceCo constructions, quantifier raising tests corroborated their status as non-islands and selective islands respectively (section (2.1.9)). Thus, wide-scope readings are freely available for ConCo but not for SceCo. Interestingly, quantifier raising tests suggest that ReCo contexts are not islands since wide scope readings are possible. (60) a. A policeman serenaded and serenaded everyi widow until theyi were all sick of his voice ‘The same policeman serenaded each of the widows’ [NS] b. A policeman serenaded and serenaded everyi widow until shei was sick of his voice ‘For each widow, there was some policeman or other who serenaded her’ [WS]
Page 1 and 2: Chapter 3 Pseudo-coordinative try a
Page 3 and 4: Pseudo-coordinative try and redupli
Page 7 and 8: Property Section OCo SceCo try ConC
Page 13: Pseudo-coordinative try and redupli

Chapter 3 - LOT publications

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?