Approach to Backward Conjunction Reduction

This paper identifies backward conjunction reductions in Dutch as a special instance of coordinated comment clauses. This approach is argued to be superior to the standard approaches within the traditional and generative framework, in that it not only refrains from theoretically suspect mechanisms as needed in the other analyses, but also gives a better explanation for the constituent behaviour and the intonation pattern of the resulting surface structure. Moreover, it generalizes over backward conjunction reduction, gapping and ambi-ellipsis, which have been analyzed as unrelated constructions until now. 1. Coordination Constructions in Dutch 1.1 Coordinated comment clauses In Dutch (and in many other languages), sentential coordination can be used as a kind of parenthetical comment on a previous clause, as in the following examples: 1a [Ik geloof dat je je vergist] [en Chris is het met mij eens]. I believe that you you mistake and Chris is it with me agreed ‘I believe that you are mistaken and Chris agrees with me.’ 2a [Zijn moeder heeft hem nooit toegestaan om uit te gaan] [en dat is His mother has him never allowed to out to go and that is maar goed ook]. only good also ‘His mother has never allowed him to go out and that is only for the better.’ The second conjuncts in 1a-2a cannot be interpreted as equivalents to the preceding clauses (they cannot be interchanged as in * Chris is het met mij eens en ik geloof dat je je vergist), nor can they be seen as consecutive propositions. They merely comment on the proposition in the first clause, and as such, they resemble parenthetical adjuncts. As is the case with the latter, they can also be placed in the middle of the preceding clause, in various positions: 1b [Ik geloof [, en Chris is het met mij eens,] dat je je I believe and Chris is it with me agreed that you you vergist]. mistake ‘I believe, and your father agrees with me, that you are mistaken.’ * Radboud University Nijmegen. Contact: [email protected], [email protected] 2b [Zijn moeder heeft hem nooit toegestaan [-en dat is maar goed ook-] om His mother has him never allowed and that is only good also to uit te gaan]. out to go ‘His mother has never allowed him –and that is only for the betterto go out.’ 2c [Zijn moeder heeft hem [-en dat is maar goed ook-] nooit toegestaan om his mother has him and that is only good also never allowed to uit te gaan]. out to go ‘His mother has never allowed him –and that is only for the betterto go out.’ Usually, in these cases, the coordinated clauses are considered comment clauses (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: §15.53 ff), a special kind of parentheticals or intercalations (cf. Schelfhout et al. 2003a). Yet, it is clear that the examples in 1b-2b,c must be related to the ones in 1a-2a. Obviously, the comment clauses in 1b-2b,c are inserted into a host clause. Consequently, in 1a-2a they must be considered inserted clauses as well, although the insertion is sentence-final. Placement of these coordinated comment clauses seems to be relatively free. In Schelfhout et al. (2003b), the distribution of several types of intercalations is investigated. The distribution of the parenthetically inserted comment clauses follows the general pattern with the additional characteristic that, like non-sentential intercalations, comment clauses can be linked to a focused constituent in the host clause: 3a [Ik zag zwartbonte koeien in de wei staan] [, en het waren I saw piebald cows in the field stand and it were grote koeien ook!] big cows too ‘I saw piebald cows standing in the fields, and they were big cows as well.’ 3b [Ik zag zwartbonte koeien– en het waren grote koeien ookin I saw piebald cows and it were big cows too in de wei staan]. the field stand 3c * [Ik zag– en het waren grote koeien ookzwartbonte koeien in I saw and it were big cows too piebald cows in de wei staan].