Chapter 3 - LOT publications

More documents

Recommendations

Info

62 Reduplicative coordination constructions structures readily allow partial VP-deletion, they cannot form a constituent with the lexical predicate. Finally, whereas ConCo predicates exhibit semantic bleaching and do not affect the selectional relationship between the verb and the subject, conative try does not appear to be bleached at all and strongly selects for an animate, sentient subject. Thus, it cannot be analysed as a typical ConCo construction. Thirdly, there are important characteristics that make conative try quite similar to SceCo. I have already alluded to some of these. They include the lack of semantic bleaching, the selectional relationship between the verb and its subject and partial VPellipsis. On the other hand, the ability to extract adjuncts and quantifiers freely, not to mention the peculiar morphological constraints on the conative try construction make me reluctant to classify it as SceCo. These data lead me to conclude that conative try is yet another type of pseudo-coordination which is distinct from both SceCo and ConCo. At this point, we have identified at least four different types of verbal coordination: OCo, SceCo, ConCo and pseudo-coordinative try. These are schematized in figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: Pseudo-coordination, including try Coordination ✥✥✥❵❵❵❵❵ ✥ ✥✥ ❵ Ordinary Coordination Pseudo-coordination ✘✘❳ ❳❳❳ ✘✘ ✘✘ ❇ ❳❳ SceCo ConCo try ✦ ✦❛❛ ✦ ❛ sit, go, come . . . 3.2 Reduplicative coordination constructions At this point, having developed tests to distinguish ConCo from superficially similar constructions like SceCo, we are now in a position to explore another V and V construction which may shed some light on ConCo. With this in mind, let us step back from ConCo of the go, sit type and consider Reduplicative coordination (ReCo). 3 (29) He begins reading about dinosaurs and tigers, and he reads and reads until the library closes (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030520-17.html (12.10.2004)) (30) My friend Jim Stoltz walks and walks and walks in the wilderness (http://www.walkinjim.com/wwbookart_book.html (14.10.2004)) (31) Starsky pulls his revolver from his shoulder holster and shoots and shoots at Huggy Bear (http://www.g21.net/cc14.html (01.07.2005)) 3 It has also been called Augmentative conjunction Haspelmath (2005).
Pseudo-coordinative try and reduplicative coordination 63 ReCo constructions typically reduplicate activity verbs, example (31) notwithstanding. 4 However, example (31) does raise a pertinent question: does durativity license iterativity or vice versa. This question requires the sketching of the relationship between ReCo and pluractionality. There are many similarities between ReCo and pluractionality – so-called plural marking on verbs. Many languages have verbal affixes which are: frequently reduplicative, most often derivational rather than inflectional, and expressing a broad range of notions typically including action by more than one individual, temporally iterated action and spatially scattered action (Lasersohn 1995:238). Among the meanings associated with pluractionality are repetitiveness, repeated occasions or events, conation, persistent consequences, habitual agency, distributed quality, inchoativity, cumulative result, intensity, plurality of sites of action, duration, continuity, distribution, celerativity/retardativity, augmentation, diminution as well as perfectivity, causativity and plurality of subject or object noun phrases (Cusic 1981:74–75). This enumeration of properties bears many similarities, not only with ReCo, but also with ConCo more generally. However, a central question is which of these readings is primary because the answer relates directly to the types of analyses that can be proposed. Whereas Cusic (1981) and others have regarded pluractionality as having a fundamental meaning of combining different events (i.e. iterativity), I want to approach ReCo in English from the opposite direction. I will regard it as coordinating, not discrete events, but substages of the same event. 5 From this basic meaning, the iterative readings more typical of pluractionality can be easily derived by the analysis I will propose. There are empirical reasons for this approach which are reviewed in the following section. 3.2.1 Empirical reasons to favour durativity over iterativity To answer the question of whether ReCo constructions are primarily durative or iterative, consider the following minimal pair. (32) a. John looked up and looked up at the sky but never saw a comet 4 ReCo can also occur with non-verbal material as the following examples show. Crucially, it is durative aspect that licenses reduplication in these contexts. They are discussed more fully in section (4.5). (1) The balloon went up and up (2) The plane flew around and around the airfield (3) Merlin slept for years and years (4) John slept (*about/*in/for) hours and hours (5) Eternity lasts for ever and ever 5 Needless to say, I am not making a general claim about pluractionality in all languages. My claim holds for the ReCo constructions under discussion. However, whether the claim can be extended to other pluractional-marking languages is an interesting one, worthy of more exploration.
Page 1 and 2: Chapter 3 Pseudo-coordinative try a
Page 3 and 4: Pseudo-coordinative try and redupli
Page 7: Property Section OCo SceCo try ConC

Chapter 3 - LOT publications

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

Delete template?

Save as template?