Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 597–631 | Cite as

The Semantics of the Russian Comitative Construction

  • Mary Dalrymple
  • Irene Hayrapetian
  • Tracy Holloway King

Abstract

Russian has two different means of combining two noun phrases to form a plural noun phrase: the coordinate construction (using i 'and') and the comitative construction (using s 'with'). The two constructions are associated with different readings for certain sentences. In particular, the coordinate construction generally allows both a distributive and a collective reading, whereas in certain cases the comitative construction allows only for a collective reading. This difference has been ascribed to a difference in denotation of the two types of phrases. We show that such an analysis is unsatisfactory and propose an alternative analysis that appeals to pragmatic factors. In particular, we claim that distributive readings are dispreferred in the absence of an overt distributive operator and that pragmatic differences between the types of noun phrases raise the saliency of their subgroups to different degrees, thus making distributive readings more difficult to obtain with comitatives.

References

  1. Carlson, Gregory N.: 1987, ‘Same and Different: Some Consequences for Syntax and Semantics’, Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 531–565.Google Scholar
  2. Choe, Jae-Woong: 1987, Anti-Quantifiers and a Theory of Distributivity, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  3. Dalrymple, Mary, Makoto Kanazawa, Yookyung Kim, Sam A. Mchombo, and Stanley Peters: 1997, ‘Reciprocal Expressions and the Concept of Reciprocity’, Linguistics and Philosophy, to appear.Google Scholar
  4. Franks, Steven: 1995, Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  5. Gillon, Brendan: 1987, ‘The Readings of Plural Noun Phrases in English’, Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 199–219.Google Scholar
  6. Gillon, Brendan: 1990, ‘Plural Noun Phrases and Their Readings: A Reply to Lasersohn’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13(4), 477–485.Google Scholar
  7. Hoeksema, Jacob: 1988, ‘The Semantics of Non-Boolean 'And'’, Journal of Semantics 6, 19–40.Google Scholar
  8. Landman, Fred: 1989, ‘Groups’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 559–605, 723–744.Google Scholar
  9. Lasersohn, Peter: 1989, ‘On the Readings of Plural Noun Phrases’, Linguistic Inquiry 20(I), 130–134.Google Scholar
  10. Link, Godehard. 1984, ‘Hydras, On the Logic of Relative Constructions with Multiple Heads’, in Fred Landman and Frank Veltman (eds.), Varieties of Formal Semantics, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 245–257.Google Scholar
  11. Lønning, Jan Tore: 1987, ‘Collective Readings of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases’, in P. Gärdenfors (ed.), Generalized Quantifiers. Linguistic and Logical Approaches, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 203–235.Google Scholar
  12. Lønning, Jan Tore: 1989, Some Aspects of the Logic of Plural Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oslo. Published as COSMOS Report 11, Department of Mathematics, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  13. McNally, Louise: 1993, ‘Comitative Coordination: A Case Study in Group Formation’, Natural and Linguistic Theory 11(2), 347–379.Google Scholar
  14. Rappaport, Gilbert C.: 1984, Grammatical Function and Syntactic Structure: The Adverbial Participle of Russian, Slavica, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  15. Roberts, Craige: 1987, Modal Subordination, Anaphora, and Distributivity, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  16. Schwarzschild, Roger: 1992, ‘Types of Plural Individuals’, Linguistics and Philosophy 15(6), 641–675.Google Scholar
  17. Schwarzschild, Roger: 1996, Pluralities, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  18. Winter, Yoad: 1996, ‘A Unified Semantic Treatment of Singular NP Coordination’, Linguistics and Philosophy 19(4), 337–392.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Dalrymple
    • 1
  • Irene Hayrapetian
    • 2
  • Tracy Holloway King
    • 3
  1. 1.Information Sciences and Technologies LaboratoryXerox PARCPalo AltoUSA
  2. 2.Center for the Study of Language and InformationStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Information Sciences and Technologies LaboratoryXerox PARCPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations