Chapter 13
Syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of Pseudo-Coordination
There have been very few attempts to date to provide an explicit semantics/pragmatics for Pseudo-Coordination (PseCo) expressions. This chapter is an attempt to fill that gap, zooming in on the ‘go-(and-)get’-type. To do so, I first provide a syntactic account of PseCo, which derives from a standard coordination structure (which I label Junction), onto and from which a compositional semantic account is derived. The signature pragmatic properties of PseCo of negative-emotive factivity are also derived. Aside from providing the first systematic and cross-modular analysis of PseCo, the chapter also provides a number of new diagnostics for identifying and classifying PseCo expressions which may be useful in future work on the topic.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Exceptional conjunction: Asymmetry and non-truth-tabularity
- 1.1.1Case number one: Concealed conditionals
- 1.1.2Case number two: PseCo
- 1.2Diagnostics and distribution of PseCo
- 2.Syntax
- 2.1Junction
- 2.2Typology & variation
- 2.3The causative syntax of PseCo
- 3.Semantics & pragmatics
- 3.1Semantics
- 3.1.1The single-event property
- 3.1.2Composing PseCo
- Event identification
- Events of causing and the [cause] feature
- 3.2Pragmatics
- 3.2.1Factivity
- 3.2.2Surprise & emotivity
- 4.Conclusions & outlook
-
Notes
-
References
References (37)
References
Baglini, Rebekah. 2012. The Scalar Source of Stative Passives. In Ana Aguilar Guevara, Anna Chernilovskaya & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16, vol. 1, 29–41. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bowers, John. 1993. The Syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 591–656.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carden, G. & D. Pesetsky. 1977. Double-verb constructions, Markedness and a Fake Coordination. Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 82–92.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cardinaletti, Anna & Giuliana Giusti. 2001. “Semi-lexical” motion verbs in Romance and Germanic. In Norbert Corver & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Semi-lexical Categories: The Function of Content Words and the Content of Function Words (Studies in Generative Grammar 59), 371–414. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dekker, Paul J. E. 2012. Dynamic Semantics. Dordrecht: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Either-Float and the Syntax of Coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(3). 689–749. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ernst, Thomas. 2001. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9(3). 183–221. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hoeksema, J. 1983. Plurality and conjunction. In Alice ter Meulen (ed.), Studies in Modeltheoretic Semantics, 63–84. Dordrecht, Floris. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Klinedinst, Nathan & Daniel Rothschild. 2012. Connectives without truth tables. Natural Language Semantics 20(2). 137–175. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2010. The lexical semantics of derived statives. Linguistics and Philosophy 33(4). 285–324. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In H.-J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches to word semantics, 38–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the External Argument from its Verb. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase Structure and The Lexicon Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 109–137. Dordrecht: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. Building Resultatives. In Claudia Maienborn & Angelika Wöllstein (eds.), Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications (Linguistische Arbeiten 501), 177–212. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, George. 1986. Frame semantic Control of the Coordinate structure Constraint. Chicago Linguistic Society 22(2). 152–168.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marantz, Alec. 2011. Locality Domains for Contextual Allosemy. Paper presented at the Columbia Lingusitic society.
Michaelis, Laura A. 2011. Stative by Construction. Linguistics 49(6). 1359–1399. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mitrović, Moreno. 2014. Morphosyntactic atoms of propositional logic: a philo-logical programme: University of Cambridge dissertation.
Mitrović, Moreno. 2021. Superparticles: A Microsemantic Theory, Typology, and History of Logical Atoms (Studies in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 98). Dordrecht: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mitrović, Moreno & Uli Sauerland. 2016. Two conjunctions are better than one. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 63(4). 471–494. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Partee, B. & M. Rooth. 1982. Conjunction, type ambiguity, and wide scope. In Daniel P. Flickinger, Marlys Macken & Nancy Wiegand (eds.), Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 353–362. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Department of Linguistics.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Partee, B. & M. Rooth. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 361–383. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reisinger, Drew. 2016. Ranked ordering sources and embedded modality. Proceedings of LSA 1(36). 1–12. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roberts, I. G. 2010. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Romero, Maribel. 2015. Surprise-predicates, strong exhaustivity and alternative questions. In Sarah D’Antonio, Mary Moroney & Carol Rose Little (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 25, 225–245. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
Shopen, Timothy. 1971. Caught in the act. Chicago Linguistic Society 7. 254–263.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Slade, Benjamin Martin. 2011. Formal and philological inquiries into the nature of inter-rogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in Sinhala and other languages: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign dissertation.
Stalnaker, Robert. 1984. Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2015. What do quantifier particles do? Linguistics and Philosophy 38. 159–204. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Winter, Yoad. 1995. Syncategorematic Conjunction and Structured Meanings. In Mandy Simons & Teresa Galloway (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 5, Ithaca: Cornell University & Linguistic Society of America. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Woods, Rebecca. 2016. Investigating the syntax of speech acts: embedding illocutionary force: University of York dissertation.
Zhang, Niina Ning. 2010. Coordination in Syntax Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)