Remarks on the syntax and semantics of so-called comitative coordination

Khalaf, Eman Al

doi:10.17250/khisli.35.2.201806.001

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On a traditional bottom-up derivation, this does not help us: we predict that adjuncts will have to stay in the lowest position of the chain. We therefore switch to a top-down, or, more precisely, left-to-right, derivational model (e.g., Phillips 1996, 2003; Bruening 2014; Al Khalaf 2015, 2017; Osborne & Gross 2017). In this type of model, the highest copy of a fronted XP is built and merged into the derivation first.…”

Section: Analysis: Minimal Copymentioning

confidence: 99%

No argument–adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for Binding Condition C

Bruening

Khalaf

2018

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The syntax literature has overwhelmingly adopted the view that Condition C reconstruction takes place in wh-chains for R-expressions contained within arguments, but not within adjuncts of fronted wh-phrases. At the same time, this empirical picture has been questioned by various authors. We undertake a series of grammaticality surveys using Amazon Mechanical Turk in an attempt to clarify the empirical picture regarding reconstruction for Binding Condition C. We find absolutely no evidence of an argument–adjunct distinction in reconstruction for Binding Condition C. Neither arguments nor adjuncts reconstruct for Condition C. We suggest that those speakers who report such a contrast (linguists, primarily) are following a pragmatic bias, and not Condition C. While we do not find reconstruction of dependents of fronted NPs for Binding Condition C, we do find reconstruction of fronted PPs. That is, the NP complement of a fronted P must reconstruct for Binding Condition C. The literature also finds reconstruction of NP complements of verbs and adjectives. This means that fronted Ns are special in not requiring reconstruction of their arguments and adjuncts. We suggest that, syntactically, arguments of Ns are treated as adjuncts: semantic arguments simply adjoin in the same manner as true adjuncts. Syntactic adjuncts can be left out of lower copies in chains, something that we suggest follows from a left-to-right syntactic derivation plus an economy condition on copying.

show abstract

Section: Analysis: Minimal Copymentioning

confidence: 99%

No argument–adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for Binding Condition C

Bruening

Khalaf

2018

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Munn 1993; Fox 2000) and syntactic/morphological (e.g. Franks 1995; Citko 2005; Al Khalaf 2015) parallelism: …”

Section: Against String Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Zhang 2010: 223 (9.2a)) Criticize himself , [John will but Mary won't]. (Al Khalaf 2015: 174 (383)) Bo [has now started drafting and will soon finish] his play. (adapted from Osborne & Gross 2017: 661 (21)) Note that in this case, sharing is allowed only if the shared element/string is movable and the constraints on moving that element/string are all respected.…”

Section: Analysis Of Left-sharing In Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis Of Left-sharing In Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, I adopt a complementation structure of coordination (e.g. Johannessen 1998; Al Khalaf 2018; cf. Al Khalaf 2021), where & is a head that takes the non-initial conjunct as a complement and the initial one as a specifier: I assume that syntactic structures are built from left to right (e.g.…”

Section: Analysis Of Left-sharing In Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Constituency and left-sharing in coordination

Khalaf¹

2021

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A long-standing assumption in the syntactic literature is that coordination can only target constituents. This assumption has been a subject of much debate, with many authors questioning its validity. This article enters this debate by reconsidering a constraint on left-sharing in coordination which Osborne & Gross (2017) have recently introduced, namely left node blocking. To account for this constraint, Osborne & Gross propose the Principle of Full Clusivity which states that coordination cannot cut into a constituent. They couch their analysis in a Dependency Grammar, assuming that coordination does not have to conjoin constituents and that syntactic structures should be construed as flat. Given that the empirical ground on which the LNB is based is not firm, I seek to experimentally investigate it by conducting a large-scale experiment. The results of the investigation reveal that LNB is wrong; left-sharing is as permissive as right-sharing. The results of the investigation have the immediate consequence that the assumptions on which LNB is based are wrong as well, namely that syntactic structures should be construed as flat. I spell out an analysis couched in terms of left-to-right syntax to account for major cases of left-sharing in coordination.

show abstract

Semantic scope in Q-float constructions: An experimental investigation

Khalaf

Mashaqba

2023

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Remarks on the syntax and semantics of so-called comitative coordination

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

No argument–adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for Binding Condition C

No argument–adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for Binding Condition C

Constituency and left-sharing in coordination

Semantic scope in Q-float constructions: An experimental investigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About