LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Le Bruyn, Bert; de Swart, Henriëtte (2014)
Publisher: Springer Nature
Journal: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Linguistics and Language
This paper develops an analysis of the syntax-semantics interface of two types of split coordination structures. In the first type, two bare singular count nouns appear as arguments in a coordinated structure, as in bride and groom were happy. We call this the N&N construction. In the second type, the determiner shows agreement with the first conjunct, while the second conjunct is bare, as in the Spanish example el hornero y hornera cobraban en panes (‘thesg.m bakersg.m and bakersg.f werepl paid in bread loaves’). We call this the DN&N construction. Both N&N and DN&N constructions are common in languages that otherwise require an article or determiner on singular count nouns in regular argument position, and give rise to ‘split’ readings that cannot be accounted for by the standard semantics of conjunction in terms of set intersection. Furthermore, they are restricted to instances of ‘natural’ coordination. We formalize the semantics of split conjunction in terms of intersection between sets of matching pairs, which correlates with the lexical semantics and pragmatics of natural coordination. We maintain that an N&N construction gets either a definite or an indefinite interpretation by covert type-shifting, because projection of an article ranging over the coordination as a whole is blocked in languages like English and Spanish. For DN&N structures, we propose a syntactic structure in which D is in construction with the first conjunct. Coordination with a second, bare conjunct requires a covert type-shift that is licensed only under the special matchmaking semantics of conjunction. The analysis addresses a range of issues these coordinate structures raise about syntactic and semantic agreement, in particular with respect to number. Next to English and Spanish we will look into Dutch and French in detail.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339-405.
    • Condoravdi, Cleo. 1994. Descriptions in context. Yale University dissertation.
    • Cooper, Robin. 1979. Model theory for a fragment of English syntax. Ms. Madison, Wisconsin.
    • Dalrymple, Mary, and Irina Nikolaeva. 2006. Syntax of natural and accidental coordination. Evidence from agreement. Language 82(4): 824-849.
    • Dayal, Veneeta. 2011. Bare noun phrases. In Semantics: an international handbook of natural language meaning, eds. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, Vol. II, 1088-1108.
    • Delfitto, Denis, and Jan Schroten. 1991. Bare plurals and the number affix in DP. Probus 3: 155-185.
    • Demonte, Violeta, Héctor Fernández-Alcalde, and Isabel Pérez-Jiménez. 2011. On the nature of nominal features. Agreement mismatches in Spanish conjoined structures. In Romance linguistics 2010: selected papers from the 40th linguistic symposium on romance languages, Seattle, Washington, ed. Julia Herschensohn, 177-190. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    • Demonte, Violeta, and Isabel Pérez-Jiménez. 2012. Closest conjunct agreement in Spanish DPs. Syntax and beyond. Folia Lingüística 46(1): 21-74.
    • Espinal, M. Teresa, and Louise McNally. 2010. Bare singular nominals and incorporating verbs in Spanish and Catalan. Journal of Linguistics 47: 87-128.
    • Farkas, Donka, and Henriëtte de Swart. 2003. The semantics of incorporation: from argument structure to discourse transparency. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    • von Fintel, Kai. 1999. NPI-licensing, Strawson-entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16: 97-148.
    • Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4): 781-819.
    • Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20. Essays in linguistics in honour of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Ken Hale, and Samuel J. Keyser, 111-176. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    • Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Coordination. In Language typology and linguistic description, ed. Timothy Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Hendriks, Petra, Helen de Hoop, Irene Krämer, Henriëtte de Swart, and Joost Zwarts. 2010. Conflicts in interpretation. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.
    • Heycock, Caroline, and Roberto Zamparelli. 2003. Coordinated bare definites. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 443- 469.
    • Heycock, Caroline, and Roberto Zamparelli. 2005. Friends and colleagues. Plurality, coordination and the structure of DP. Natural Language Semantics 13: 201-270.
    • de Hoop, Helen. 1996. Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. New York: Garland. Revised and updated version of dissertation (1992, University of Groningen).
    • Kager, René. 1999. Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Kamp, Hans, and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
    • Keenan, Edward. 1987. A semantic definition of indefinite NP. In The representation of (in)definiteness, eds. Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen, 286-317. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    • King, Tracy, and Mary Dalrymple. 2004. Determiner agreement and noun conjunction. Journal of Linguistics 40(1): 69-104.
    • Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Elsewhere in phonology. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, eds. Stephen R. Anderson, and Paul Kiparsky. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    • Kuo, Jenny Yi-chun. 2008. A pragmatic approach to the interpretations of Mandarin bare nouns. Journal of Pragmatics 40(6): 1082-1102.
    • Laca, Brenda. 1999. Presencia y ausencia de determinante. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, eds. Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte. Vol. 1 of Real Academia Española, Collección Nebrija y Bello, 891-929. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
    • Lambrecht, Knud. 1984. Formulaicity, frame semantics and pragmatics in German binomial expressions. Language 60(4): 753-796.
    • Le Bruyn, Bert. 2010. Indefinite articles and beyond. Utrecht: LOT.
    • Le Bruyn, Bert, Henriëtte de Swart, and Joost Zwarts. 2011. Mass-count distinctions in bare PPs. Ms. Utrecht University.
    • Lombardi, Linda. 1999. Positional faithfulness and voicing: assimilation in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 267-302.
    • Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: a theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609-665.
    • Märzhäuser, Christina. 2013. Coordinated bare nouns in French, Spanish and European Portuguese. In New perspectives on bare noun phrases in romance and beyond, eds. Johannes Kabatek and Albert Wall, 283-300. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

Cite this article