Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 381–415 | Cite as

On the syntax of adversative coordination

  • Luis VicenteEmail author


A series of studies have distinguished two types of but, namely, corrective and counterexpectational. The difference between these two types has been considered largely semantic/pragmatic. This article shows that the semantic difference also translates into a different syntax for each type of but. More precisely, corrective but always requires clause-level coordination, with apparent counterexamples being derived through ellipsis within the second conjunct. On the other hand, counterexpectational but is not restricted in this way, and offers the possibility of coordination of both clausal and subclausal constituents. From this difference, it is possible to derive a number of syntactic asymmetries between corrective and counterexpectational but.


Coordination Ellipsis Negation Spanish English 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot. 1977. Deux mais en français? Lingua 43: 23–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barwise, Jon, and Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics & Philosophy 4: 159–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bianchi, Valentina, and Roberto Zamparelli. 2004. Edge coordinations: focus and conjunction reduction. In Peripheries: syntactic edges and their effects, eds. David Adger, Cécile de Cat, and George Tsoulas, 313–328. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  4. Blackmore, Diane. 1989. Denial and contrast: a Relevance Theoretic account of but. Linguistics & Philosophy 12: 15–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackmore, Diane. 2000. Indicators and procedures: nevertheless and but. Journal of Linguistics 36: 463–486. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosque, Ignacio. 1980. Sobre la negación. Madrid: Cátedra. Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  8. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional categories: a cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  9. Culicover, Peter, and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Depiante, Marcela. 2000. The syntax of deep and surface anaphora: a study of null complement anaphora and stripping/bare argument ellipsis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Google Scholar
  11. Depiante, Marcela. 2004. Dos casos de elipsis con partícula de polaridad en español: evidencia a favor de una visión no uniforme de la elipsis. Revista de la Sociedad Argentina de Lingüística 1: 53–69. Google Scholar
  12. Drubig, Hans Bernhard. 1994. Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, n. 51, Tübingen. Google Scholar
  13. Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 337–362. Google Scholar
  14. Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157–196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fukui, Naoki, and Hiromu Sakai. 2003. The visibility guideline for functional categories: verb raising in Japanese and related issues. Lingua 113: 321–375. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallego, Ángel. 2004. Minimalist edge coordinations. Manuscript Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Google Scholar
  17. Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: speech acts, eds. Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 43–58. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  18. Hankamer, Jorge. 1973. Constraints on deletion in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University. Google Scholar
  19. Horn, Laurence. 1989. A natural history of negation. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  20. Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  21. Kennedy, Christopher, and Jason Merchant. 2000. Attributive comparative deletion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18: 89–146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: on the nature of functional categories and projections. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  23. Lakoff, Robin. 1971. If’s, and’s and but’s about conjunction. In Studies in linguistic semantics, eds. Charles Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen, 114–149. New York: Holt. Google Scholar
  24. Langacker, Ronald. 1969. On pronominalization and the chain of command. In Modern studies in English, eds. Sanford Schane and David Reibel, 160–186. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  25. Lasnik, Howard. 1972. Analyses of negation in English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  26. Lasnik, Howard. 2001. When can you save a structure by destroying it? In Proceedings of NELS 31, eds. Kim Minjoo and Uri Strauss, 301–320. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  27. McCawley, James. 1991. Contrastive negation and metalinguistic negation. In CLS 27: the parasession on negation, eds. Lise Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, and Rosa Rodríguez, 189–206. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  28. Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  29. Merchant, Jason. 2004a. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics & Philosophy 27: 661–738. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merchant, Jason. 2004b. Remarks on stripping. Ms., University of Chicago. Google Scholar
  31. Merchant, Jason. 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Topics in ellipsis, ed. Kyle Johnson, 132–153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morgan, Jerry. 1973. Sentence fragments and the notion of ‘sentence’. In Issues in linguistics: papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, eds. Braj Kachru, Robert Lees, Yakov Malkiel, Angelina Pietrangeli, and Sol Saporta, 719–751. Urbana–Champaign: UIUC Press. Google Scholar
  33. Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Google Scholar
  34. Nykiel, Joanna, and Ivan Sag. 2009. Sluicing and stranding. In Handout, 2009 LSA Annual Meeting. Google Scholar
  35. Ordóñez, Francisco. 1997. Word order and clause structure in Spanish and other Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center. Google Scholar
  36. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998a. Structure for coordination, Part I. GLOT International 3: 3–6. Google Scholar
  37. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998b. Structure for coordination, Part II. GLOT International 3: 3–9. Google Scholar
  38. Reinhart, Tanya. 1991. Elliptical conjunctions: non-quantificational LF. In The Chomskyan turn, ed. Asa Kasher, 360–384. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  39. Repp, Sophie. 2005. Interpreting ellipsis: the changeable presence of negation in gapping. Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt Universität, Berlin. Google Scholar
  40. Rodrigues, Cilene, Andrew Nevins, and Luis Vicente. 2009. Cleaving the interactions between sluicing and preposition stranding. In Romance languages and linguistic theory 2006, eds. Danièle Torck and W. Leo Wetzels, 175–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  41. Romero, Maribel. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in wh- phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  42. Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  43. Ross, John. 1969. Guess who? In Proceedings of CLS 5, ed. Robert Binnick, 252–286. Google Scholar
  44. Sag, Ivan, Gerald Gazdar, Tom Wasow, and Steven Weisler. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3: 117–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sauerland, Uli. 1996. Guess how? In Proceedings of ConSOLE 4, eds. João Costa, Rob Goedemans, and Ruben van de Vijver, 297–309. Leiden: SOLE. Google Scholar
  46. Soltan, Usama. 2007. On formal feature licensing in minimalism: aspects of Standard Arabic morphosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Google Scholar
  47. Stainton, Robert. 2006. Words and thoughts: subsentences, ellipsis, and the philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  48. Ticio, Emma. 2003. On the structure of DPs. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Google Scholar
  49. Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2009. Contrastive ‘but’ involves gapping not in Farsi but in English. In Handout, LSA 2009 annual meeting. Google Scholar
  50. Umbach, Carla. 2005. Contrast and information structure: a focus-based analysis of but. Linguistics 43: 207–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Koppen, Marjo. 2005. One probe, two goals: aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University. Google Scholar
  52. van der Wouden, Ton. 1997. Negative contexts. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen. Google Scholar
  53. Vicente, Luis. 2006. Short negative replies in Spanish. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 23, eds. van de Weijer, Jeroen, and Bettelou Los, 199–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  54. Vicente, Luis. 2008. Syntactic isomorphism and non-isomorphism under ellipsis. Manuscript University of California, Santa Cruz. Google Scholar
  55. von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  56. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2008. Nor: neither disjunction nor paradox. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 511–522. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department LinguistikUniversität PotsdamGolmGermany

Personalised recommendations