Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:18:44.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conjunction, cumulation and respectively readings1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2012

RUI P. CHAVES
RUI P. CHAVES*
Affiliation:
Linguistics Department, University at Buffalo – SUNY
*
Author's address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260–1030, USArchaves@buffalo.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

So-called respectively readings have posed serious challenges for theories of syntax and semantics. Sentences like George and Martha respectively denounced and were denounced by the governor (McCawley 1998) show that although the conjoined verbal expressions share the same syntactic subject, they do not predicate that subject in the same way; George (not Martha) denounced the governor, and Martha (but not George) was denounced by the governor. Postal (1998: 160–163) and Gawron & Kehler (2004: 193–194) show that this phenomenon poses problems for contemporary theories of grammar and argue that it is particularly acute for theories where subcategorization and predication are linked via unification. As these authors note, the problem is even more severe in respectively readings involving filler–gap constructions. In this paper I argue that the severity of these problems has been overstated and that the data do not entail any special dissociation between predication, subcategorization, or extraction. In this paper I propose an account which is fully compatible with unification-based theories of grammar. Gawron & Kehler (2004) propose an account of respectively phenomena which covers a remarkably wide range of cases. That approach relies on a Respf operator, which it stipulated to be optionally overt. However, I argue that this analysis is problematic because there are significant semantic differences between respectively readings with and without an overt realization of ‘respectively’. Rather, the data suggest that respectively readings may be special cases of more general phenomena which happen to create interpretations that are compatible with the semantics of the adverb respectively. This explains why respectively readings can arise without the adverb, and does not require us to posit a disconnect between predication and subcategorization. In fact, a sentence with a respectively reading will not differ in syntactic or semantic structure from sentences without such a reading.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , July 2012 , pp. 297 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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]

I am grateful to the anonymous referees of the Journal of Linguistics for their comments and criticism. I also thank the audiences and referees of the conferences where previous versions of this work were presented, namely the 17th Biennial Conference of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand (University of Waikato), and the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. Thanks is also due to Brian Grom for assistance searching the Google's N-Gram corpus.

References

REFERENCES

Abbott, Barbara. 1976. Right Node Raising as a test for constituenthood. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 639–642.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus. 2004. Right Node Raising: Ellipsis or across the board movement? In Moulton, Keir & Wolf, Matthew (eds.), The Thirty-fourth Annual Meeting of the North-East Linguistic Society (NELS 34), 45–60. Charleston, SC: BookSurge.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian. 1984. Sentence types and t he form–functin fit. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2.1, 1–23.Google Scholar
Alshawi, Hiyan & Crouch, Richard. 1992. Monotonic semantic interpretation. The 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ’92), Newark, DE, 32–39. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 5–16.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon, Brown, Colin & Marlsen-Wilson, William. 1986. Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch: A psycholinguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes 1, 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2007. Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30.4, 407–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartsch, Renate. 1973. The semantics and syntax of number and numbers. In Kimball, John P. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 2, 51–93. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Beavers, John & Sag, Ivan A.. 2004. Ellipsis and apparent non-constituent coordination. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), The 11th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 48–69. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid & Sauerland, Uli. 2000. Cumulativity is needed: A reply to Winter (2000). Natural Language Semantics 8, 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. 1987. Same and different: Some consequences for syntax and semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 531–565.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Bob. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2009. Construction-based cumulation and adjunct extraction. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), The 16th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Göttingen, 47–67. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2011. Extraposition and additive Right Node Raising. Presented at the 18th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2012a. On the disunity of Right Node Raising phenomena: Extraposition, anaphora, and ellipsis. Ms., University at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2012b. On the grammar of extraction and coordination. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, doi: 10.1007/s11049-011-9164-y. Published by Springer, 6 January 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In Peters, Stanley (ed.), Goals of linguistic theory, 63–130. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann, Flickinger, Dan, Sag, Ivan A. & Pollard, Carl. 2005. Minimal Recursion Semantics: An introduction. Journal Research on Language & Computation 3.2–3, 281–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copestake, Ann, Lascarides, Alex & Flickinger, Dan. 2001. An algebra for semantic construction in constraint-based grammars. The 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ’01), Toulouse, France, 132–139. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann/Elsevier.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 1999. Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The resource logic approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Kehler, Andrew. 1995. On the constraints imposed by respectively. Linguistic Inquiry 26.3, 531–536.Google Scholar
Fast, Jakub. 2005. Structurally underspecified semantics for distributive plural predication: Respectively constructions in Lexical Resource Semantics. In Blaho, Sylvia, Vicente, Luis & Schoorlemmer, Erik (eds.), ConSOLE (Student Organisation of Linguistics in Europe) XIII, Tromsø, 17–38.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 1978. Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 427–473.Google Scholar
Frank, Anette & Reyle, Uwe. 1995. Principle-based semantics for HPSG. The 7th Annual Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ’95), University College Dublin, 9–16. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Gawron, Jean Mark & Kehler, Andrew. 2003. Respective answers to coordinated questions. In Young, Robert B. & Zhou, Yuping (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 13, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 73–90.Google Scholar
Gawron, Jean Mark & Kehler, Andrew. 2004. The semantics of respective readings, conjunction and filler–gap dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 27.2, 169–207.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12.2, 155–184.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Sag, Ivan A.. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell & Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning and use of English interrogative constructions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goodall, Grant. 1987. Parallel structures in syntax: Coordination, causatives, and restructuring. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halvorsen, Per-Kristian. 1988. Situation Semantics and semantic interpretation in constraint-based grammars. In Moto-Oka, T. (ed.), The International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Tokyo, 471–478. Tokyo: Institute for New Generation Computer Technology. [Reprinted in Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald, Maxwell, John T. & Zaenen, Annie (eds.), Formal issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 293–309. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 1995.]Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547–593.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1974. Quantifiers vs. quantification. Dialectica 27, 329–358. [Reprinted in 1974, Linguistic Inquiry 5, 153–177.]Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 1988. The semantics of non-Boolean and. Journal of Semantics 6, 16–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1984. Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. -syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1979. Events, instants and temporal reference. In Bäuerle, Rainer, Egli, Urs & von Stechow, Arnim (eds.), Semantics from different points of view, 376–417. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1999. Agreement and the syntax–morphology interface in HPSG. In Levine, Robert D. & Green, Georgia (eds.), Studies in contemporary phrase structure grammar, 209–260. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 2000. Linear Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1989. Contextual operators: respective, respectively, and vice versa. In Hall, Kira, Meacham, Michael & Shapiro, Richard (eds.), The Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 15), 181–192. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2004. Pragmatic aspects of grammatical constructions. In Horn, Laurence & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 675–700. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1992. Beyond the Frege boundary. Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2003. The event argument and the semantics of verbs, chapter 2. Ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1989a. Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen (Studien zur Theoretischen Linguistik 10). München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1989b. Nominal reference, temporal constitution, and quantification in event semantics. In Bartsch, Renate, van Benthem, Johan & van Emde Boas, Peter (eds.), Semantics and conceptual expressions, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1990. Boolean and non-Boolean ‘and’. In Kálman, Lászlo & Pols, Lászlo (eds.), The Second Symposium on Logic and Language, 161–187. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1974. The semantics of scope in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality: The Jerusalem Lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, conjunction and events. Kluwer: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D. 2011. Linearization and its discontents. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), The 18th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 126–146. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D. & Hukari, Thomas E.. 2006. The unity of unbounded dependency constructions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Bauerle, Rainer, Schwarze, Christoph & Stechow, Arnim von (eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language, 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1991. Plural. In von Stechow, Arnim & Wunderlich, Dieter (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, 418–440. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1998. Algebraic semantics in language and philosophy. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Malouf, Robert. 2000. Mixed categories in the hierarchical lexicon. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. The role of semantics in a grammar. In Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. (eds.), Universals of linguistic theory, 124–169. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1998. The syntactic phenomena of English, 2nd edn.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 1992. Coordination and comparatives. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1998. ATB movement without identity. In Austin, Jennifer & Lawson, Aaron (eds.), The 14th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL-97), 150–160. Falls Church, VA: CSC Publications.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1999. On the identity requirement of ATB extraction. Natural Language Semantics 7, 421–425.Google Scholar
Neijt, Anneke. 1979. Gapping. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Partee, Barabara Hall. 1984. Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7.3, 243–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1987. Information-based Syntax and Semantics, vol.1: Fundamentals. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press & Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1998. Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Gazdar, Gerald. 1982. Natural languages and context-free languages. Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 471–504.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41, 47–81.Google Scholar
Richter, Frank & Sailer, Manfred. 1999. Underspecified semantics in HPSG. In Bunt, Harry & Muskens, Reinhard (eds.), Computing meaning, studies in linguistics and philosophy, 95–112. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1987. Modal subordination, anaphora and distributivity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published as Infinite syntax!, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1986.]Google Scholar
Ross, John R. & Perlmutter, David M.. 1970. Relative clauses with split antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry 1, 350.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, James. 2007. Ordering and linearizing rightward movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25.2, 349–401.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published by Garland, New York, 1980.]Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2002. Coordination and underspecification. In Kim, Jong-Bok & Wechsler, Stephen (eds.), The 9th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea, 267–291. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010a. English filler–gap constructions. Language 86.3, 486–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010b. Sign-based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis, Ms., Stanford University. To appear in Boas, Hans C. & Sag, Ivan A. (eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/theo-syno.pdf, accessed 16 February 2012]Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Wasow, Thomas & Bender, Emily M.. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction, 2nd edn.Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Scha, Remko. 1981. Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification. In Groenendijk, Jeroen A. G., Janssen, Theo M. V. & Stokhof, Martin J. B. (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 483–512. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center Tracts.Google Scholar
Schein, Barry. 1993. Plurals and events. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1990. Against groups. In Stokhof, Martin J. B. & Torenvliet, Leen (eds.), The Seventh Amsterdam Colloquium, University of Amsterdam, 475–494. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC).Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Shieber, Stuart M. 1988. A uniform architecture for parsing and generation. The 12th Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING ’88), vol. 2, 614–619. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shieber, Stuart M. & Schabes, Yves. 1992. Generation and synchronous tree-adjoining grammars. Computational Intelligence 7.4, 220–228.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1996. Surface structure and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2001. The syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1998. Reciprocity and cumulative predication. Natural Language Semantics 6, 303–337.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P., Schachter, Paul & Partee, Barbara Hall. 1973. The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1985. The semantic variability of absolute constructions. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
van Eijck, Jan. 1983. Discourse representation theory and plurality. In ter Meulen, Alice G. B. (ed.), Studies in model-theoretic semantics, 85–106. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van, Oirsouw, R, Robert. 1987. The syntax of coordination. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 1994. Coordination, ATB and ellipsis. In Zwart, Jan-Wouter (ed.), Minimalism and Kayne's Antisymetry Hypothesis (Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 37), 291–331. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar