Conclusion
In this paper we have presented a detailed treatment of key problems in the syntax of coordination in English which goes well beyond previous treatments in the breadth of its coverage.
The separation of immediate dominance rules from linear precedence rules had played an essential role in our analysis. It is this aspect of Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar that allows the full range of conjunctions in English to be treated in a unified manner using a small set of constructs. This same factoring of dominance and ordering information is what allows us to account for such problems as the peculiar properties of the coordination of embedded clauses and NPs, as we have shown. In addition, it is the interplay of various independently motivated principles in GPSG, such as the Head Feature Convention and the Foot Feature Principle, that enable one to derive, rather than stipulate, a solution to such long-standing problems as the facts commonly discussed in terms of the Coordinate Structure Constraint and the Across-the-Board Convention.
Over twenty years ago, the syntax of coordination was a key topic in the discussions that led to the widespread acceptance of transformational grammar. It is curious, then, that even today no version of transformational grammar has succeeded in explaining, and often not even in describing, well-known and very basic facts about coordination (e.g., the fact that arbitrary tensed VPs can coordinate with each other). Moreover, the various instances of coordination of unlike categories, which we have provided an account of without appeal to any ancillary devices or ad hoc principles, have received no serious analysis within the transformational tradition.
Of course, much remains to be done on the grammar of coordinate constructions. Among the problems we have addressed insufficiently or not at all are the precise formulation of the syntax and semantics of non-constituent ellipsis, the treatment of ‘right node raising’ constructions, and the semantic peculiarities of N1-coordination discussed by Bergmann (1982). Nevertheless, the present paper improves on earlier generative treatments of coordination by broadening the coverage while at the same time stipulating less.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abraham, R. C.: 1941, A Modern Grammar of Spoken Hausa, Crown Agents for the Colonies, London.
Bear, John: 1981, Gaps as Syntactic Features, MA dissertation, University of Texas, Austin [also available from Indiana University Linguistics Club].
Bever, Thomas G., J. M. Carroll, and R. Hurtig: 1975, ‘Analogy, or ungrammatical sequences that are utterable and comprehensible are the origins of new grammar in language acquisition and linguistic evolution’, in Thomas G. Bever, Jerrold J. Katz, and D. Terence Langendoen (eds.), An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Ability, New York, Thomas Crowell.
Bergmann, Merrie: 1982, ‘Cross-categorial semantics for conjoined common nouns’, Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 399–402.
Borsley, Robert: 1983, ‘A Welsh agreement process and the status of VP and S’, in G. Gazdar, E. H. Klein, and G. K. Pullum (eds.), Order, Concord and Constituency, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, pp 57–74.
Bresnan, Joan: 1973, ‘Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English’, Linguistic Inquiry 4(3), 275–344.
Browne, E. Wayles: 1972, ‘Conjoined question words and a limitation on English surface structures’, Linguistic Inquiry 3, 223–226.
Carlson, Greg: 1983, ‘Marking constituents’, in F. Heny and B. Richards (eds.), Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, Vol. 1, pp. 69–98.
Chomsky, Noam: 1957, Syntactic Structures, Mouton, The Hague.
--: 1970, ‘Remarks on nominalization’, in R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, pp. 184–221.
Cooper, Robin: 1979, ‘Model theory for a fragment of English’, unpublished paper, University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Corbett, Greville: 1983, ‘Resolution rules: agreement in person, number, and gender’, in Gerald Gazdar, Ewan Klein, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Order, Concord and Constituency, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Dixon, Robert: 1972, The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Engdahl, Elisabet: 1983a, ‘Parasitic gaps’, Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 5–34.
--: 1983b, ‘Some remarks on the treatment of unbounded dependencies and parasitic gaps in Gazdar, Klein, Pullum, and Sag, “Coordinate structure and unbounded dependencies”,’ unpublished manuscript, Linguistics Institute, UCLA.
Falk, Yehuda: 1983, ‘Constituency, word order, and phrase structure rules’, Linguistic Analysis 11, 331–360.
Farkas, Donka, Daniel P. Flickinger, Gerald Gazdar, William A. Ladusaw, Almerindo Ojeda, Jessie Pinkham, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Peter Sells: 1983, ‘Some revisions to the theory of features and feature instantiation’, unpublished manuscript, Linguistics Institute, UCLA.
Farkas, Donka and Almerindo Ojeda: in press, ‘Agreement and Coordinate NPs’, Linguistics.
Flickinger, Daniel P.: ‘Lexical heads and phrasal gaps’, in Michael Barlow, Daniel Flickinger, and Michael T. Wescoat (eds.), Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, vol. 2, Stanford Linguistics Association, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, pp. 89–101.
Gazdar, Gerald: 1980, ‘A cross-categorial semantics for coordination’, Linguistics and Philosophy 3, 407–409.
Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey Pullum, and Ivan Sag: 1982, ‘Coordinate structure and unbounded dependencies’, in M. Barlow, D. Flickinger, and I. A. Sag (eds.), Developments in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar: Stanford Working Papers in Grammatical Theory, vol. 2, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, pp. 38–68.
—: 1985, Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, and Blackwell, Oxford.
Gazdar, Gerald and Geoffrey K. Pullum: 1981, ‘Subcategorization, constituent order and the notion “head”’, in M. Moortgat, H.v.d. Hulst and T. Hoekstra (eds.), The Scope of Lexical Rules, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, pp. 107–123.
--: 1982, ‘Generalized phrase structure grammar: a theoretical synopsis’, mimeo, Indiana University Linguistics Club, August 1982.
Gazdar, Gerald; Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Ivan A. Sag: 1982, ‘Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restrictive theory of grammar’, Language 58, 591–638.
Gazdar, Gerald, Geoffrey K. Pullum, Ivan A. Sag, and Tom Wasow: 1982, ‘Coordination and transformational grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 13, 663–676.
Goodall, Grant: 1983, ‘A three-dimensional analysis of coordination’, in Amy Chukerman, Mitchell Marks, and John F. Richardson (eds.), Papers from the 19th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 146–154.
Grosu, Alexander: in press, ‘On acceptable violations of parallelism constraints’, in R. Dirven (ed.), Functionalism in Linguistics, Benjamin, Berlin.
Hankamer, Jorge: 1971, Constraints on Deletion in Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University [published in book form by Garland Publishers, 1979].
—: 1973, ‘Unacceptable Ambiguity’, Linguistic Inquiry 4, 17–88.
Hankamer, Jorge and Ivan Sag: 1976, ‘Deep and surface anaphora’, Linguistic Inquiry 7, 391–428.
Hoeksema, Jack: 1983, ‘Plurality and conjunction’, in Alice ter Meulen (ed.), Studies in Model-Theoretic Semantics, Foris, Dordrecht.
Hudson, Richard: 1982, ‘Incomplete conjuncts’, Linguistic Inquiry 13, 547–550.
Kay, Martin: 1979, ‘Functional grammar’, in C. Chiarello et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, pp. 142–158.
Karttunen, Lauri: 1984, ‘Features and values’, Proceedings of COLING84, Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford.
Keenan, Edward and Leonard Faltz: 1978, Logical Types for Natural Language, UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics, no. 3, Department of Linguistics, UCLA.
Koster, Jan: 1978, ‘Why sentential subjects don't exist’, in S. Keyser (ed.), Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph no. 3. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Kraft, Charles H. and Kraft, Marguerite G.: 1973, Introductory Hausa, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Kuno, Susumo: 1976, ‘Gapping: a functional analysis’, Linguistic Inquiry 7, 300–318.
Neijt, A.: 1979, Gapping: a Contribution to Sentence Grammar, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Partee, Barbara, and Mats Rooth: 1983, ‘Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity’, in R. Bäuerle et al. (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin.
Pesetsky, David: 1982, Paths and Categories, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Peterson, Peter: 1981, ‘Problems with constraints on coordination’, Linguistic Analysis 8, 449–460.
Pollard, Carl: 1982, ‘Generalized grammar — toward the formalization of some concepts on the syntax-semantics frontier’, unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.
Pollard, Carl J. and Ivan A. Sag: 1983, ‘Reflexives and reciprocals in English: an alternative to the binding theory’, in Michael Barlow, Daniel Flickinger, and Michael T. Wescoat (eds.), Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford Linguistics Association, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, pp. 189–202.
Rooth, Max and Barbara Partee: 1982, ‘Conjunction, type ambiguity, and wide scope “or”’, in Daniel Flickinger, Marlys Macken, and Nancy Wiegand (eds.), Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Linguistics Department, Stanford University, pp. 353–362.
Ross, John: 1967, Constraints on Variables in Syntax, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
—: 1976, ‘Clausematiness’, in Edward Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sag, Ivan: 1976, Deletion and Logical Form, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT [published in book form by Garland Publishers, 1980].
—: 1982, ‘Coordination, extraction, and generalized phrase structure’, Linguistic Inquiry 13, 329–336.
Sag, Ivan and Ewan Klein: 1982, ‘The syntax and semantics of English expletive pronoun constructions’, in M. Barlow, D. Flickinger, and I. A. Sag (eds.), Developments in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar: Stanford Working Papers in Grammatical Theory vol. 2, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, pp. 92–136.
Schachter, Paul: 1983, ‘A Note on Syntactic Categories and Coordination’, NLLT 2, 269–281.
Schachter, Paul and Susan Mordechai: 1983, ‘A phrase structure account of “non-constituent” conjunctions’, in M. Barlow, D. Flickinger, and M. Wescoat (eds.), Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Stanford.
Schmerling, Susan: 1975, ‘Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation’, in Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York.
Schwartz, Linda: 1984, ‘Asymmetric feature distribution in pronominal coordinations’, paper presented to the Workshop on Agreement, Stanford, October 1984.
Sells, Peter: 1983, ‘Thinking about foot features’, unpublished manuscript, Linguistics Institute, UCLA.
Stillings, Justine: 1975, ‘The formulation of gapping in English as evidence for variable types in syntactic transformations’, Linguistic Analysis 1, 247–273.
Stump, Gregory: 1978, Interpretive gapping in Montague grammar, in D. Farkas et al. (eds), Papers From the 14th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, pp. 472–481.
Weisler, Steven: 1982, ‘Coordination and the syntax of that-clauses’, in Alan Prince and Steven Weisler (eds.), U. Mass. Amherst Occasional Working Papers in Cognitive Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 113–134.
Williams, Edwin: 1977, ‘Discourse and logical form’, Linguistic Inquiry 8(1), 101–139.
—: 1978, ‘Across the board rule application’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 31–43.
—: 1981, ‘Transformationless grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 645–654.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The authors wish to acknowledge their debt to a great many individuals for helpful conversations, suggestions, and/or encouragement throughout the usually long time taken for this paper to see the light of day. Special thanks are due to Carl Pollard and Geoffrey Pullum, who provided so much assistance and advice that they probably ought to have been listed as co-authors. Our thinking about what the Head Feature Convention needed to do was considerably clarified by conversations with Fernando Pereira and Stuart Shieber. Among the other people from whose comments we have benefitted are: Emmon Bach, Robin Cooper, Elisabet Engdahl, Aryeh Faltz, Donka Farkas, Dan Flickinger, J. Mark Gawron, Georgia Green, Frank Heny, Martin Kay, Ed Keenan, Ewan Klein, Bill Ladusaw, Joan Maling, Dick Oehrle, Almerindo Ojeda, E. Anne Paulson, Jessie Pinkham, Graham Russell, Paul Schachter, Peter Sells, Hans Uszkoreit, Edwin Williams, and three anonymous referees. In addition, we thank Michael Wescoat and Dan Flickinger for valuable help in manuscript preparation. Support for work on this paper was provided by grants to Stanford University from the National Science Foundation (BNS-8102406) and the Sloan Foundation, by the Center for the Study of Language and Information, and by grants from the Sloan Foundation and System Development Foundation to the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (Gazdar).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sag, I.A., Gazdar, G., Wasow, T. et al. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 3, 117–171 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133839
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133839