Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the syntax of adversative coordination

  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

  • Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot. 1977. Deux mais en français? Lingua 43: 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, Jon, and Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics & Philosophy 4: 159–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Blackmore, Diane. 1989. Denial and contrast: a Relevance Theoretic account of but. Linguistics & Philosophy 12: 15–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore, Diane. 2000. Indicators and procedures: nevertheless and but. Journal of Linguistics 36: 463–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosque, Ignacio. 1980. Sobre la negación. Madrid: Cátedra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional categories: a cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culicover, Peter, and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Drubig, Hans Bernhard. 1994. Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, n. 51, Tübingen.

  • Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 337–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukui, Naoki, and Hiromu Sakai. 2003. The visibility guideline for functional categories: verb raising in Japanese and related issues. Lingua 113: 321–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallego, Ángel. 2004. Minimalist edge coordinations. Manuscript Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.

  • 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 

  • Hankamer, Jorge. 1973. Constraints on deletion in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University.

  • Horn, Laurence. 1989. A natural history of negation. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Christopher, and Jason Merchant. 2000. Attributive comparative deletion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18: 89–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: on the nature of functional categories and projections. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Lasnik, Howard. 1972. Analyses of negation in English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, Jason. 2004a. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics & Philosophy 27: 661–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, Jason. 2004b. Remarks on stripping. Ms., University of Chicago.

  • Merchant, Jason. 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Topics in ellipsis, ed. Kyle Johnson, 132–153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

  • Nykiel, Joanna, and Ivan Sag. 2009. Sluicing and stranding. In Handout, 2009 LSA Annual Meeting.

  • Ordóñez, Francisco. 1997. Word order and clause structure in Spanish and other Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center.

  • Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998a. Structure for coordination, Part I. GLOT International 3: 3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998b. Structure for coordination, Part II. GLOT International 3: 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya. 1991. Elliptical conjunctions: non-quantificational LF. In The Chomskyan turn, ed. Asa Kasher, 360–384. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Repp, Sophie. 2005. Interpreting ellipsis: the changeable presence of negation in gapping. Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt Universität, Berlin.

  • 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 

  • Romero, Maribel. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in wh- phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Ross, John. 1969. Guess who? In Proceedings of CLS 5, ed. Robert Binnick, 252–286.

  • Sag, Ivan, Gerald Gazdar, Tom Wasow, and Steven Weisler. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3: 117–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Soltan, Usama. 2007. On formal feature licensing in minimalism: aspects of Standard Arabic morphosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

  • Stainton, Robert. 2006. Words and thoughts: subsentences, ellipsis, and the philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ticio, Emma. 2003. On the structure of DPs. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

  • Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2009. Contrastive ‘but’ involves gapping not in Farsi but in English. In Handout, LSA 2009 annual meeting.

  • Umbach, Carla. 2005. Contrast and information structure: a focus-based analysis of but. Linguistics 43: 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Koppen, Marjo. 2005. One probe, two goals: aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University.

  • van der Wouden, Ton. 1997. Negative contexts. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.

  • 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 

  • Vicente, Luis. 2008. Syntactic isomorphism and non-isomorphism under ellipsis. Manuscript University of California, Santa Cruz.

  • von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Wurmbrand, Susi. 2008. Nor: neither disjunction nor paradox. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 511–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department Linguistik, Universität Potsdam, Karl Liebknechtstraße 24-25, Golm, 14476, Germany

    Luis Vicente

Authors
  1. Luis Vicente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis Vicente.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vicente, L. On the syntax of adversative coordination. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 28, 381–415 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9094-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9094-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation