Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:02:03.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Innovation in functional categories: slash, a new coordinator in English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2017

BRENT WOO Open the ORCID record for BRENT WOO [Opens in a new window]
BRENT WOO*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Washington, Guggenheim Hall, Box 352425, Seattle, WA 98195, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents an analysis of the distribution and syntactic behavior of the English expression slash, as in John is a linguist slash musician. The interpretation of this ‘effable slash’ is largely equivalent to intersective and, but it differs from other connective devices like Latin cum, N–N compounding and the orthographic slash </>. A corpus study of American English finds that slash is productive in this use. Its syntactic properties confirm its status as coordinator, but it is distinguished from standard coordinators and and or, in that it imposes category restrictions on the conjuncts: it cannot coordinate full clauses or noun phrases with determiners. I propose that words like slash, period and quote form a class of ‘effable punctuation’ that entered the spoken language from writing. In sum, by incorporating slash into the grammar of English, I argue that slash is a rare example of innovation in a ‘very closed’ functional category.

Keywords

coordinationconjunctionpunctuationsyntax
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 621 - 644
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Bernd Kortmann and the two anonymous ELL reviewers for useful comments and suggestions. I am grateful to Barbara Citko, Kirby Conrod and Zac Smith for constructive comments. Material for this article was presented at the Linguistics Conference at the University of Georgia 3 (LCUGA 3) and I thank the audience for their comments. I am responsible for any remaining errors and omissions.

References

Bauer, Laurie. 2008. Dvandvas. Word Structure 1 (1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2010. Co-compounds in Germanic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 22 (3), 201–19.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Merrie. 1982. Cross-categorial semantics for conjoined common nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 399–401.Google Scholar
Champollion, Lucas. 2016. Ten men and women got married today. Journal of Semantics 33 (3), 561–622.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2007. Coordinate structures: Constraint-based syntax-semantics processing. PhD dissertation, Universidade de Lisboa.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara & Gračanin-Yuksek, Martina. 2016. Multiple (coordinated) (free) relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34, 393–427.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2015. Making a point: The persnickety story of English punctuation. New York City: St Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008 –. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990–present. corpus.byu.edu/coca (accessed September 2016).Google Scholar
Dell, Gary S. 1995. Speaking and misspeaking. In Gleitman, Lila, Liberman, Mark & Osherson, Daniel N. (eds.), An invitation to cognitive science, 183–208. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio & Scalise, Sergio. 2012. Morphology: From data to theories. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fay, David & Cutler, Anne. 1977. Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 8 (3), 505–20.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. 1984. Speech errors as linguistic evidence. The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gleitman, Lila R. 1965. Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language 41 (2), 260–93.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1985. A principled exception to the coordinate structure constraint. Papers from the General Session at the 21st regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 21, 133–43.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Coordinating constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline & Zamparelli, Roberto. 2005. Friends and colleagues: Plurality, coordination, and the structure of DP. Natural Language Semantics 13 (3), 201–70.Google Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1986. Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. Papers from the 22nd Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 152–67.Google Scholar
Lang, Ewald. 1984. The semantics of coordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lewis, Charlton T. & Short, Charles. 1879. A Latin dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1988. The grammaticalization of coordination. In Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 331–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 2000. Copulative compounds: A closer look at the interface between syntax and morphology. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2000, 279–320. Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 2004. Coordination in morphology and syntax: the case of copulative compounds. In Meulen, Alice G. B. ter & Abraham, Werner (eds.), The composition of meaning: From lexeme to discourse, 17–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Oxford English dictionary (OED), 2nd edition. 1989. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prażmowska, Anna. 2015. Is unlike coordination against the law of the coordination of likes. Proceedings of the Fourth Central European Conference in Linguistics for Postgraduate Students (CECIL'S 4), 169–84.Google Scholar
Renner, Vincent. 2008. On the semantics of English coordinate compounds. English Studies 89 (5), 606–13.Google Scholar
Renner, Vincent. 2013. English cum, a borrowed coordinator turned complex compound marker. Morphology 23, 57–66.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Gazdar, Gerald, Wasow, Thomas & Weisler, Steven. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 117–71.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1978. Across-the-board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9 (1), 31–43.Google Scholar
Zoerner, Cyril Edward. 1995. Coordination: The syntax of &P. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar