Cover not available
Part of
English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective: Current issues
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Evelien Keizer
[Studies in Language Companion Series 221] 2022
► pp. 395–428

Coordinated phrases as dvandvas

A competition-theoretic perspective

| Niigata Agro-Food University
It is generally accepted that coordinated compounds known as dvandvas are attested in some languages but not in others. For instance, they are very common in Japanese (e.g. dan-zyo ‘lit. male-female = male and female’) but unattested in English (e.g. * male-female), which instead requires phrasal coordination. The present paper uses Competition Theory to explore where this cross-linguistic variation comes from, focusing on the unattestedness of dvandvas in English. This theory assumes that cross-linguistic variations occur when morphology and syntax compete to realize an underlying structure; languages are classified into two types in a macroparametric manner, depending on whether they prefer morphological or syntactic realization. Taking a competition-theoretic approach, this paper claims that the unattestedness reflects the nature of English as a particular type of language, which is determined by a macroparameter. Furthermore, Competition Theory predicts that dvandvas have phrasal counterparts in English. The correctness of this prediction will be verified by observing that a particular type of coordinated phrase exhibits the defining property of a dvandva regardless of their different surface forms. It will be proposed that the relevant type is derived in a specific way, which results in its dvandva status.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Defining dvandvas
    • 2.1Two entities but one concept
    • 2.2Dvandvas vs. appositional compounds
  • 3.Competition Theory
    • 3.1Competition in surface realization
    • 3.2English as a syntax-preferring language vs. Japanese as a morphology-preferring language
    • 3.3The interaction between two types of parameter: The cancelation of competition and occurrence of marked realization patterns
  • 4.A competition-theoretic approach to dvandvas and coordinated phrases: How can the unattestedness of dvandvas in English follow from Competition Theory?
    • 4.1The unattestedness of dvandvas in English: Coordinated phrases with dvandva status
    • 4.2Motivations for the dvandva analysis
    • 4.3Other examples of coordinated phrases with dvandvas status
  • 5.Derivation of dvandvas and coordinated phrases
  • 6.Other SAE languages and the earlier periods of English
  • 7.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Dictionaries
Published online: 21 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.221.11nis
References
Aarts, Bas
1998 Binominal noun phrases in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 96(1): 117–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad
2004 Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adams, Valerie
2013 Complex Words in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Allen, Margaret
1978 Morphological Investigations. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Arcodia, Giorgio F., Grandi, Nichola & Wälchli, Bernhard
2010 Coordination in compounding. In Cross-Disciplinary Issues in Compounding [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311], Sergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (eds), 177–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
1992 Stems in Latin verbal morphology. In Morphology Now, Mark Aronoff (ed.), 5–32. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C.
1988 Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996 The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2008 The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In The Limits of Syntactic Variation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 132], Theresa Biberauer (ed.), 351–373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
2008 Dvandva. Word Structure 1(1): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Compounds and Compounding. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beard, Robert
1995 Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany NY: State University of New York.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert
2002 Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14(4): 301–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris
1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard
1977 Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8(3): 425–504.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
2010 The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria & Williams, Edwin
1987 On the Definition of Word. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel A. J.
1998 Compounding. In The Handbook of Morphology, Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), 66–83. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fradin, Bernard
2009 IE, Romance: French. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 417–435. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Frank, Robert
2013 Tree adjoining grammar. In The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, Marcel den Dikken (ed.), 226–261. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
2018 The Diachrony of Verb Meaning: Aspect and Argument Structure. New York NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J.
2004 Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics 8(1): 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Associative adjectives in English and the lexicon-syntax interface. Journal of Linguistics 4(3): 571–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goto, Hitoshi
2006 Bumpoka: Romansugogaku to ippan gengogaku (Grammaticalization: Linguistique romane et linguistique and générale). Romansugo Kenkyu (Studia Romanica) 39: 1–10.Google Scholar
Green, Michael & Piel, John A.
2002 Theories of Human Development: A Comparative Approach. Boston MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
ten Hacken, Pius
1994 Defining Morphology: A Principled Approach to Determining the Boundaries of Compounding, Derivation and Inflection. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Nobuko
1999 The syntax of resultatives. In Linguistics: In Search of the Human Mind: A Festschrift for Kazuko Inoue, Masatake Muraki & Enoch Iwamoto (eds), 178–208. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2003 Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hüning, Matthias
2010 Adjective + noun constructions between syntax and word formation in Dutch and German. In Cognitive Perspectives on Word Formation, Alexander Onysko & Sascha Michel (eds), 195–215. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1954 The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kageyama, Taro
2009 Isolate: Japanese. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 512–526. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Keizer, Evelien
2007 The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kobayakawa, Satoru
2016 ‘Sushi + meishi + and + meishi’ no bunpo (The grammar of the numeral noun and noun construction). JELS 33: 52–58.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1973 The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K.
1998 Events and modification in nominals. In Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) VIII, Devon Strolovitch & Aaron Lawson (eds), 145–168. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Sproat, Richard
1992 The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English. In Lexical Matters, Ivan A. Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (eds), 131–181. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans
1969 The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, 2nd edn. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D.
1973 Syntactic and logical arguments for semantic structures. In Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory, Osamu Fujimura (ed.), 259–376. Tokyo: Institute for Advanced Studies of Language.Google Scholar
Minkova, Donka
2006 Old and Middle English prosody. In The Handbook of the History of English, Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds), 95–124. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagano, Akiko
2013 Morphology of direct modification. English Linguistics 30(1): 111–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagano, Akio & Shimada, Masaharu
2017 Gengo sesshoku to taisho gengokenkyu: ‘Mai kaa’ to iu ‘jibun’ hyogen ni tsuite (Language contact and comparative linguistics: On the ‘self’ expression of ‘private car’). In Sanso Moderu de Mietekuru Gengo no Kino to Shikumi (Function and System in Language Seen from the Three-Tier Model of Language Use), Yukio Hirose, Masaharu Shimada, Naoaki Wada, Masaru Kanetani & Akiko Nagano (eds), 217–259. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Nishimaki, Kazuya
2014 Competition Theory and cross-linguistic variations. English Linguistics 31(2): 477–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Does English really have N-N compounds? A competition-theoretic perspective. Paper presented at Tsukuba Morphology Meeting 2017 held at the University of Tsukuba.
2018 A Study on Cross-Linguistic Variations in Realization Patterns: New Proposals Based on Competition Theory. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan
2001 Copulative compounds: a closer look at the interface between syntax and morphology. In Yearbook of Morphology 2000, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 279–320. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo
2018 Word-Formation in English, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ralli, Angela
1992 Compounds in Modern Greek. Rivista di Linguistica 4(1): 143–147.Google Scholar
2008 Compound markers and parametric variation. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 61(1): 19–38.Google Scholar
2009 IE, Hellenic: Modern Greek. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 453–463. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Renner, Vincent
2008 On the semantics of English coordinate compounds. English Studies 89(5): 606–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadler, Louisa & Arnold, Douglas J.
1994 Prenominal adjectives and the phrasal / lexical distinction. Journal of Linguistics 30(1): 187–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saito, Takeo
1977 Eigo no futei meishiku o meguru mondai (Remarks on indefinite noun phrases in English). Gengobunka Ronshu (Studies in Languages and Cultures) 1: 1–34. University of Tsukuba.Google Scholar
Shimada, Masaharu
2012 Three types of coordinated compounds: comparison between Western and Asian languages. Paper presented at Lexicon Study Circle held at Keio University.
2013 Coordinated compounds: Comparison between English and Japanese. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 10(1): 77–96.Google Scholar
2016 Eigo ni okeru toi fukugogo no seiki ni tsuite (The occurrence of coordinated compounds in English). In Koopasu kara Wakaru Gengohenka・Heni to Gengoriron (The Linguistic Change・Variation and Linguistic Theory Seen from Corpora), Yoshiki Ogawa, Akiko Nagano & Akira Kikuchi (eds), 307–323. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Snyder, William
1995 Language Acquisition and Language Variation: The Role of Morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT.
2001 On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language 77(2): 324–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Parameter Theory and motion predicates. In Telicity, Change, and State: A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure, Violeta Demonte & Louise McNally (eds), 277–299. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew
2003 Does English have productive compounding. In Topics in Morphology, Geert Booij, Janet DeCesaris, Angela Ralli & Sergio Scalise (eds), 329–341. Barcelona: IULA.Google Scholar
Sproat, Richard & Shih, Chilin
1991 The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restrictions. In Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, Carol Georgopoulos & Roberta Ishihara (eds), 565–593. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard
2005 Co-compounds and Natural Coordination. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Washio, Ryuichi
1997 Resultatives, compositionality, and language variation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6(1): 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoda, Yusuke
2010 Sore wa hontoni toikozo (Is it really a coordinated structure)? Nihongo Nihonbunka Kenkyu (Studies in Japanese Language and Culture) 60: 65–75. Osaka University.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne
1997 On the dual nature of the ‘possessive’ marker in modern English. Journal of Linguistics 33(2): 511–537. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwanenburg, Wiecher
1992 Compounding in French. Rivista di Linguistica 4(1): 221–240.Google Scholar

Dictionaries

A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (Anglo-Saxon Dictionary)
4th edn. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Kenkyusha’s Dictionary of New Linguistics
Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Kenkyusha’s New Japanese-English Dictionary (Kenkyusha’s Dictionary)
4th edn.) Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
The Oxford English Dictionary
2nd edn. on CD-ROM Version 4.0 (OED). Oxford: OUP.
Taishukan’s Unabridged Genius English-Japanese Dictionary (Taishukan’s Dictionary)
Tokyo: Taishukan.