Coordination - Universität des Saarlandes

Coordination

Berthold Crysmann

in: Keith Brown (ed.) 2006, Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics,Elsevier, Oxford.

e term coordination refers to the combination of like or similar syntacticunits into some larger group of the same category or status, typically involving theuse of a coordinating conjunction, such as and or or, to name just two. e unitsgrouped together by means of a coordinating conjunction are standardly referred toas conjuncts (or conjoints).Within syntactic theory, coordination enjoys a special status, for several reasons:

�rst, the properties of a coordinate structure are not projected from a single syntactichead, unlike most major syntactic phrases, which generally conform to some notionof X’-syntax (Jackendo�, 1977). Instead, syntactic properties of the complex structureare almost always symmetrically determined by all conjuncts. Second, coordination ischaracterised by a syntax-semantics mismatch: in syntactic terms, it is the conjunctswhich should be regarded as (multiple) heads of the construction, determining,inter alia, the syntactic category of the complex structure; whereas semantically, it isthe coordinating conjunction which acts as a functor, regulating how the semanticcontribution of the individual conjuncts is composed into themeaning of the complexcoordinate expression. Unsurprisingly, these two characteristics pose quite a strongchallenge for syntactic theories such as Dependency Grammar, which postulatesthat head-dependent structures are always binary, featuring a unique head. ird,the treatment of coordination also becomes non-trivial for almost any syntactictheory to date, once we leave the domain of simple constituent coordination andinvestigate structures where conjuncts do not appear to be classical constituents(non-constituent coordination) or else the units to be coordinated fail to observestrong notions of similarity. e study of coordination phenomena has exerted a considerable in uence on

syntactic theory construction over the last three decades. In transformational syntax,the work on extraction islands pioneered by Ross (1967) has generated a good deal ofinterest in coordinate structures as well. Starting with Generalised Phrase StructureGrammar (GPSG), the perspective adopted by current syntactic theories, in particularCategorial Grammar (CG), Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), and Head-drivenPhrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) with respect to coordination phenomena, hasshi�ed considerably, regarding it now as a core, rather than peripheral phenomenonof natural language that demands principled explanation. In these frameworks, the

1

Crysmann Coordination 2

study of non-constituent coordination and coordination of unlikes has attractedparticular interest over the past few years.

1 Basic properties

It is a distinguishing property of coordination that it can be applied to a wide rangeof syntactic categories: put di�erently, coordinating conjunctions do not appear tobe highly selective as to the syntactic categories they combine with. As illustratedby the examples in (1), a coordinating conjunct such as and can be used to combinesentences, or constituents of any major category, such as VPs, NPs, PPs, or APs.

(1) a. [[ e moon goes round the earth]S and [the earth goes round the sun]S].(Grover, 1994)

b. Jack [[fell down]VP and [broke his crown]VP]. (Grover, 1994)c. She promised to send [either [a letter]NP or [a postcard]NP]. (Grover,1994)

d. A [[very sleek]AP but [rather fat]AP] cat appeared in the garden. (Grover,1994)

e. e journey took them [[across desert]PP and [through jungles]PP]. (Grover,1994)

Similarly, coordination does not seem to be con�ned to a particular level of pro-jection: thus, besides clausal and phrasal categories, coordination of lexical categoriesis equally well attested.

(2) a. We will [[attack]V and [beat]V] the enemy. (Grover, 1994)b. Fred was [both [angry]A and [upset]A] about the incident. (Grover, 1994)

Coordination of unsaturated constituents, i.e. constituents with open valencies,is subject to the additional requirement that the conjuncts show the same degree ofsaturation.

(3) * We will [[attack the enemy]VP and [beat]V]

While it is clear that all major lexical categories can undergo coordination, this isnot always possible for all members of functional categories, such as determiners orcomplementisers. While coordinations of almost purely functional determiners likea and the is hardly possible in English, other determiners do allow coordination, asin some or all people. In languages such as German, where determiners also encodenumber and gender information, coordination of de�nitites is easily possible: deroder die Lehrer ‘the(m.sg) or the(pl) teacher(s)’.Coordinating conjunctions, just like other conjunctions, are closed-class items,

forming a very small set. Coordinating conjunctions can be further subdividedinto non-correlative conjunctions, such as and, or, but, and correlative conjunctions,


which necessarily come in pairs: neither ... nor, either ... or, both ... and. In English(and German), the �rst part of the correlative pair is used to mark the �rst conjunct,whereas the second part will be used to mark any subsequent conjuncts. In otherlanguages the markers for �rst and subsequent conjuncts may not be distinct, e.g.,French ni ... ni ‘neither ... nor’.Minimally, a coordinated structure is binary, i.e., it must contain at least two

conjuncts. ere is, however, no general upper bound on the number of conjuncts,the conjunctions both ... and or but being notable exceptions. e marking of suchmultiple coordinations di�ers between correlative and non-correlative conjunctions:with correlative conjunctions, every conjunct need to be marked with an appropriateconjunction, whereas with non-correlative conjunctions, either all conjuncts or onlythe �nal conjunct will be marked. In English and German, the latter constitutesthe unmarked choice. As reported in Dixon (1972), there are also languages, suchas Dyirbal, where coordinate structures are not marked by a conjunction at all. InEnglish, such conjunction-less coordinations are also possible, although this appearsto be a more marked option.It is an o�enmade assumption that coordination involves the two central notions

of likeness and constituency. Typically, the conjuncts in a coordinate structure areconstituents of the same basic category and level of projection.With respect to the likeness condition, morphosyntactic features do not seem

to pattern alike: in the nominal domain, it is only case features that need to beidentical between all conjuncts and the entire coordinate structure: all other commonin ectional features, such as person, number or gender, can assume di�erent valuesin each of the conjuncts.

(4) a. * derthe.nom.sg.m

Vaterfather

undanddenthe.acc.sg.m

Sohnson

b. derthe.nom.sg.m

Vaterfather

undanddiethe.nom.pl.m

Sohnesons

c. [derthe.nom.sg.m

Vater]father

undand[diethe.nom.sg.f

Tochter]daughter

Similarly, in the verbal domain, basic distinction regarding verb form, as e.g.�niteness are required to be identical across conjuncts, whereas tense, mode andaspect distinctions may well di�er:

(5) He [[arrived yesterday] and [will leave again tomorrow]].

is di�erent status of morphosyntactic features with respect to categorial iden-tity is, of course, related to the primary function of coordination, namely that ofcreating aggregates of individuals or events: it is therefore a necessity that, e.g., thenumber speci�cation of a coordinated NP may di�er from those of its conjuncts.Exemption of person and number features from the identity requirement gives

rise to interesting interaction with agreement relations: Depending on the choice of


coordinating conjunction, namely whether it is ‘conjunctive’ like and or ‘disjunctive’like or, a coordination of singular NPs may show either plural or singular agreement.In languages such as German or Spanish, person agreement between a coordinatedsubject NP and the verb depends on whether one of the conjuncts refers to thespeaker or hearer: if one of the conjuncts refers to the speaker or hearer, the verbin ects for 1st or 2nd person plural, respectively. Otherwise, it is in ected for 3rdplural.

(6) a. [JoseJose

iandyo]Ihablamosspeak-1pl/speak-2pl/speak-3pl

/ *hablais / *hablan

(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000)

b. [JoseJose

iandtu]you*hablamosspeak-1pl/speak-2pl/speak-3pl

/ hablais/ *hablan

(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000)

c. [JoseJose

iandMaria]you

*hablamosspeak-1pl/speak-2pl/speak-3pl

/ *hablais / hablan

In German, agreement patterns with ‘disjunctive’ coordinating conjunctionsdepend on the linear order of the conjuncts: as illustrated by the examples in (7),subject verb agreement is determined by the conjunct which appears closest to theverb.

(7) a. Gesternyesterday

habehave-1sg

//*hasthave-2sg

entwedereither

ichIoderorduyougeschnarcht.snored

b. Gesternyesterday

*habehave-1sg

//hasthave-2sg

entwedereither

duyouoderorichIgeschnarcht.snored

Phrase structure grammar approaches (Chomsky, 1957, Jackendo�, 1977, Gazdaret al., 1985, Kaplan and Maxwell, 1988) typically invoke special phrase structure rulesto license coordinate structures, e.g. (8), where XP is interpreted as a variable rangingover (major) syntactic categories:

(8) XP� XP conj XP

In HPSG, likeness of category and level of projection between conjuncts is en-forced by the Coordination Principle (Pollard and Sag, 1994, p. 202), which requiressharing of category information, which includes valence and head-features, betweenthe mother and all conjuncts. HPSG draws a principled distinction between head-features such as case, which are part of the categorial information (cat), and indexfeatures such as person, number, and gender, which are part of semantics (cont). Asa result, the di�erent behaviour of number and case features in coordinate structuresis directly related to an independently motivated feature geometry in HPSG.LFG uses phrase structure rules akin to (8) to model the constituent structure of

coordination constructions. e f-structure representation of the entire coordinate


structure is a set, consisting of the f-structures of the individual conjuncts. FollowingKaplan and Maxwell (1988), constraints imposed on the f-structure of the mothernode, e.g., external case requirements, will get distributed across all the elementf-structures. In order to capture the apparent contrast between case and numberor gender, features are declared explicitly as either distributive or non-distributive.Grammatical functions and case are standardly taken as distributive features, person,number gender features as non-distributive.While feature-based approaches to grammar have been successful in provid-

ing solutions for the agreement patterns in (6) (Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, Sag,2003), the linear e�ects observed with German ‘disjunctive’ coordination still awaittreatment in the context of phrase structure grammar.

2 Coordination and extraction

Coordination also witnesses theoretically interesting interactions with the syntaxof extraction. Since Ross (1967), it is a quite well-known fact, that extraction out ofcoordinate structures is subject to strong restrictions, as illustrated by the data in(10).

(9) a. Nuclear physicsi, I have never understood i. (Grover, 1994)

b. Whoi did Fay send a letter to i . (Grover, 1994)

(10) a. *Nuclear physicsi, I have never understood [[organic chemistry] and[ i]]. (Grover, 1994)

b. *Whoi did Fay [[send a letter to i] and [forget all about it]]. (Grover,1994)

While extraction of conjuncts is completely unacceptable, extraction out of con-juncts is only possible if it applies across the board (ATB), i.e., if the �ller correspondsto a gap in every conjunct, as in (11).

(11) a. Nuclear physicsi, [[Fay wants to study i ] and [May wants to drop i ]].(Grover, 1994)

b. Whoi did Fay send a letter to i and receive a reply from i. (Grover,1994)

ere exist, at least in English, some examples that might serve to question thevalidity of the ATB constraint on extraction from coordinate structures, super�ciallysuggesting asymmetric extraction from the right conjunct only.

(12) Nuclear physicsi, Fay wants to try and study i . (Grover, 1994)

Many researcher, however, agree that in these examples — termed asymmetriccoordination or even pseudo-coordination—the conjunction actually functionsmore


like a complementiser. See, however, Lako� (1986) for more harmful exceptions tothe ATB constraint. ese restrictions, with the exception of ATB extraction are captured by Ross’s

Conjunct Structure Constraint:

Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC; Ross 1967): In a coordinate structure,

a. no conjunct may be moved

b. nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of thatconjunct.

is constraint obviously consists of two parts, essentially capturing independentobservations: �rst, an absolute ban on the extraction of the conjuncts themselves,and second, an extension of the similarity requirement to the gaps contained inthe conjuncts. e two individual clauses of the CSC are referred to as ConjunctConstraint and Element Constraint, respectively, a distinction introduced by Grosu(1973).In contrast to other constraints on extraction, Transformational Grammar has

long failed to provide a more principled account of the CSC and ATB extraction,as observed by Roberts (1997). Feature-based frameworks, however, such as GPSG,where information about extracted constituents is encoded by means of a SLASHfeature, have been quite successful in deriving the Element Constraint as just anotherinstance of categorial similarity (Gazdar et al., 1985). e approach to constituent co-ordination taken byHPSG, is essentially identical, requiring sharing of local syntacticfeatures, including category, open valencies, and case, alongside sharing of nonlocalfeatures (Pollard and Sag, 1994, p. 202). It is of note that Categorial Grammar, despitetechnical di�erences, arrives at a conceptually highly comparable solution, requiringidentity of complex categories (Steedman, 1985, 1990). e extended notion of cate-gorial similarity which encompasses properties of the gap can also straightforwardlycapture the apparent requirement that gaps in ATB extraction must always be of thesame type in each conjunct, as witnessed by the unacceptability of examples, such as*On whom does Fay rely and Kim dislike .Although an extended notion of similarity including nonlocal features proves

quite successful in deriving the Element Constraint and ATB restriction, it does notyet derive all instances of the Conjunct Constraint.

(13) * John, I saw [ and ]

An interesting explanation for the impossibility of coordinating gaps has beeno�ered by Pollard and Sag (1994): they argue that an account of the Conjunct Con-straint follows naturally from traceless theories of extraction. In these theories,nonlocal dependencies are launched directly by the subcategorising head, instead ofbeing mediated by a phonetically empty syntactic element. Since none of the con-juncts selects the other, and since external heads do not subcategorise for individual


conjuncts of the coordinate structure, the Conjunct Constraint is merely a correlateof traceless theories of extraction.In LFG, where extraction is treated by way of functional uncertainty, the ATB

constraint is also a correlate of a more general theory of constituent coordination:since the f-structure of coordinated constituents is a set, and constraints imposed onthis set are distributed over the element f-structures (Kaplan and Maxwell, 1988), thefunctional uncertainty constraint that relates the �ller to the grammatical functiongoverned by some predicate will have to be satis�ed by all the f-structures in this set.

3 Nonconstituent coordination

e coordination phenomena reviewed so far were mostly of a quite simple type,namely coordination of like constituents, be they lexical, phrasal, or clausal, whichare composed into a complex constituent of the same type. By and large, constituentcooordination does not pose any serious challenge for contemporary formal syntactictheories. Human language, however, also witnesses cases of coordination that appearto involve units which are generally not considered constituents, hence the cover-term non-constituent coordination (NCC).

(14) a. Bill gave the girls spades and the boys recorders. (CR; Maxwell andManning, 1996)

b. Bill likes and Joe is thought to like cigars from Cuba. (RNR; Maxwelland Manning, 1996)

c. Bill gave a Rhino to Fred, and Sue a camera to Marjorie. (Gapping;Maxwell and Manning, 1996)

ere are di�erent ways how to understand NCC data in descriptive terms: Oneway is to think of NCC as involving not coordination of constituents, but rathercoordination of sequences of constituents. An alternative view is to regard NCCas a subcase of constituent coordination, where identical material is either sharedbetween the two conjuncts, or deleted, under identity, an interpretation that givesone of the conjuncts the status of an incomplete or “elliptical” expression.

(15) a. Bill gave the girls spades and (Bill gave) the boys recorders.b. Bill likes (cigars from Cuba) and Joe is thought to like cigars from Cuba.c. Bill gave a Rhino to Fred, and Sue (gave) a camera to Marjorie.

ere is, however, no consent yet as to whether all types of NCC should be givensome uni�ed treatment, or whether we are actually dealing with only super�ciallysimilar phenomena which call for independent solutions: while both ConjunctionReduction (CR) or VP-gapping (14a) and Right-Node Raising (RNR; (14b)), canbe interpreted as sharing of peripheral material, it is central material which getsshared/elided in gapping constructions. e well-formedness of coordination in-volving peripheral sharing is o�en related to the fact that the wellformedness of a


string “A [X and Y] B” can be directly related to that of the strings “A X B” and “A YB”. Gapping, on the other hand does not appear to follow this general pattern.Maxwell and Manning (1996) argue that verb medial gapping (or just gapping;

(14c)) also di�ers from both CR and RNR in that it does not feature the same kind ofstrict identity and parallelism requirements as peripheral sharing.

(16) a. Abandicoot escaped today andmore will tommorow. (Blevins, 1994; takenfrom Maxwell and Manning, 1996)

b. A lot of this material can be presented in a fairly informal and accessiblefashion, and o�en I do. (Chomsky, 1982; taken fromMaxwell andManning,1996)

As shown by the data in (16) above, the elided material in the second conjunctcannot be replaced verbatim with the corresponding string from the �rst conjunct.Similar observations can be made for true ellipsis. Maxwell and Manning (1996)suggest that gapping phenomena should be regarded outside the scope of syntactictheory and better be treated at the level of semantics, using more powerful devicessuch as higher-order uni�cation, as suggested by Dalrymple et al. (1992) for thetreatment of ellipsis.

3.1 Peripheral sharing

According toMilward (1994), approaches to NCC can be assigned to one of two types:Deletion accounts, or Shared Structure approaches. Contrary to what the terms maysuggest, the main di�erence between these two types of approaches does not lie withthe deletion vs. sharing or merging opposition — a more or less metaphorical issue—, but rather depends on what role syntactic structure should play to restrict NCC,in addition to identity of peripheral strings of lexical items.It is clear that pure surface identity cannot su�ce to provide a restrictive theory:

(17) a. [John will drive] and [Mary built the drive] (Milward, 1994)b. * [John will] and [Mary built the] drive (Milward, 1994)

Minimally, identity of syntactic category must be taken into account as well, torule out examples such as (17) above. Most probably, identity requirements will alsoneed tomake reference to lexical meaning, if one wants to account for themarginalityof (18), which are only acceptable as a rhetorical �gure known as ‘zeugma’.

(18) a. * John bored [the new hole] and [his fellow workers] (Milward, 1994)b. * Mary came in [a hurry] and [a taxi] (Milward, 1994)

Identity of reference, however, appears to be too strong a requirement, at least inthe domain of events. In a sentence like (19), the shared verb gave clearly denotestwo independent giving events.

(19) John gave Mary a book on Wednesday and several records on Saturday.


Similarly, even at the level of individuals, there is reason to doubt that sharing(or deletion under identity) presupposes identity of reference.

(20) a. [Johni bought] and [Billj hired] a suit for his�i,j�,k wedding.b. ree men died [in Bagdad on urday ] and [in Tikrit on Friday night].(Beavers and Sag, 2004)

While it is quite uncontroversial that surface form, syntactic category, as well aslexical meaning constitute the minimal identity requirements for peripheral sharingat the word level, it is not fully clear to what degree structural or functional propertiesare necessary to ensure well-formedness of CR or RNR constructions. At least forRNR, identity of shared material is not reducible to mere identity of surface strings,but should also take into account the internal structural representation:

(21) * Sue sawi the manj [through the telescope]i and [with the troublesome kid]j. (Milward, 1994)

(22) a. I found [[a friend [of [Mary’s]]] handbag].b. I found [the manufacturer [of [[Mary’s] handbag]]].c. * I found a friend of and the manufacturer of Mary’s handbag. (Milward,

1994)

With CR, acceptability also appears to degrade once structures fail to exhibita certain degree of structural or functional parallelism: speakers of English seemgenerally divided as to the acceptability of examples like (23), where one conjunctexhibits dative shi�, but the other one does not.

(23) (*) John gave Mary a book and a record to Peter. (Crysmann, 2003)

Although it may be tempting to relate the unacceptability of (23) to a mismatch insubcategorisation requirements of the shared verb give, as suggested by Maxwell andManning (1996), heavy NP-shi� patterns just the same for these speakers, despitethe fact that subcategorisation frames are identical across the two conjuncts. is isfurther supported by the observation that acceptability of (23) improves, once DativeShi� and Heavy NP Shi� are combined, such that surface order of theme and goalarguments are again in parallel.

(24) (*) John gave a book to Mary and to Peter a very old and famous early Beatles’record featuring vocals by Ringo. (Doug Arnold; Crysmann, 2003)

(25) John gave Mary a book, and to Peter, a record. (Robert Levine; Crysmann,2003)

As argued by Whitman (2002), acceptability of the non-parallel cases also im-proves, once a suitable context is provided.

(26) Q: So Neal, did you give the dog that toy like you were planning to do?


(27) A: No, actually I changed my mind. I gave the dog a bone, and the toy to thecat.

Here, non-parallelism regarding syntactic form and the linear order of goal andtheme arguments is apparantly motivated by considerations of information structure:in terms of given-new partitioning, both conjuncts are actually fully parallel.To summarise, NCC imposes identity requirements on shared material, both

at the lexical and at the structural level. Lexically, identity is restricted to surfaceform, syntactic category and core lexical meaning, but presumably excludes identityof reference. At the syntactic level, constituency of shared material appears to bea minimal criterion. As a result, Deletion Accounts, where identity is restricted tothe lexical level, must be discarded (Milward, 1994). e question as to whetherlikeness of argument structure should be included as a necessary criterion is still notentirely settled. It appears, though, that strict identity of subcategorisation framesmay be violated, if some sort of parallelism between conjuncts is preserved, either bymeans of linear order of semantic role bearers, or else, parallel information-structuralpartitioning. e perspective on CR and RNR as sharing of peripheral material across two

conjuncts — Milward (1994)’s Shared Structure approaches — is quite a popularapproach, which can be found in di�erent technical incarnations across frameworks,including multidimensional approaches, such as Goodall (1987) or Moltmann (1992),coordination of partial constituents (Maxwell and Manning, 1996), or linearisation-based accounts (Crysmann, to appear, Yatabe, 2000, 2003). What is common to allthese approaches is that theymake rather conventional assumptions about constituentstructure and rely on extraneous machinery to perform the necessary sharing orreconstruction of surface material. On the other side of the spectrum, we �ndthe kind of analysis advanced within the framework of Categorial Grammar, inparticular (Steedman, 1985, Dowty, 1988), which employs a somewhat weaker notionof constituency.In Categorial Grammar, the central problem of NCC can be resolved, e.g., by

means of an operation such as type-raising, i.e. rules capable of converting a (se-quence of) arguments into a functor. Under these approaches, a sequence of twoNPs like [the girls] [spades], or [the boys] [recorders], respectively, will be type-raisedto a VP constituent lacking the verb. Such type-raised constituents can then becoordinated in the usual fashion. What makes this solution particularly attractive, isthat type raising is independently motivated in CG for the treatment of unboundeddependencies.Despite the fact that type-raising has proven to be a convenient tool to provide

simple and elegant accounts of NCC, this approach has repeatedly been criticised(Milward, 1994, Maxwell and Manning, 1996, Beavers and Sag, 2004), mainly forits lack of restrictiveness: as detailed in Milward (1994) and Maxwell and Manning(1996), the unconstrained application of type-raising essentially con ates di�erencesregarding the internal structure of the conjuncts: as a net result, the ungrammaticalityof sentences like (22) remains unaccounted for, similar to Deletion accounts. Beavers


and Sag (2004) argue that the apparent attractiveness of having a single operation forextraction and NCCmakes typologically wrong predictions, precluding languages,like Hausa, which feature long-distance extraction but fail to allow RNR (Davis,1993).Phrase structure-based approaches to syntax have long failed to provide a sat-

isfactory treatment of NCC phenomena in their entirety. Over the past decade,however, considerable progress has been made: owing to the fact that the commit-ment to classical constituents is somewhat stronger in LFG and HPSG than it is inCG, approaches to NCC in phrase structure grammar uniformly adress the issue by“moving coordination up a level while maintaining classical notions of constituency”(Maxwell and Manning, 1996, p. 7).In LFG, the treatment of NCC most crucially depends on an extension of the

phrase structure rule formalism: given the two c-structure rules in (28), Maxwell andManning (1996) suggest that the phrase structure component should be generalisedin such a way as to also permit coordination of partial constituents, to be licensed byrules such as (29).

(28) a. VP� VP and VPb. VP� V (NP) (NP) PP*

(29) VP� V [[NP PP] and [NP PP]] PP

To achieve this, Maxwell and Manning (1996) suggest that the expansion ofc-structure rules may be suspended at any point to permit coordination of partialconstituents. us, c-structure node labels are augmented with states (stacks) thatencode the current level of expansion, such that expansion can later be resumed. us, a node label VP-x will encode suspension of the VP rule in (28b) at some point,e.g. a�er the verb, whereas x-VP will correspond to resumption/continuation of theexpansion. e coordination rule is then extended to permit coordination of partiallyexpanded rules, provided their suspension and resumption states will match. Inessence, the NCC constructions will receive a schematic c-structure representationas in (30)

(30) XP� XP-x [ x-XP-y Conj x-XP-y ] y-XP

Expansion states associated with the nodes are stacks, such that NCC involvingmore deeply embedded partial constituents will become possible, as witnessed by theexample in (31), where expansion of both the VP rule and the PP rule is suspended.

(31) John ew to London onMonday and Paris on Tuesday. (Maxwell andManning,1996)

(32) [ ew [to]PP−y ]VP−x [x−VP[ y−PP[L.] [on Mon]] and x−VP[ y−PP[P.] [on Tue]]].

ese stacks of expansion states are required to match up. Maxwell andManning(1996) then relate the unacceptability of (22) to the simple fact that right node-raisingin the �rst conjunct involves suspension of two rules, viz. of the outer NP and PP


embedded in the prenominal possessive, whereas in the second conjunct, it onlyinvolves suspension of the complement PP.HPSG approaches to NCC (Yatabe, 2000, 2003, Crysmann, 2003, to appear,

Beavers and Sag, 2004) uniformly build on the notion of complex order domains(Reape, 1994, Kathol, 1999), which was originally developed for the treatment oflinearisation in free word order languages. Complex order domains provide a at,linear representation of the main constituents of a sentence that is partially indepen-dent of immediate constituency, and which therefore facilitates the expression ofword order regularities in considerably larger domains.

(33)

<@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@>

vp

domd 1

<@@@@>vgave

=AAAA?, 2<@@@@>npthe girls

=AAAA?, 3<@@@@>npspades

=AAAA?i

dtrs

<@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@>

hd-dtr

<@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@>

vp

dtrs

<@@@@@@@@@@@@@>

hd-dtr<@@@@@>

v

domb 1 g

=AAAAA?

comp-dtr<@@@@@>

np

domb 2 g

=AAAAA?

=AAAAAAAAAAAAA?

=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA?

comp-dtr<@@@@@>

np

domb 3 g

=AAAAA?

=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA?

=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA? e basic intuition behind HPSG accounts of NCC is that identical peripheral

elements in an order domain can be collapsed in coordinate structures, where identityincludes basic syntactic category, or head-values, surface form (phon), the semantickey relation, as well as (partial) bracketing.Somewhat simplifying, a phrase structure schema for coordinate structures with

peripheral sharing can roughly be represented as follows:

(34)

<@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@>

ss 0 �loc Scat 1 �

dom b x1 ... xm g`d<@@@@@>

phb a1 ... ai , 0 , b1 ... bj gss 0

=AAAAA?i`b y1 ... yn g

dtrs

<@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@>

conjunction�domb 0 g�

conjuncts d

<@@@@@>

ss S loc Scat 1

domb x1 ... xm g`c�ph a1 �...�ph ai �h`b y1 ... yn g

=AAAAA?,

<@@@@@>

ss S loc Scat 1

domb x1 ... xm g`c�ph b1 �...�ph bj �h`b y1 ... yn g

=AAAAA?

i

=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA?

=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA?As mentioned above, the sharing of entire domain objects across the conjuncts

is oversimplifying: since domain objects do contain full syntacto-semantic infor-


mation, including individual and event variables, sharing of entire domain objectswould make empirically wrong predictions, e.g., with respect to reference identity.Approaches di�er, though, as to the way disjoint information coming from di�er-ent conjuncts is resolved on the order domain of the coordinated structure: whileYatabe (2003) suggests to compose con icting features into disjunctive or distributiverepresentations, Crysmann (2003, to appear) and Beavers and Sag (2004) requireasymmetric sharing of entire domain objects between the mother and one of the con-juncts, and selectively equate across all conjuncts only those feature paths which areknown to be necessary to ensure well-formedness of peripheral sharing, e.g. head,phon and pred. Crysmann (2003, to appear) and Yatabe (2000) agree, however, thatthe entire non-shared rest is composed into a single domain object whose syntacto-semantic information is equated with that of the entire construction. FollowingCrysmann (2003), a sentence like (14a) will receive a representation as in (35):

(35)

<@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@>

ss s �loc Scat c �

dom d 1

<@@@@@>

ph i1bBillghd j1 noun[nom]

=AAAAA?, 2<@@@@@>

ph i2bgaveghd j2 verb

=AAAAA?i,d<@@@@>ph i3 `

i4 ` i0 `i5 ` i6

ss s

=AAAA?i

dtrs

<@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@>

conjunction�ph i0 bandg�

conjunctsd

<@@@@@@@@@>

domd 1 , 2 ,<@@@@@>

ph i3bthe girlsghd noun[dat]

=AAAAA?,<@@@@@>

ph i4bspadesghd noun[acc]

=AAAAA?i

ss S loc Scat c

=AAAAAAAAA?<@@@@@@@@@>

domd<@@@@>ph i1

hd j1

=AAAA?,<@@@@>ph i2

hd j2i,<@@@@@>

ph i5bthe boysghd noun[dat]

=AAAAA?,<@@@@@>

ph i6brec.ghd noun[acc]

=AAAAA?i

ss S loc Scat c

=AAAAAAAAA?

i

=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA?

=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA?Although none of the published HPSG work on NCCmentions this explicitly,

sharing of non-parallel structure as in (22) can be ruled out, owing to the fact thatorder domains are partially structured representations.Multi-dimensional (or 3D) approaches, such as Goodall (1987) or Moltmann

(1992), are another subtype of Shared-Structure Accounts, where shared phrasemarkers are merged between (sentential) conjuncts, yet phrase markers dominatingnon-shared material continue to resides on di�erent planes. As detailed in Milward(1994), these approaches are well-equipped to ensure structural parallelism, as in(22), but run into problems, once NCC involves di�erent numbers of adjuncts withineach conjunct, as in the example (36) below.

(36) You can call me [directly] or [[a�er 3 p.m.] [through my secretary]].

To summarise, approaches to NCC generally agree, that what we are dealingwith is not really coordination of arbitrary non-constituents, but rather a specialcase of constituent coordination which either involves coordination at some higher


structural level (VP or S in LFG andHPSG), or amore abstract notion of constituency(CG). e mere existence of NCC also has repercussions on the usefulness of coor-

dination data as a constituency test: given that apparent non-constituents can becombined by means of some coordinating conjunction, mere conjoinability of twosyntactic units will not tell us anything about their status. e converse, however, isnot true: failure to coordinate can still be regarded as an indicator of non-constituency(or dissimilarity).

3.2 Gapping

In contrast to peripheral sharing, gapping constructions, where the shared materialis central, not peripheral, are less well-studied in phrase-structure grammar. Asmentioned above, Maxwell and Manning (1996) argue to exclude it from the domainof syntax altogether. In the framework of HPSG, gapping phenomena have notreceived any detailed attention either, although it is highly conceivable to extendexisting approaches to peripheral sharing in such a way, to permit sharing of headdomain objects.In Categorial grammar (Steedman, 1990), gapping phenomena, just like periph-

eral sharing, is treated on a parwith constituent coordination, building crucially on anextended notion of constituency, including “non-standard constituents” (Steedman,1990) which result from the application of type raising and functional composition.

(37) Harry will buy bread, and Barry, potatoes. (Steedman, 1990)

In Steedman’s account, the constituents of the gapped conjunct (Barry potatoes)are type-raised to a sentence lacking the verb (=S�((S�NP)/NP)). e non-gappedconjunct, of category S, however, is decomposed by a special rule (the ‘Le� ConjunctRevealing Rule’) into the verbal functor ((S�NP)/NP) and the remainder, again asentence lacking the verb (=S�((S�NP)/NP)). Since these two categories are iden-tical, they can coordinate to yield a constituent of the same category, which thenrecombines with the verb to produce a sentence. e theory of gapping as advanced by Steedman (1990) also establishes a link

between the direction of functional application and the linear order of gapped vs. non-gapped conjuncts. As observed as early as Ross (1970), there is a strong correlationin the languages of the world between basic word order (SVO/VSO vs. SOV) and theposition of the gapped conjunct: in consistently head-initial languages such as English(SVO) or Irish (VSO), the gapped conjunct is non-initial, just like (most) argumentsare, whereas head-�nal languages, such as Japanese (SOV) have the gapped conjunctprecede the non-gapped one.

(38) [watakusiI

waNOM

sakana�sh

o]ACC

[BiruBill

waNOM

gohanrice

o]ACC

tabetaate

‘I ate �sh, and Bill, rice’ (Ross, 1970, p. 251)


Note, however, that gapping in strict SOV languages is not easy to distinguishfrom RNR.Languages like German, which is somewhat intermediate between a head-�nal

and a head-initial language, do not seem to behave in typologically clear-cut ways:in subordinate clauses, where word order is strictly verb-�nal, the gapped conjunctmay either precede the non-gapped one (39a), or vice-versa (39b). In verb secondclauses, however, the gapped conjunct must follow the non-gapped one, just like inEnglish.

(39) a. IchIvermutepresume

daßthatPeterPeter

Wein,wine

undandMarieMarie

Bierbeergetrunkendrunk

hat.has

‘I presume that Peter drank wine and Marie beer.’b. IchIvermutepresume

daßthatPeterPeter

Weinwine

getrunkendrunk

hat,hasundandMarieMarie

Bier.beer

‘I presume that Peter drank wine and Marie beer.’c. PeterPeter

trankdrank

Wein,wine

undandMarieMarie

Bier.beer

‘Peter drank wine, and Marie beer.’d. * Peter

PeterWein,wine

undandMarieMarie

trankdrank

Bier.beer

Since (39a) may as well be interpreted as RNR, German appears to pattern withhead-initial languages, despite its verb-�nal order.

3.3 SGF-coordination

Another NCC phenomenon which cannot be reduced to peripheral sharing is so-called SGF-coordination (“Subject Gaps in Finite/Frontal clauses”), a term originallydue to Hohle (1983) and Wunderlich (1988). In this construction, which is typicallyfound in languages such as German or Dutch, a subject internal to the �rst conjunctgets elided in the second. In English, a similar construction exist, involving LocativeInversion (40c).

(40) a. [InintodentheWaldwoods

gingwent

dertheJager]hunter

undand[�ngcaught

einena

Hasen].rabbit

‘Into the woods went the hunter and caught a rabbit.’b. [Wennif

duyouinintoeinaKau�ausdepartment store

gehst]go

undand[hasthave

keinnoGeld],money

...then

‘If you go to a department store and you do not have any money, ...’c. [Into the room strode Robin] and [sat down on a chair].

e main challenge of SGF-coordination is similar to that posed by gapping,i.e. that the shared subject is properly contained within one of the conjuncts. It


is a distinguishing property of this construction that the second conjunct must bea verb-�rst (V1) structure, whereas the �rst conjunct may either be verb-second(V2, see (40a)), verb-�rst, or a complementiser-introduced verb-�nal structure, see(40b). e order of the two conjuncts is �xed. Furthermore, it is generally agreedthat SGF-coordination exhibits a strong subject-object asymmetry: neither can anobject be elided in the second conjunct, nor can a non-subject in the �rst conjunctbe interpreted as coreferent with the missing subject.Principle and Parameter approaches to the phenomenon typically invoke asym-

metrical syntactic structures to model the properties of the construction (Hohle,1990, Heycock and Kroch, 1993, Wunderlich, 1988). See Kathol (1999) for a detailedsynopsis. Steedman (1990) illustrates on the basis of data from Dutch how his Cate-gorial Grammar account of gapping can straightforwardly derive SGF-coordinationas well. His approach, however, has been criticised by Kathol (1995) for overgen-eration, being able to equally derive sharing of conjunct-internal objects. Kathol(1995, 1999) suggests instead to reduce SGF to coordination at the VP level, andderives the di�erences in word order (V2 vs. V1) by means of word order constraintsoperating on complex order domains. Frank (2002) presents an LFG-analysis ofthe construction that crucially exploits LFG’s notion of grammaticalised discoursefunctions to account for the subject-object asymmetry and the word order e�ects ina symmetrical way.

4 Coordination of Unlikes

In our discussion of constituent coordination, we have made the rather commonassumption that conjuncts need to be identical to a certain degree in order to un-dergo coordination. Inter alia, we have assumed, identity of syntactic category as aprerequisite for conjoinability. Work in GPSG (Gazdar et al., 1985, Sag et al., 1985),however, has devoted quite a good deal of attention to examples where this fairlybasic requirement appears to be violated:

(41) Kim is [[a Republican]NP[PRD +] and [proud of it]AP[PRD +]].

e solution GPSG provided for what is now known as “coordination of unlikes”involved the assumption that the featural speci�cation of the mother node in acoordinate structure should be the intersection (or generalisation) of the featurespeci�cation of the conjunct daughters. As shown, however, by Jacobson (1987), datasuch as (42) illustrate the systematic limitations of a generalisation-based approach,like GPSG’s:

(42) a. Kim grew wealthy.

b. * Kim grew a Republican.

c. Kim grew and remained wealthy.

d. * Kim grew and remained a Republican.


e. * Kim grew and remained wealthy and a Republican.

If grow only subcategorises for APs [N +, V+], and remain subcategorises forAPs or NPs ([N +]), coordination of the two verbs should yield the intersection ofthe two feature speci�cations, namely [N +]. But this weakened feature speci�cationcannot account for the ungrammaticality of (42e), where the coordinated phrase[wealthy and a Republican] would carry exactly this feature speci�cation.Bayer and Johnson (1995) propose a solution to the above problem within the

framework of Lambek categorial grammar where functors correspond to logicalimplication. us, a functor “α/β can only combine with an argument β′ to form ifβ′ is logically stronger than β” (Bayer and Johnson, 1995, p. 70), or in other words,i� the argument is subsumed by the antecedent of the functor category. As a result,the category of remained, which is VP/(NP-AP) can be strengthened to VP/APwhich allows it to be coordinated with grew. By the same token, an NP or AP canbe weakened to NP-AP, which permits coordination of unlike categories, as in(41). Sentences like (42e) are then ruled out for the simple reason that the categoryNP-AP of the coordinate structure is logically weaker than the antecedent of theconjoined functor category VP/AP. Bayer and Johnson (1995) relate the success oftheir approach to the fact that subsumption operates on predicate-argument relations,in contrast to uni�cation-based approaches, where it is associated with coordination.An analysis of Coordination of Unlikes that is highly similar to this approach, hasrecently been proposed by Sag (2003) for HPSG.Work in uni�cation-based frameworks such as LFG (Maxwell and Manning,

1996) or HPSG (Crysmann, to appear, Beavers and Sag, 2004) has provided analternative approach to the puzzle of coordination of unlikes, by way of assimilatingit to NCC. Instead of constituent coordination of unlike categories, they propose toanalyse these phenomena as le�-peripheral sharing, at the level of VP or S: thus, acoordination of unlikes as in (41) is well-formed, just because the shared verb cancombine, individually, with an AP or NP constituent in each of the VP or S conjuncts.

4.1 Feature neutrality

An issue related to Coordination of Unlikes is feature neutrality, or feature indeter-minacy, as witnessed by the following example from German (Pullum and Zwicky,1986):

(43) a. Erhe[�ndet[OBJ acc]�nds

undandhil�[OBJ dat]]helps

Frauenacc~dat.women

‘He �nds and helps women.’b. * Er

he[�ndet[OBJ acc]�nds


Kinderndat.children

c. * Erhe[�ndet[OBJ acc]�nds


Manneracc.men


e two verbs �nden ‘�nd’ and helfen ‘help’ impose di�erent restrictions onthe case value of their respective objetcs. Still, they can coordinate at the word (orX0) level and share an object, if this object is morphologically neutral between thecon icting case requirements.Since Zaenen and Karttunnen (1984), it has been established that feature neutral-

ity cannot be reduced to ambiguity in uni�cation-based frameworks: if we assumethat Frauen has a case speci�cation acc-dat, uni�cation with the selectional require-ments of �nden will disambiguate it to acc, so it would no longer be compatible withthe requirement imposed by helfen, and vice versa. It has been argued by Ingria(1990) that feature indeterminacy, besides Coordination of Unlikes, therefore posesa major challenge for uni�cation-based grammar. Note also, that a generalisation-based approach to the coordination of �nden and helfen will run into exactly thesame problems as the GPSG-account of Coordination of Unlikes discussed above,equally permitting the ungrammatical (43b) and (43c).Bayer and Johnson (1995)’s approach to feature indeterminacy is entirely ana-

loguous to their treatment of Coordination of Unlikes: at the heart of their accountlies a principled distinction between neutral or overspeci�ed categories, such asnp, acc , dat, assigned to the neutral Frauen and underspeci�ed categories, likenp,(acc-dat)which they take to be the category of a coordination of case-distinctNPs, such asManneracc und Kinderndat. Functor categories like vp/np,acc or �ndetor vp/np,dat for hil� can be strengthened to vp/np,acc,dat, which can then becoordinated into a category of the same type. While neutral NPs like Frauen areexactly of this overspeci�ed type, and hence, can function as an argument to yield aVP, non-neutral NPs likeManner orKindern cannot, since their respective categories(np,acc or np,dat) are not subsumed by np,acc,dat.Within the context of uni�cation-based grammar, solutions similar to Bayer

and Johnson (1995) have recently been developed for LFG (Dalrymple and Kaplan,2000) and HPSG (Daniels, 2001, Levy and Pollard, 2001). Dalrymple and Kaplan(2000) suggest to replace equality-based checking of agreement features with a set-based approach: non-neutral NPs such asManner or Kindern will be speci�ed as(�CASE)={ACC} or (�CASE)={DAT}, respectively, whereas neutral NPs, such asFrauen will specify both cases as elements of their CASE set (�CASE)={ACC,DAT}.Case checking by verbs will then be expressed as constraints on set membership, e.g.,ACC > (�OBJ CASE) for �nden, or DAT > (�OBJ CASE) for helfen. e f-structureof the V0 coordination will simply contain the conjunction (or uni�cation) of theseset constraints, requiring the direct object’s CASE set to contain both an ACC and aDAT element.

Within HPSG, Daniels (2001) has shown how the basic insight of the Bayer andJohnson approach to feature neutrality can be incorporated by re�ning the typehierarchies of case values (see also Levy and Pollard 2001 for technically di�erent,though conceptually identical approaches).


(44)

case

acc dat

p-acc p-acc-dat p-dat

Building on an earlier proposal by Levine et al. (2001), he suggests to distinguishtraditional case requirements such as acc or dat from themaximal (or “pure”) cases towhich they may resolve, enabling him to include a neutral type p-acc-dat, alongsidethe non-neutral types p-acc and p-dat. While the case values ofManner and Kindernwill be the non-neutral types p-acc and p-dat Frauen be lexically speci�ed as [case p-acc-dat]. is augmentation of the type hierarchy makes it possible to reduce featureneutrality to standard notions of uni�cation: since �nden will subcategorise for accand helfen ofr dat, the uni�cation of these requirements can only be satis�ed by thecase-neutral type p-acc-dat. A drawback of a type-based approach such as Danielsis that the hierarchies needed to provide all necessary neutralising types may growfactorial to the number of case distinctions. An alternative has been proposed by Sag(2003), who advocates subsumption checks, thereby likening the HPSG approach tothat of Bayer and Johnson (1995) and Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000).

To conclude, current solutions to the puzzle of Coordination of Unlikes unani-mously agree that likeness of constituents should still be regarded a de�ning propertyof coordinate structures, but that the de�nition of likeness is subject to further re�ne-ment. Solutions di�er, though, as to whether resolution is sought at the level of the“unlike” constituents themselves, using subsumption checks, or else at some higherlevel, likening the treatment of Coordination of Unlikes to that of NCC.

References

Bayer, S. and Johnson, M. 1995. Features and Agreement. In Proceedings of the 33rdAnnual Meeting of the ACL, pages 70–76.

Beavers, John and Sag, Ivan A. 2004. Coordinate Ellipsis and Apparent Non-constituent Coordination. In Stefan Muller (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Int’l Con-ference on HPSG, Aug 3–6, 2004, Leuven, CSLI Online Proceedings, Stanford:CSLI.

Blevins, James. 1994. Phrasal Coordination, ms., University of Western Australia.

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Den Haag: Mouton.

Chomsky, Noam A. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the eory of Gov-ernment and Binding, volume 6 of Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge,Massachusetts: e MIT Press.

Crysmann, Berthold. 2003.Constraint-basedCoanalysis. PortugueseCliticisation andMorphology–Syntax Interaction in HPSG. Saarbrucken Dissertations in Computa-


tional Linguistics and Language Technology, No. 15, Saarbrucken: ComputationalLinguistics, Saarland University and DFKI LT Lab.

Crysmann, Berthold. to appear. An Asymmetric eory of Peripheral Sharingin HPSG: Conjunction Reduction and Coordination of Unlikes. In G. Jaeger,P. Monachesi, G. Penn and S. Wintner (eds.), Proceedings of FGVienna: e 8thConference on Formal Grammar, Aug 16–17 2003, Vienna, Stanford: CSLI Publica-tions.

Dalrymple, Mary and Kaplan, Ron. 2000. Feature Indeterminacy and Feature Reso-lution. Language 76(4), 759–798.

Dalrymple, Mary, Shieber, Stuart and Pereira, Fernando. 1992. Ellipsis and Higher-order Uni�cation. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 399–452.

Daniels, Michael. 2001. On a Type-Based Analysis of Feature Neutrality and theCoordination of Unlikes. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference onHead-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, CSLI Online Proceedings, pages 137–147,Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Davis, Anthony. 1993. Empty Heads and Missing Subjects: Underspeci�cation inHausa VPs. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 28.

Dixon, R. 1972. e Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Dowty, David. 1988. Type Raising, Functional Composition, and Non-ConstituentConjunction. In R. Oehrle et al. (ed.), Categorial Grammars and Natural LanguageStructures, Reidel.

Frank, Anette. 2002. A (Discourse) Functional Analysis of Asymmetric Coordination.In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG 2002Conference, pages 174–196, Athens: CSLI Online Publications.

Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geo�rey K. and Sag, Ivan. 1985. GeneralizedPhrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Goodall, G. 1987. Parallel Structures in Syntax: Coordination, Causatives and Restruc-turing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grosu, Alexander. 1973. On the nonunitary nature of the Coordinate Structure Con-straint. LI 4, 88–92.

Grover, Claire. 1994. eEncyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, volume 2, ChapterCoordination, pages 762–768. Elsevier.

Heycock, Caroline and Kroch, Anthony. 1993. Verb Movement and the Status ofSubjects: Implications for the eory of Licensing. e Linguistic Review 11, 257–283.


Hohle, Tilman. 1983. Subjektlucken in Koordinationen, ms., University of Cologne.

Hohle, Tilman. 1990. Assumptions about Asymmetric Coordination in German.In Joan Mascaro and Marina Nespor (eds.), Grammar in Progress, pages 221–235,Dordrecht: Foris.

Ingria, R. J. P. 1990. e limits of Uni�cation. In Proceedings of the 28th AnnualMeeting of the ACL, pages 194–204.

Jackendo�, Ray. 1977. X-Syntax. MIT Press.

Jacobson, Pauline. 1987. Review of Gerald Gazdar, Ewan Klein, Geo�rey Pullum,and Ivan A. Sag (1985): Generalised Phrase Structure Grammar. Linguistics andPhilosophy 10, 389–426.

Kaplan, Ronald M. and Maxwell, John T. 1988. Constituent Coordination in Lexical-Functional Grammar. In Proceedings of COLING 88, pages 303–305, COLING 88,Budapest.

Kathol, Andreas. 1995. Linearization-Based German Syntax. Ph. D.thesis, Ohio StateUniversity.

Kathol, Andreas. 1999. Linearization versus Phrase Structure in German CoordinateConstructions. Cognitive Linguistics 10, 303–342.

Lako�, George. 1986. Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint.In Anne Farley, Peter Farley and Karl-Erik McCullogh (eds.), Papers from theParasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical eory at the 22nd Regional Meeting,Chicago Linguistic Society, pages 152–167.

Levine, Robert, Hukari, omas and Calcagno, Michael. 2001. Parasitic Gaps inEnglish: Some Overlooked Cases and their eoretical Implications. In PeterCulicover and Paul Postal (eds.), Parasitic Gaps, pages 181–222, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Levy, Roger and Pollard, Carl. 2001. Coordination and Neutralization in HPSG. InProceedings of the 8th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase StructureGrammar, CSLI Online Proceedings, pages 221–234, Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Maxwell, John T. and Manning, Christopher. 1996. A eory of Non-constituentCoordination Based on Finite-State Rules. In Miriam Butt and Tracy HollowayKing (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG96 Conference, Rank Xerox, Grenoble, CSLIOnline Proceedings, Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Milward, David. 1994. Non-constituent Coordination: eory and Practice. In Pro-ceedings of the Fi�eenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics(COLING-94), pages 935–941.

Moltmann, F. 1992. Coordination and Comparatives. Ph. D.thesis, MIT.


Pollard, Carl and Sag, Ivan. 1994.Head–Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford:CSLI and University of Chicago Press.

Pullum, Geo�rey and Zwicky, Arnold. 1986. Phonological Resolution of SyntacticFeature Con ict. Language 62, 751–773.

Reape, Mike. 1994. Domain Union andWord Order Variation in German. In JohnNerbonne, Klaus Netter and Carl Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven PhraseStructure Grammar, Lecture Notes, No. 46, pages 151–197, Stanford University:CSLI Publications.

Roberts, Ian. 1997. Comparative Syntax. New York: Edward Arnold.

Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph. D.thesis, MIT.

Ross, John R. 1970. Gapping and the Order of Constituents. In Manfred Bierwischand K. E. Heidolph (eds.), Progress in Linguistics, e Hague: Mouton.

Sag, Ivan, Gazdar, Gerald, Wasow, omas and Weisler, Steven. 1985. Coordinationand How to Distinguish Categories. Natural Language and Linguistic eory 3,117–171.

Sag, Ivan A. 2003. Coordination and Underspeci�cation. In Jong-Bok Kim andStephenWechsler (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, 5–7 August, 2002,pages 267–291, Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Steedman, Marc. 1990. Gapping as Constituent Coordination. Linguistics and Phi-losophy 13, 207–264.

Steedman, Mark. 1985. Dependency and Coordination in the Grammar of Dutchand English. Language 61, 523–568.

Whitman, Neil. 2002. Category Neutrality: a Type-Logical Investigation. Ph. D.thesis,Ohio State University.

Wunderlich, Dieter. 1988. Some Problems of Coordination in German. In Uwe Reyleand Christian Rohrer (eds.), Natural Language Processing and Linguistic eories,Dordrecht: Reidel.

Yatabe, Shuichi. 2000. e syntax and semantics of le�-node raising in Japanese. InProceedings of the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase StructureGrammar, CSLI Online Proceedings, pages 325–344, Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Yatabe, Shuichi. 2003. A Linearization-based eory of Summative Agreement inPeripheral-Node Raising Constructions. In Jong-Bok Kim and Stephen Wech-sler (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Head-driven PhraseStructure Grammar, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, 5–7 August, 2002, pages 391–411,Stanford: CSLI Publications.


Zaenen, Annie and Karttunnen, Lauri. 1984.Morphological Non-Distinctiveness andCoordination. In Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics(ESCOL), pages 309–320.

Documents

Coordination - Universität des Saarlandes