In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

REVIEWS447 Coordination. By Janne Bondi Johannessen. (Oxford studies in comparative syntax.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Pp. xii, 292. Reviewed by Grant Goodall, University of Texas at El Paso Coordination receives only sporadic attention in the generative literature so it is noteworthy when a book-length analysis such as this appears. The book is not comprehensive in every respect, but it does cover many important topics in coordination and it does so in an intelligent and thoughtful way. The proposed analysis has its problems, and I will discuss some of them below, but this is clearly a book which is worth reading, both for those with an active interest in coordination and for those who have had little previous exposure. The analysis ofcoordination that Johannessen proposes has two salient features. First, a phrase consisting of two (or more) conjuncts conforms to the X'-format, with the conjunction (e.g. and) as the head. One of the conjuncts is the specifier, and the other is the complement. This results in an asymmetric structure as opposed to the more traditional flat structure often assumed. Second, all coordination is underlyingly clausal. What appears to be conjunction of VPs or PPs, for example, is really conjunction of CPs followed by deletion. Neither of these two aspects of her proposal is without precedent (especially the second), but J develops and applies them in novel and interesting ways. The analysis is couched within the minimalist framework, but much of the data she presents will make the book valuable even to those not concerned with the theoretical issues she deals with. After a brief introduction in Ch. 1, Ch. 2 presents the descriptive core of the work: two phenomena which she terms 'unbalanced coordination' (UC) and 'extraordinary balanced coordination ' (EBC), illustrated in Norwegian (1) and English (2), respectively. (1)[Han og meg] var sammen om det. he.NOM and me.Acc were together about it. 'He and I were in it together.' (2)[Them and us] are going to the game together. In 1, the two conjuncts do not match in case, and only the first has the case we would expect. In 2, the conjuncts match, but neither has the expected case. These phenomena have been discussed in the literature before, but this is the first extended treatment. J explores UC and EBC in a wide range of languages and shows that they are not the marginal phenomena they are sometimes taken to be. In Ch. 3, J presents a series of reasonable, if not always compelling, arguments that conjunctions like and are functional categories heading their own projection, and in Ch. 4 she presents the hypothesis that the two conjuncts are the specifier and the complement of this head (see Munn 1992 and Grootveld 1992 for related approaches). This allows for an elegant treatment of UC. Essentially, we expect the specifier, more than the complement, to be accessible to case and agreement from outside the conjunction phrase. Thus in 1, the specifier han 'he' has nominative case from 1 of the clause, but the complement meg 'me', being closer structurally to the head og 'and', does not have the case associated with I and instead receives default accusative case. Moreover, for languages in which complements precede the head (i.e. in languages with OV order), this account predicts that the first conjunct will be the complement and will be the one with default case. J demonstrates that this prediction seems to be true: VO languages exhibit UC as in 1 while OV languages have the order reversed, as in 3 from Turkish. (3)giizel anne ve ├žirkin babaslna beautiful mother and ugly father.poss.3sG dat 'to his beautiful mother and ugly father' In 3, the first conjunct has default case and the second has the 'expected' case (dative), the reverse of the situation in 1 . Some important questions are still left open by this account (for example, why is it that when the complement precedes the conjunction, the specifier must follow it?), but nonetheless, J's discovery of the relation between the general headedness of a language and the type of UC it has, as well as her account of this relation, is admirable...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 447-449
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.