Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From N to N: The anatomy of a construction

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper develops a detailed and unified analysis of semantics of the from-N-to-N construction, based on a small number of ingredients, none of which are specific to this construction itself, but which are idiomatically packaged in this construction. Letting the construction uniformly apply to the product of the two nouns not only captures their strong relation, but it also obviates a role for a ‘reduplicative’ mechanism of some sort in this particular construction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguilar-Guevara, A., & Zwarts, J. (2011). Weak definites and reference to kinds. Proceedings of SALT, 20, 179–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, C. (2004). Possessive weak definites. In J. Kim, Y. Lander, & B. H. Partee (Eds.), Possessives and beyond: Semantics and syntax (pp. 89–113). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S. (2012). Pluractional comparisons. Linguistics and Philosophy, 35, 57–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S., & von Stechow, A. (2007). Pluractional adverbials. Journal of Semantics, 24, 215–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benor, S., & Levy, R. (2006). The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language, 82, 233–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birner, B., & Ward, G. (1994). Uniqueness, familiarity and the definite article in English. BLS, 20, 93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blom, C., P. de Groote, Y. Winter, & J. Zwarts (2011). Implicit arguments: Event modification or option type categories? Paper presented at the 18th Amsterdam colloquium, University of Amsterdam.

  • Carlson, G., & Sussman, R. (2005). Seemingly indefinite definites. In S. Kepsar & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives (pp. 71–86). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, S., & Ladusaw, W. A. (2003). Restriction and saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple, M., Kanazawa, M., Kim, Y., Mchombo, S., & Peters, S. (1998). Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 159–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (2004–). BYU-BNC. Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press. http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/.

  • de Groote, P. (2001). Towards abstract categorial grammars. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the ACL (pp. 252–259). Morristown: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • de Swart, H., & Zwarts, J. (2009). Less form—More meaning: Why bare singular nouns are special. Lingua, 119(2), 280–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawron, J. M. (2006). Generalized paths. In Proceedings of SALT 15. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Department of Linguistics, CLC Publications.

  • Haïk, I. (2008). Symmetric structures. Ms. Université de Caen.

  • Heycock, C., & Zamparelli, R. (2003). Coordinated bare definites. Linguistic Inquiry, 34(3), 443–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeksema, J., & Janda, R. D. (1988). Implications of process morphology for categorial grammar. In R. T. Oehrle, E. Bach, & D. Wheeler (Eds.), Categorial grammars and natural language structures (pp. 199–247). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. (1984). Towards a new taxonomy of pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp. 11–42). Washington: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (2008). Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language, 84(1), 8–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, & P. van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expression (pp. 75–115). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman, F. (1996). Plurality. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 425–457). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Bruyn, B., & de Swart, H. (2013). Bare coordination: the semantic shift. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, to appear).

  • Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicatures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuyama, T. (2004). The N after N construction: A constructional idiom. English Linguistics, 21, 55–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matushansky, O., & Ionin, T. (2011). A singular analysis of three plurals. Ms. Utrecht University/UIUC.

  • Muskens, R. (2003). Language, lambdas, and logic. In G.-J. Kruijff & R. Oehrle (Eds.), Resource sensitivity in binding and anaphora. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy (pp. 23–54). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Oehrle, R. (1998). Noun after noun. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York City, January 1998.

  • Ojeda, A. E. (1993). New evidence for a more general theory of singularity. ESCOL, 93, 247–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pi, C.-Y.T. (1995). The structure of English iteratives. In P. Koskinen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1995 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association (pp. 434–445), Toronto.

  • Poesio, M. (1994). Weak definites. In M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT IV (pp. 282–299). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poß, M. (2010). Under construction: cognitive and computational aspects of extended lexical units. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.

  • Postma, G. (1995). Zero-semantics: The syntactic encoding of quantificational meaning. In M. den Dikken & K. Hengeveld (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1995 (pp. 175–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts, C., Alonso-Ovalle, L., Asudeh, A., Bhatt, R., Cable, S., Davis, C., et al. (2009). Expressives and identity conditions. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(2), 356–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pullum, G. K., & Rawlins, K. (2007). Argument or no argument? Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(2), 277–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, S. (2004). Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, U. (2008). Implicated presuppositions. In A. Steube (Ed.), Sentence and context: Language, context, and cognition (pp. 581–600). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, P. (2012). Maximize presupposition and Gricean reasoning. Natural Language Semantics, 20(4), 391–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, R. (2009). Maximize presupposition! and informationally encapsulated implicatures. In A. Riester & T. Solstad (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13 (pp. 513–526). Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staroverov, P. (2007). Relational nouns and reciprocal plurality. In T. Friedman & M. Gibson (Eds.), SALT XVII (pp. 300–316). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockall, L. (2001). Pluractionality and prepositions in Germanic. The syntax and semantics of [NP-P-NP]s. Presentation at ConSole X, Leiden University, 10 December 2001.

  • Stvan, L. S. (1998). The semantics and pragmatics of bare singular noun phrases. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University.

  • Talmy, L. (1996). Fictive motion in language and “ception”. In P. Bloom., M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 211–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Travis, L. (2001). The syntax of reduplication. Proceedings of NELS, 31, 455–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, L. (2003). Reduplication feeding syntatic movement. Proceedings 2003 CLA, pp. 236–247.

  • van Geenhoven, V. (1998). Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E. (1994). Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua, 92, 7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Y. (2001). Plural predication and the strongest meaning hypothesis. Journal of Semantics, 18, 333–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Y., & Zwarts, J. (2011). Event semantics and abstract categorial grammar. In M. Kanazawa et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of mathematics of language, MOL12 (pp. 174–191). Lecture notes in artificial intelligence. Berlin: Springer.

  • Zwarts, J. (2005). Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 739–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UiL OTS, Utrecht University, Trans 10, 3512 JK, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Joost Zwarts

Authors
  1. Joost Zwarts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joost Zwarts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zwarts, J. From N to N: The anatomy of a construction. Linguist and Philos 36, 65–90 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9131-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9131-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation