Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:57:13.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematic mismatches: Coordination and subordination at three levels of grammar1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2014

OLEG BELYAEV
OLEG BELYAEV*
Affiliation:
Lomonosov Moscow State University & Sholokhov Moscow State University for the Humanities
*
Author's address: Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Philology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 1st Humanities building, Leninskie gory, 119991 GSP-1 Moscow, RussiaInstitute for Modern Linguistic Research, Sholokhov Moscow State University for the Humanities, 3-ja Vladimirskaya 7, 111123 Moscow, Russiaobelyaev@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I analyze two clause combining strategies in Ossetic that exhibit mixed properties between coordination and subordination. I argue that the ‘mismatch approach’ proposed by Culicover & Jackendoff (1997) and Yuasa & Sadock (2002) is best suited to account for their properties. However, in order to adequately describe the behavior of these constructions in terms of the mismatch approach, appealing to three levels of grammar is required instead of two levels (syntax and semantics) discussed in previous works. This provides a clear argument in favor of models of grammar such as Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), where the syntactic level is split between constituent structure (c-structure) and functional structure (f-structure). The properties of semantic coordination and subordination that have been proposed in earlier work mostly belong to the level of f-structure, and not semantics proper. I argue that the only substantial semantic difference between coordination and adverbial subordination is that the former introduces discourse relations between speech acts, while the latter introduces asserted predicates that link two propositions within the same speech act. I provide definitions of coordination and subordination at all the three levels of grammar formalized in terms of the LFG framework, and discuss the tests that can be used for each of these levels.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , July 2015 , pp. 267 - 326
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

This paper has had a long history, and many thanks are due to the various people who have contributed to its development. I am especially thankful to Mary Dalrymple, without whose encouragement and meticulous reading of the manuscript, as well as help with the details of the LFG formalism, this paper would not have appeared in its present form. The semantic side of the paper has benefited greatly from discussions with Elena Paducheva and Dag Haug, due to their valuable insights about the meanings of coordinating conjunctions. I am also thankful to Marina Chumakina, Yury Lander, Mati Pentus, Natalia Serdobolskaya, Andrey Shluinsky, Andrey Sideltsev, three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees, and four anonymous Natural Language & Linguistic Theory (NLLT) referees, who have provided numerous helpful comments and corrections. I am grateful to Ewa Jaworska at JL for her editorial work. I would also like to thank all of the native speakers of Ossetic I consulted during my 2010–2013 fieldwork, in particular Madina Darchieva (V.I. Abaev Institute for Social Research and the Humanities, Vladikavkaz) and Zalina Dzuceva (North Ossetian State University, Vladikavkaz). Any misinterpretations of the judgements they have provided are entirely my own fault. All errors are mine.

This research has been supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project No. 14-18-03270 ‘Word order typology, communicative-syntactic interface and information structure in world's languages’.

References

REFERENCES

Abaev, Vasilij I. 1949. Osetinskij jazyk i fol'klor [Ossetian language and folklore], vol. 1. Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Abaev, Vasilij I. 1958. Istoriko-ètimologičeskij slovar’ osetinskogo jazyka [A historical and etymological dictionary of Ossetic], vol. 1 (A–K’). Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Alzaidi, Muhammad Swaileh. 2010. Gapping and right node raising: An LFG approach. M.A. dissertation, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas & Sportiche, Dominique. 1994. Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25.2, 195–220.Google Scholar
Arkhipov, Alexandre (Arxipov, A. V.). 2009. Tipologija komitativnyx konstrukcij [A typology of comitative constructions]. Moscow: Znak.Google Scholar
Arnold, Doug & Sadler, Louisa. 2010. Pottsian LFG. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG10, 43–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas. 1993. Reference to abstract objects in discourse (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 50). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex. 2003. Logics of conversation (Studies in Natural Language Processing). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash. 2012. The logic of pronominal resumption (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asudeh, Ash & Crouch, Richard. 2002. Coordination and parallelism in Glue Semantics: Integrating discourse cohesion and the Element Constraint. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG02, 19–39. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash, Dalrymple, Mary & Toivonen, Ida. 2008. Constructions with lexical integrity: Templates as the lexicon–syntax interface. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG08, 68–88. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash & Giorgolo, Gianluca. 2012. Flexible composition for optional and derived arguments. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG12, 64–84. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash & Toivonen, Ida. 2012. Copy raising and perception. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30.2, 321–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, Peter & Bresnan, Joan. 1996. Non-configurationality in Australian aboriginal languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14.2, 215–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1999. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22.4, 367–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bary, Corien & Truslew Haug, Dag Trygve. 2011. Temporal anaphora across and inside sentences: The function of participles. Semantics and Pragmatics 4.8, 1–56. http://semprag.org/article/view/sp.4.8 (13 November 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belyaev, Oleg. 2014a. Anaphora in Ossetic correlatives and the typology of clause combining. In Suihkonen, Pirkko, Whaley, Lindsay J. (eds.), On diversity and complexity of languages spoken in Europe and Northern and Central Asia (Studies in Language Companion Series 164), 275–310. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Belyaev, Oleg I. 2014b. Osetinskij kak jazyk s dvuxpadežnoj sistemoj: gruppovaja fleksija i drugie paradoksy padežnogo markirovanija [Ossetic as a two-case language: Suspended affixation and other case marking paradoxes]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 6, 74–108.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2003. Locality in correlatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 485–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Bril, (ed.), 51–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 2006. Thematic roles – universal, particular, and idiosyncratic aspects. In Bornkessel, Ina, Schlesewsky, Matthias, Comrie, Bernard & Friederici, Angela D. (eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological, and psycholinguistic perspectives (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 165), 89–126. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2005. Against ConjP. Lingua 115.4, 461–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in der neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Mchombo, Sam A.. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63.4, 741–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bril, Isabelle (ed.). 2010. Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics (Studies in Language Companion Series 121). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G., Fraser, Norman M. & McGlashan, Scott (eds.). 1993. Heads in grammatical theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2010. Specialized converbs and adverbial subordination in Axaxdәrә Akhvakh. In Bril, (ed.), 105–142.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 195–217.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2003. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Curry, Haskell B. & Feys, Robert. 1958. Combinatory logic, vol. 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary (ed.). 1999. Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The resource logic approach (Language, Speech, and Communication). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar (Syntax and Semantics 34). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, King, Tracy Holloway & Hayrapetian, Irene. 1998. The semantics of the Russian comitative construction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16.3, 597–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Lamping, John, Pereira, Fernando & Saraswat, Vijay. 1999a. Overview and introduction. In Dalrymple, (ed.), 1–38.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Lamping, John, Pereira, Fernando & Saraswat, Vijay. 1999b. Quantification, anaphora, and intensionality. In Dalrymple, (ed.), 39–90.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and information structure (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, Michael (Danièl’, M. A.). 1998. Konstrukcii s pogloščënnym referentom: Ob odnom tipe upotreblenij predloga “s” [Constructions with absorbed referents: On one use of the preposition ‘with’]. Trudy Meždunarodnogo seminara Dialog-98 po komp'juternoj lingvistike i eë priloženijam [Proceedings of Dialog-98], Kazan, vol. 1, 183–196.Google Scholar
de Vos, Mark Andrew. 2005. The syntax of verbal pseudo-coordination in English and Afrikaans. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Delort, Laurence & Danlos, Laurence. 2005. Coordination of causal relations in discourse. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning (SEM'05), Biarritz, 75–84.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger & Hetterle, Katja. 2011. Causal clauses: A cross-linguistic investigation of their structure, meaning, and use. In Siemund, Peter (ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 231), 21–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dyła, Stefan. 1988. Quasi-comitative coordination in Polish. Linguistics 26, 383–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzaxova, Veronika T. 2009. Fonetičeskie xarakteristiki fonologičeskoj sistemy sovremennogo osetinskogo (ironskogo) literaturnogo jazyka [The phonetic characterisics of the phonological system of contemporary literary Iron Ossetic]. Vladikavkaz: Izdatel'stvo SOGPI.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74.2, 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epps, Patience. 2008. A grammar of Hup (Mouton Grammar Library 43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2004. The syntax of adjuncts (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erschler, David. 2012. From preverbal focus to preverbal “left periphery”: The Ossetic clause architecture in areal and diachronic perspective. Lingua 122.6, 673–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William & Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gagkaev, Konstantin E. 1956. Sintaksis osetinskogo jazyka [Syntax of the Ossetic language]. Ordžonikidze: Severo-Osetinskoe knižnoe izdatel'stvo.Google Scholar
Girard, Jean-Yves. 1987. Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science 50, 1–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1976. Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Language 52, 382–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry (eds.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3), 43–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Groupe λ-l. 1975. Car, parce que, puisque. Revue Romane 10.2, 248–280.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1977. Where do cleft sentences come from? Language 53.3, 543–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guriev, Tamerlan A. (ed.). 2004. Osetinsko-russkij slovar’ [Ossetic–Russian dictionary], 5th edn.Vladikavkaz: Alanija.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2004. The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalisation. In Coene, Martine, Cuyper, Gretel De & D'Hulst, Yves (eds.), Current studies in comparative Romance linguistics, 61–90. Antwerp: University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Haspelmath, Martin & König, Ekkehard (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13), 1–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004a. Coordinating constructions: An overview. In Haspelmath, (ed.), 3–39.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin (ed.). 2004b. Coordinating constructions (Typological Studies in Language 58). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Howard, William A. 1980. The formulae-as-types notion of construction. In Seldin, Jonathan P. & Hindley, J. Roger (eds.), To H. B. Curry: Essays on combinatory logic, lambda calculus, and formalism, 479–490. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hulsey, Sarah & Sauerland, Uli. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 14, 111–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Michael. 1994. The syntax and semantics of adverbial adjuncts. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. & Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1987. Modern Greek (Croom Helm Descriptive Grammar Series). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and Discourse Representation Theory (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 42). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. & Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 173–281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. & Maxwell, John T. III. 1995. Constituent coordination in Lexical-Functional Grammar. In Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald M., Maxwell, John T. III & Zaenen, Annie (eds.), Formal issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar (CSLI Lecture Notes 47), 199–210. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. & Zaenen, Annie. 1989. Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. In Baltin, Mark R. & Kroch, Anthony S. (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 17–42. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. The logic of English predicate complement constructions. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 1999. Problema razgraničenija sočinenija i podčinenija predikacij: Bessojuznaja konstrukcija [The problem of distinguishing subordination of clauses from coordination: The asyndetic construction]. In Kibrik, Aleksandr E. & Testelec, Yakov G. (eds.), Èlementy caxurskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Elements of Tsakhur grammar in typological perspective], 330–344. Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I. & Testelec, Yakov G.. 2004. Where coordination meets subordination: Converb constructions in Tsakhur (Daghestanian). In Haspelmath, (ed.), 227–239.Google Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway. 1997. Focus domains and information structure. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG97, 1–13. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. 1962. Structure at the lexical level and its implications for transfer grammar. 1961 International Conference on Machine Translation of Languages and Applied Language Analysis, vol. 1, 97–108. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Kobozeva, Irina M. 2011. Sojuzy kak markery ritoričeskix otnošenij v diskurse: russkij sojuz ‘i’ [Conjunctions as markers of rhetorical relations in discourse: The Russian conjunction ti]. L'Analisi linguistica e letteraria 19.2, 365–387.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Jonas & Sadler, Louisa. 2007. Single conjunct agreement and the formal treatment of coordination in LFG. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG07, 302–322. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kulaev, Nikolaj X. 1959. Sojuzy v sovremennom osetinskom jazyke [Conjunctions in contemporary Ossetic]. Ordžonikidze: Severo-Osetinskoe knižnoe izdatel'stvo.Google Scholar
Kulaev, Nikolaj X. 1961. K voprosu o probleme padežej v osetinskom jazyke [Towards the problem of case in Ossetic]. Barxudarov, Stepan G., Baskakov, Nikolaj A. & Reformatskij, Aleksandr A. (eds.), Voprosy sostavlenija opisatel'nyx grammatik [Issues in the creation of descriptive grammars], 245–252. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1984. Performative subordinate clauses. Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS) 10, 472–478.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1986. Frame semantic control of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 22.2, 152–167.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Ross, John R.. 1976. Why you can't do so into the sink. In McCawley, James D. (ed.), Notes from the linguistic underground (Syntax and Semantics 7), 101–111. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascarides, Alex & Asher, Nicholas. 2007. Segmented Discourse Representation Theory: Dynamic semantics with discourse structure. In Bunt, Harry C. & Muskens, Reinhard (eds.), Computing meaning (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 83), vol. 3, 87–124. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (Typological Studies in Language 18), 181–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lev, Iddo. 2007. Packed computation of exact meaning representations. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Maxwell, John T. III & Manning, Christopher D.. 1996. A theory of non-constituent coordination based on finite-state rules. In Butt, Miriam & Holloway King, Tracy (eds.), LFG96. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1993. Comitative coordination: A case study in group formation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11, 347–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1987. Coordinate structure and X-bar theory. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 4, 121–140.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Needham, Stephanie & Toivonen, Ida. 2011. Derived arguments. , MiriamButt, & Holloway King, Tracy (eds.), LFG11, 401–421. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Olson, Michael L. 1981. Barai clause junctures: Toward a functional theory of interclausal relations. Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H., ter Meulen, Alice G. & Wall, Robert E.. 1990. Mathematical methods in linguistics (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 30). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Pasch, Renate. 1997. Weil mit Hauptsatz – Kuckucksei im denn-Nest. Deutsche Sprache 25, 252–271.Google Scholar
Pazel'skaja, Anna G. 2007. Problema sočinenija i podčinenija [The problem of coordination and subordination]. In Lyutikova, Ekaterina A., Kazenin, Konstantin I., Solovyev, Valery (Solov’ëv, V. D.) & Tatevosov, Sergei G. (eds.), Mišarskij dialekt tatarskogo jazyka: Očerki po sintaksisu i semantike [The Mishar dialect of Tatar: Essays on syntax and semantics], 115–125. Kazan: Magarif.Google Scholar
Pekelis, Ol’ga E. 2008. Sočinenie i podčinenie: kommunikativnyj podxod [Coordination and subordination: A communicative approach]. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii 2.16, 21–57.Google Scholar
Pekelis, Ol'ga E. 2009. Sočinenie i podčinenie v kontekste pričinnoj semantiki [Coordination and subordination in the context of causal semantics]. Kandidat dissertation, Russian State University for the Humanities.Google Scholar
Podlesskaya, Vera I. 1993. Složnoe predloženie v sovremennom japonskom jazyke: Materialy k tipologii polipredikativnosti [Complex clauses in modern Japanese: Material for the typology of clause combining]. Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 7). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa & Nordlinger, Rachel. 2010. Nominal juxtaposition in Australian languages: An LFG analysis. Journal of Linguistics 46.2, 415–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerry M. 2012. The modular architecture of grammar (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Gazdar, Gerald, Wasow, Timothy & Weisler, Steven. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3, 117–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, Tatjana. 2013. Two-dimensional semantics: Clausal adjuncts and complements (Linguistische Arbeiten 549). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Širjaev, Evgenij N. 1986. Bessojuznoe složnoe predloženie v sovremennom russkom jazyke [Asyndetic clause combining in contemporary Russian]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Srivastav, Veneeta. 1991. The syntax and semantics of correlatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9, 637–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina R. & Mutalov, Rasul O.. A grammar of Icari Dargwa. Berlin: LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Hidemitsu. 2008. Imperatives in concessive clauses: Compatibility between constructions. Constructions 2. http://elanguage.net/journals/constructions/article/view/60.Google Scholar
Testelec, Yakov G. 2001. Vvedenie v obščij sintaksis [General syntax: An introduction]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo RGGU.Google Scholar
Thiersch, Craig. 1985. VP and scrambling in the German Mittelfeld. Ms., University of Connecticut & University of Köln.Google Scholar
Thim-Mabrey, Christiane. 1982. Zur Syntax der kausalen Konjunktionen weil, da und denn. Sprachwissenschaft 7, 197–219.Google Scholar
Tomelleri, Vittorio. 2009. The category of aspect in Georgian, Ossetic and Russian: Some areal and typological observations. Faits de langues 1, 245–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Txurruka, Isabel Gómez. 2003. The natural language conjunction and. Linguistics and Philosophy 26, 255–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Oirsouw, Robert R. 1987. The syntax of coordination. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the syntax–semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2005. Two types of coordination in clause combining. Lingua 115, 611–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, Torben. 1977. Prepositional phrases and prepositional verbs: A study in grammatical function. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuasa, Etsuyo & Sadock, Jerry M.. 2002. Pseudo-subordination: A mismatch between syntax and semantics. Journal of Linguistics 38.1, 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. & Paducheva, Elena V.. 1975. K tipologii otnositel'nogo predloženija [Toward the typology of relative clauses]. Semiotika i informatika 6, 51–101.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger, Strecker, Bruno, Ballweg, Joachim, Brauße, Ursula, Breindl, Eva, Engel, Ulrich, Frosch, Helmut, Hoberg, Ursula & Vorderwülbecke, Klaus. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache (Schriften des Instituts für deutsche Sprache 7.1), vol. 1. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar