Cover not available
Part of
Pseudo-Coordination and Multiple Agreement Constructions
Edited by Giuliana Giusti, Vincenzo Nicolò Di Caro and Daniel Ross
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 274] 2022
► pp. 287–314

Chapter 13
Syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of Pseudo-Coordination

ORCID logo | Leibniz Centre General Linguistics (ZAS), Berlin | Bled Institute
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.
Keywords: compositionality, junction, (dynamic) conjunction, parameter, allosemy
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
      • Dynamic conjunction
    • 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
Published online: 16 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.274.13mit
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
Bowers, John
1993 The Syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 591–656.Google Scholar
Carden, G. & D. Pesetsky
1977 Double-verb constructions, Markedness and a Fake Coordination. Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 82–92.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
de Vos, Mark
2004 Pseudo coordination is not subordination. Linguistics in the Netherlands 21. 181–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dekker, Paul J. E.
2012 Dynamic Semantics. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
2006 Either-Float and the Syntax of Coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(3). 689–749. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas
2001 The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene
1992 Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9(3). 183–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, J.
1983 Plurality and conjunction. In Alice ter Meulen (ed.), Studies in Modeltheoretic Semantics, 63–84. Dordrecht, Floris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R.
1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klinedinst, Nathan & Daniel Rothschild
2012 Connectives without truth tables. Natural Language Semantics 20(2). 137–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew
2010 The lexical semantics of derived statives. Linguistics and Philosophy 33(4). 285–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Building Resultatives. In Claudia Maienborn & Angelika Wöllstein (eds.), Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications (Linguistische Arbeiten 501), 177–212. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1986 Frame semantic Control of the Coordinate structure Constraint. Chicago Linguistic Society 22(2). 152–168.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Mitrović, Moreno
2014 Morphosyntactic atoms of propositional logic: a philo-logical programme: University of Cambridge dissertation.
2021 Superparticles: A Microsemantic Theory, Typology, and History of Logical Atoms (Studies in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 98). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitrović, Moreno & Uli Sauerland
2016 Two conjunctions are better than one. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 63(4). 471–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer
2011 Agreement as a fallible operation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
Pylkkänen, Liina
2008 Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reisinger, Drew
2016 Ranked ordering sources and embedded modality. Proceedings of LSA 1(36). 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. G.
2010 Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
Szabolcsi, Anna
2015 What do quantifier particles do? Linguistics and Philosophy 38. 159–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar