I T S I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R T H E T H E O R Y O F G E N E R A L L I N G U I S T I C S S I M O N C. D I K ',, Department of Gtneral Linguistics University of Amsterdam 1968 NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM 1968 C> NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING CO. -AMSTERDAM No part of this book be reproduced in form, print, photoprlnt, microfilm or may any by other without written permission from the publisher any meaM PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS To parents my To Annelies • Preface • I should like to express my sincere thanks to all those who in some way or other have aided me in the preparation of this study, submitted as a doctoral thesis to the Faculty of Arts of the University of Amsterdam. In a way difficult to define in detail this book owes most to Professor Anton Reichling, under whom I had the privilege of working as a student and an assistant over a period of nearly ten years. As supervisor of the thesis Professor Reichling greatly enhanced the value of the text by his acute criticism of earlier versions. I am very much indebted also to Professor A. L. Vos, who gave inval uable advice on the content and style of this study. Professor E. M. Uhlenbeck of the University of Leyden and my col league Mr. J. G. Kooij also read earlier versions and allowed me to profit by their critical remarks. I am further obliged to those who assisted me by sending reprints of publications, by allowing me to use pre-publication drafts, by providing me with written or personal information on a number of points, or by discussing the subject-matter of this study: Mr. D. M. Bakker, Dr. G. F. Bos, Professor Noam Chomsky, Dr. B. F. Elson, Mr. J. Fidelholtz, Pro fessor Charles J. Fillmore, Mrs. Lila R. Gleitman, Mr. R. D. Huddleston, ..., Mr. W. G. Klooster, Mr. H. Pinkster, Dr. Petr Pitha, Dr. C. J. Ruijgh, Professor Sanford A. Schane, Professor H. Schultink, and Professor Wil liam S.-Y. Wang; to the members of the 'Werkgroep Logische Structuur der Grammatica' ('Seminar on the Logical Structure of Gramtnar') for their criticism of an oral presentation of some parts of this study; to Mr. F. Carmiggelt and Mr. H. Pinkster for their assistance in proof-rea ding; to Mr. D. Betlem for compiling the Index of names: to manage ment and staff of North-Holland Publishing Company for their efficient and rapid production of the book; and to my wife Annelies for unfailing support and assistance. c. Amsterdam, March 1968 SIMON DIK Contents vn PREFACE . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1. INTRODUCTION. 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 .1. The study of coordinative constructions . . 1 • • • • • • • s 1. 2. On the scope of general linguistics . . . . • • • • • • • 1 . 2 .1. Some historical remarks . . . . . 6 • • • • • • • 1.2 .2. The present-day task of general linguistics 11 • • • • • • 2. SUMMARY 15 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3. THE DISTRIBUTIONAL APPROACH TO COORDINATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS . 17 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .3 .1. Bloomfield's definition 17 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .3 .1 .1. Construction . 18 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 .1. 2. Position . . . . . . . . 19 • • • • • • • • ·3 .1.3. Function • . . . . . . . 19 • • • • • • • • .3 .1 . 4. Form-class . . . . . . . 20 • • • • • • • • 3 .1 . 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . 21 • • • • • • • • .3. 2. Counter-examples to Bloomfield's definition 21 • • • • • • • • 4. GENERAL PROPERTIES OF COORDINATIONS . 25 • • • • • • 4 .1. .A general definition of'c oordination' . • . . 25 • • • • • • 4 .1 .1. 'Two or more constituents' . . . . . 26 • • • • • • 4 .1 . 2. 'Equivalent as to grammatical function' . 27 • • • • • • 4 .1.3. 'At the same level of structural hierarchy' . 30 • • • • • • 4 .1 . 4. '.A linking device' . . . . . . . 31 • • • • • • 4 .1. 4 .1. Juxtaposition . . . . . . 32 • • • • • • 4 .1. 4. 2. Coordinators . . . . . . 34 • • • • • • 4 .1 . 4. 2 .1. A criterion for coordinators . . . . 34 4 .1. 4. 2. 2. The patterning of coordinators. . . . 41 4 .1.4 .2 .3. Repetitive, correlative, and heterogeneous coordinators . . . . 45 4 .1. 4. 2. 4. Prepositive vs. postpositive coordinators . . . . . . . . 47 4 .1. 4. 2. 5. Binary and n-ary coordinators. . . • 48 4 .1. 4. 2. 6. The grammatical status of coordinators . 51 4 .1 . 4. 2. 7. The hierarchical status of coordinators . 52 4. 2. The order of the members in a coordination . . . . . . . . 55 4 • .3. Coordination in relation to other types of structure . . . . . . 58 4. 4. Conclusion . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 x CONTENTS 5. THE TREATMENT OF COORDINATION IN TRANSFORMATIONAL GENERATIVE GRAMMAR 61 • • • • • 5 .1. Introductory remarks • • • • . . . . • . 61 • • • • 5. 2. The inadequacy of constituent structure rules . . . . 64 • • • • 5 .3. The introduction of transformational rules . . . . . 69 • • • • 5 .4. The transformational principle in its most general form • 72 • • • • 5 .5. Inadequacies of· the transformational approach . . . 74 • • • • 5. 5 .1. The establishment of derived constituent structure 74 • • • • 5. 5. 2. Simplicity . . . . . . . . . . . 76 • • • • 5 .5 .3. Coordination and plurals . . . . . . . 79 • • • • 5. 5. 4. Referential problems . . . . . . . . 81 • • • • 5. 5. 5. Semantic differences . . . . . . . . . 87 • • • • 5 . 5 . 6. Irreducible cases . . . . . . . . . . 88 • • • • 5. 5. 7. Conclusion . . . . . . • . . . . 91 • • • • 5. 6. The use of rule-schemata . . • . . . . . . 92 • • • • 5. 6 .1. Rule-schemata in tagmemic theory . . . . . 93 • • • • 5. 6. 2. Rule-schemata in transformational grammar . . 94 • • • • 5. 7. Recent suggestions for the description of coordinations in transformational generative grammar • . . . . . 98 • • • • 5. 7 .1. Sentence conjunction . . . • . . . . . 98 • • • • 5. 7 .1 .1. Chomsky . . . . . . . . . 100 • • • • 5. 7 .1 .2. Ross &. Lakoff . . . . . . • 101 • • • • 5 . 7 .1 . 3. Schane . . . . . . . • . 102 • • • • 5. 7 .1 . 4. Koutsoudas . . . . . . . • 105 • • • • 5. 7 .1 .5. Conclusion . . . . • . . 107 • • • • • 5. 7. 2. Phrasal conjunction • . . . • . . . 109 • • • • • 5. 7 .2 .1. Fidelholtz . . . . . . . . 110 • • • • • 5. 7. 2. 2. Lakoff &. Peters . . . . . . 110 • • • • • 5. 7. 3. Final remarks on the scope of rule-schemata . 112 • • • • • 5. 8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 • • • • • 6. THE BACKGROUND OF THE TRANSFORMATIONAL APPROACH TO COORDINATION . . . . . . . 116 • • • • 6 .1. Introduction • . . . . . . . . . 116 • • • • • • • 6. 2. Aristotle . . . . . . . . . . . 118 • • • • • • • 119 6. 3. Port-Royal • . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • 6. 4. More recent versions of· the reduction postulate 124 • • • • • • • 6. 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . 128 • • • • • • • 7. THE RELATION OF COORDINATION TO CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE . 131 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7 .1. The coordinated member single constituent hypothesis 131 = • • • • 7 .2. Methodological objections . . . . . . . . 131 • • • • • 7. 3. Empirical objections . . . . . . . . . . 134 • • • • • 7. 4. Further counter-examples . . . . . . . . 139 • • • • • 7. 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 • • • • • CONTENTS XI 8. ON THE NOTION 'GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION' . 143 • • • • • 8 .1. Bloomfield's view of grammatical function . . • . . . . 143 • • 8. 2. Grammatical function in transformational generative grammar . 147 • • 8. 3. Preliminary conclusions . . . . . . . . . • . . 154 • • 8. 4. Grammatical function in tagmemics . . . . . . . . . 154 • • 8 .5. Grammatical function in Halliday's 'systemic grammlJI'' . . . 159 • • 8. 6. Some general remarks . . . • . . . . . . . . 160 • • 9. OUTLINE-SKETCH OF A FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR . 162 • • • • 9 .1. Basic properties . . . • . • . . • • . . 163 • • • • 9. 2. General lay-out of structural descriptions . . • . . 164 • • • • 9. 2 .1. Facts accounted for . • . . . . . . . 164 • • • • 9. 2. 2. Most inclusive units described . . . . . . 164 • • • • 9. 2. 3. Relations between different linguistic expressions . 167 • • • • 9. 2. 4. Constituents, categories, and functions . . . 169 • • • • 9. 2. 5. The format of structural descriptions . . . . 170 • • • • 9. 2. 6. A simplified example . . . . . . . . 172 • • • • 9. 2. 7. Categorial vs. functional differences . . . . 174 • • • • 9. 3. The selection off unctions . . . . . . . . . 175 • • • • 9.4. Relative simplicity of a functional grammar . . . . 176 • • • • 9. 5. Types of rules needed in a functional grammar. . . . 177 • • • • 9. 5 .1. Four basic sets of rules • . • . . . . . 178 • • • • 9.5 .2. Continuous vs. discontinuous rules • • • . . 181 • • • • 9. 5. 3. Definite vs. indefinite rules (or rule-schemata) . 185 • • • • 9. 5. 4. Context-free vs. context-sensitive rules . . . 186 • • • • 9. 5. 5. Obligatory vs. optional rules • . . . . . 187 • • • • 9. 6. Recursion in a functional grammar . . . . . . . 187 • • • • 9. 7. The organization of a functional grammar . . . . . 190 • • • • 9. 7 .1. The ordering of the rules and of their application . 191 • • • • 9. 7. 2. The notion of 'derivation' in a functional grammar 193 • • • • 9. 8. An illustrative example • . • • . . . . . . 195 • • • • 9. 9. Conclusion . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 • • • • 10. THE DESCRIPTION OF COORDINATIONS IN A FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 • • 10 .1. A general schema of coordination . . . . . . . . . 202 • • 10. 2. The incorporation of the schema into the grammar • . . . 204 • • 10.3. Some examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 • • 10. 4. Some further differences with the transformational description . 215 • • 10 .5. Some advantages of the functional description of coordinations 223 • • 11. STRUCTURAL AMBIGUITY IN COORDINATIONS 227 • • • • • 11 .1. Three types of ambiguity . . . . . . . 228 • • • • • • 11 .1 .1. Functional ambiguity . • . . . . 230 • • • • • • 11.1.2. Hierarchical ambiguity . . . . . 231 • • • • • • 11.1.3. Relational ambiguity . . . . . . 236 • • • • • • 11 . 2. Structural ambiguity and functional grammar . 241 • • • • • • 11. 2 .1. The inadequacy of IC-analysis . . . 242 • • • • • • 11. 2. 2. The functional alternative . . . . . 246 • • • • • • XII CONTENTS . 250 12. ON THE SEMANTICS OF COORDINATION . • • • • • • 12 .1. Can semantic aspects be attributed to coordinators? . . . . . 250 12 .2. Reichling's theory of semantics . • • . • . . • . . . 251 . 251 12. 2 .1. Basic principles . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 .2 .2. Semantic content and final interpretation . . . . . . 252 12 .2 .3. Kinds of linguistic Information • . . • . . . . . 251 12. 3. .Application to coordinators . • • . . • . . • . . . 258 12 .4. Defining the semantic values of coordinators: logic or linguistics? . . 259 12 .5. Semantic values and semantic relations . . • . • . . . . 270 12. 5 .1. Semantic values of coordinators . . . . . . . . . 271 12. 5. 2. Semantic relations between coordinated members . . . • 281 12. 5 . 3. Some final remarks • • . . . . . . . . . . 290 12. 6. The relation between grammar and semantics • . . . . . . 291 12. 7. Conclusion . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . 296 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • INDEX OF SUBJEcrs . 308 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • INDEX OF NAMES . 316 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •