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 (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
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