Advertisement

The Structure of Coordination

  • José Camacho
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 57)

Abstract

In the previous chapter, I established the main features that conjoined structures must have: they must be c-command asymmetric, namely, one conjunct must c-command the others, and they must be licensing symmetric, namely, each conjunct must be licensed in a similar way as the other. I also provided evidence about the propositional nature of coordination.

Keywords

Relative Clause Indirect Object Functional Projection Bare Noun Categorial Matrix 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 22.
    The paradigm of prepositional case marking has changed throughout the history of Spanish, as Cuervo (1973), §123 illustrates.Google Scholar
  2. 24.
    On NPI licensing in Spanish, see also Arnaiz (1996), among others. For most dialects of Spanish, except Basque Spanish, the negative item must be null when the NPI precedes the verb.Google Scholar
  3. 27.
    An anonymous reviewer points out that Haiman’s arguments could be used to support the claim that SR resembles complementation. Compare (i) and (ii) below. In (i), the “SS” clause, there is deletion under identity, reduced inflection and a null category in the second clause. (i.) Juan quiere salir. Juan wants go-out ‘Juan wants to go out.’ (ii.) *Juan quiere María salir. Juan wants Maria go-out (iii.) Juan quiere que María saiga. Juan wants that Maria go-out ‘Juan wants that Maria go out.’ I agree that Haiman’s arguments are not particularly compelling. For additional arguments on the conjoined status of SR, see Camacho and Elias Ulloa (2001).Google Scholar
  4. 30.
    The underlying reasoning here is that null categories need not have exactly the same properties as their full counterparts, as suggested by Montalbetti (1984).Google Scholar
  5. 31.
    The data in this section and much of the analysis of comitative coordination in Mojave are due to Munro(1980).Google Scholar
  6. 38.
    Chomsky (1995) argues that languages are parametrized with respect to the possibility of checking a feature twice. In particular, multiple subjects in Icelandic are explained because this language allows two specifiers of the same type per projection. This cannot be a parameter in a strict sense, since double subjects are optional in Icelandic, and even impossible in certain contexts.Google Scholar
  7. 43.
    Kayne (1994) derives the same result from his LCA: [and X] would result in two mutually c-commanding heads.Google Scholar
  8. 44.
    The same generalization holds in Italian, as Kayne (1994) points out, quoting Benincá and Cinque (1990).Google Scholar
  9. 49.
    Kayne (1994) adopts a very similar analysis for parallel cases.Google Scholar
  10. 50.
    I have already mentioned unbalanced or asymmetric coordination as an exception to this generalization See below and also chapters 1 and 3, and Johannesen 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 58.
    One fact this analysis does not account for is when this type of feature migration can occur. Bonet’s (1995) intuition is that it is restricted to clitic systems. See also Grimshaw 1999 for an Optimality Theory analysis of these facts.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Camacho
    • 1
  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations