Chapter 3 - LOT publications

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Property Section OCo SceCo ConCo ReCo try Syntactic tests Non-ATB argument extraction (3.2.5) No Non-ATB adjunct extraction (3.2.5) No No XPs in Position B (3.2.7) (Some) No No No XPs in Position C (3.2.7) No No No Some (?) Partial VP-Ellipsis (3.2.9) No No Coordinator Substitution (3.2.2) No No No No Semantic tests Subject restricted by Verb A (3.2.10) No N.A. Semantic bleaching of Verb A (3.2.8) No No N.A. No Semantic subordination No N.A. i Distributivity (3.2.3) No No No No Wide-scope reading of quantifier (3.2.6 No No Restrictions on possible Verb A (3.2.11) No N.A. Inherent counter-expectational reading (3.2.12) No No (go) No No Morphological and Phonological tests Morphological Sameness (3.2.4) No N.A. Focus on Verb A (3.2.13) No (?) No No Focus on coordinator (3.2.13) No No No No i Semantic subordination in ReCo contexts cannot be tested. Since both verbs are the same, the commutativity of conjuncts is not at issue. Table 3.2: Properties of pseudo-coordinative types 74 Reduplicative coordination constructions
Pseudo-coordinative try and reduplicative coordination 75 3.2.14 Findings In this section I have systematically subjected ReCo constructions to the battery of tests developed in previous sections. The results of these are tabulated in figure 3.2 on the preceding page. Firstly, it is clear that ReCo is not OCo. This is indicated by the ability to extract arguments, quantifiers and some adjuncts, the restrictions on subjects, the inability of other XPs to occur in the second conjunct, the incompatibility with distributive elements, the Morphological Sameness Condition, phonological reduction and the fact that only a subclass of verbs can be coordinated in this way. Secondly, I would like to make the case that ReCo is a type of ConCo. The only way in which ReCo patterns with SceCo is the inability to extract manner adjuncts. However, the results of this test are undermined by the fact that quantifiers can freely raise yielding wide-scope readings. Furthermore, there is the possibility that the islandhood of ReCo and SceCo are not, in fact, triggered by the same factors, making the similarity superficial only. The remaining tests show that ReCo patterns after ConCo. These include the ban on subjects and XPs within the verbal string, the semantic bleaching effects, the inability to partially elide the VP and the wide-scope readings associated with quantifiers. 3.3 Conclusion In summary, ReCo is an instance of ConCo. This lends some credence to the typology which as been developed insofar as ReCo constructions provide independent proof of the existence of a structure with the properties of ConCo. It is also important because some of the properties of ReCo may illuminate the mechanics of ConCo. This possibility is explored in the following chapters. With respect to pseudo-coordinative try, I have argued that it constitutes a separate type of pseudo-coordination from ReCo, ConCo and SceCo. Diagram 3.2 illustrates the resulting tableau of coordinative types explored in previous chapters. Figure 3.2: Pseudo-coordination in English Coordination ✥✥✥❵❵❵❵❵❵❵ ✥✥ ✥✥ Ordinary Coordination Pseudo-coordination ✥✥✥❵❵❵❵❵❵ ✥ ✥ SceCo SceCo ConCo ✧❜❜ ✧ ⎡ ⎤ go ReCo ⎣ sit ⎦ ... try
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 19: Pseudo-coordinative try and redupli

Chapter 3 - LOT publications

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?