Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:19:56.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coordination in Optimality Theory1

Review products

GáspárMiklos. 1999. Coordination in Optimality Theory. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 22, 157–182.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2010

Miklós Gáspár
Miklós Gáspár
Affiliation:
Eötvös Lorénd University, School of English and American Studies, Department of English Linguistics, Ajtósi Durer sor 19-21, Budapest, H-1146, Hungary. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Extract

The paper offers an account of coordination within the framework of Optimality Theory, which makes use of violable and ranked constraints. Coordination is explained with the help of nine constraints, seven of which are needed in the theory independently of coordination, while the remaining two are coordination-specific constraints. Related phenomena of Unbalanced Coordination and Extraordinary Balanced Coordination are also discussed and differences among Norwegian, English and Hungarian are explained by the difference in the relative ranking of the four relevant constraints.

Type
Review Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , December 1999 , pp. 157 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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.)

References

Andrews, A. 1985. The Major Functions of the Noun Phrase. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 62–154Google Scholar
Bernsten, M., Larsen, A. B. 1925. Stavanger bymål. Oslo: Utgitt av Bymålslaget, I kommnisjon hos H. Aschehoug & Co.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D. 1994. In Defence of Coordinate Structures. Linguistic Analysis 24, 218–246Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1986. Grammatically Deviant Prestige Constructions. In Brame, M., Contreras, H. & Newmeyer, F. (eds), A Festschrift for Sol Saporta. Seattle: Noit Amrofer, 93–129Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1997. Projection, Heads and Optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 373–422Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1998. Constraints on Constraints. Ms. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 587–622Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. 1993. Coordination - A Minimalist Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, G., Smolensky, P., Wilson, C. 1998. When is Less More? Faithfulness and Minimal Links in wh- Chains. In Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M. & Pesetsky, D. (eds), Is the Best Good Enough? Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. L. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Munn, A. 1987. Coordinate Structures, X-bar Theory and Parasitic Gaps. Honours research paper, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Munn, A. 1992. A Null Operator Analysis of ATB Gaps. Linguistic Review 9, 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. J., Prince, A. 1993. Prosodic Morphology 1: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction. Ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Rutgers University. (forthcoming, MIT Press).Google Scholar
Newson, M. 1996. Optimality Theory and English Syntax. Ms. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.Google Scholar
Newson, M. 1998a. On the Nature of Inputs and Outputs: A Case Study of Negation. In Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M. & Pesetsky, D. (eds), Is the Best Good Enough? Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Newson, M. 1998b. Thematic Structure. Ms. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1998. Some Optimality Principles of Sentence Pronunciation. In Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M. & Pesetsky, D. (eds), Is the Best Good Enough? Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press 337–383Google Scholar
Prince, A., Smolensky, P. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science Technical Report 2.Google Scholar
Reimann, J., Tóth, J. 1985. Valószínüségszámítás és matematikai statisztika. Budapest: TankönyvkiadóGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Sag, L, Gazdar, G., Wasow, T., Weisler, S. 1985. Coordination and How to Distinguish Categories. NLLT3, 117–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, P. 1977. Constraints on Coordination. Language 53, 86–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahlke, H. 1984. Independent and Clitic Pronouns in English. Papers from the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, 358–364Google Scholar
Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Tesar, B., Smolensky, P. 1993. The Learnability of Optimality Theory: An Algorithm and Some Basic Complexity Results. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 229–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trávníček, F. 1949. Mluvnice spisovne cectiny, ii. Skladba. Prague: Melantrich.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., Culicover, P. 1980. Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar