Hostname: page-component-699b5d5946-zvthx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-05T01:15:29.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coordination of Unlike Grammatical Cases (And Unlike Categories)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Adam Przepiórkowski
Adam Przepiórkowski*
Affiliation:
Polish Academy of Sciences and University of Warsaw
*
Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Jana Kazimierza 5, 01-248 Warszawa, Poland, [adamp@ipipan.waw.pl]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is often claimed that conjuncts in coordinate structures must be alike in various ways, in particular, that they should have the same syntactic category and the same grammatical case, if any. This article aims to refute such claims. On the basis of data from Polish, Estonian, and other languages, it demonstrates that there is no universal requirement that conjuncts be alike. Any appearances of such a requirement result from the fact that each conjunct must satisfy all functional constraints on the coordinate structure. The article discusses ways of formalizing such distributive satisfaction of constraints within four major linguistic frameworks: lexical-functional grammar, categorial grammar, head-driven phrase structure grammar, and minimalism.

Keywords

coordinationcasesymmetry of case in conjunctionlaw of the coordination of likesPolish

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 98 , Issue 3 , September 2022 , pp. 592 - 634
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 Printed with the permission of Adam Przepiórkowski. © 2022.

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I am grateful for comments on various versions of this article that I received from Bob Borsley, Rui Chaves, Mary Dalrymple, Ad Neeleman, Agnieszka Patejuk, Shûichi Yatabe, and three anonymous referees, as well as Susi Wurmbrand and John Beavers, the Language editors who dealt with this paper. Special thanks go to Agnieszka Patejuk; this article would not be possible without our earlier work on the coordination of unlikes (Patejuk & Przepiórkowski 2012, 2014, 2019, 2021, Przepiórkowski & Patejuk 2012, 2021). The usual disclaimers apply. This paper was written and substantially revised when I was a visiting scholar at the University of Oxford (Wolfson College and the Centre for Linguistics & Philology), and I would like to thank Mary Dalrymple and everybody else at Oxford for their hospitality.

References

Abeillé, Anne, and Chaves, Rui. 2021. Coordination. In Müller et al., 725–76. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5599848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz. 1935. Die syntaktische Konnexität. Studia Philosophica 1. 1–27.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2015. Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Samuel. 1996. The coordination of unlike categories. Language 72(3). 579–616. DOI: 10.2307/416279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2004. Coordinate ellipsis and apparent non-constituent coordination. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2004), 48–69. DOI: 10.21248/hpsg.2004.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belyaev, Oleg. 2020. ‘Verbal case’ in Ashti Dargwa. Proceedings of the LFG'20 Conference, 26–46. Online: https://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/LFG-2020/lfg2020-belyaev.pdf.Google Scholar
Bîlbîie, Gabriela, and Gazdik, Anna. 2012. Wh-coordination in Hungarian and Romanian multiple questions. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9. 19–36. Online: http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss9/eiss9_biElbiie-and-gazdik.pdf.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Wurmbrand, Susi. 2008. Case in GB/minimalism. The Oxford handbook of case, ed. by Malchukov, Andrej L. and Spencer, Andrew, 44–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199206476.013.0004.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2005. Against ConjP. Lingua 115(4). 461–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2006. Case checking versus case assignment and the case of adverbial NPs. Linguistic Inquiry 37(3). 522–33. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2006.37.3.522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Asudeh, Ash, Toivonen, Ida; and Wechsler, Stephen. 2016. Lexical-functional syntax. 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Kaplan, Ronald M.; and Peterson, Peter. 1985. Coordination and the flow of information through phrase structure. Palo Alto, CA: Xerox PARC, ms.Google Scholar
Browne, E. Wayles III. 1972. Conjoined question words and a limitation of English surface structures. Linguistic Inquiry 3(2). 223–26. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177703.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin, and Khalaf, Eman Al. 2020. Category mismatches in coordination revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 51(1). 1–36. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2006. Coordination of unlikes without unlike categories. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2006), 102–22. DOI: 10.21248/hpsg.2006.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2007. Coordinate structures: Constraint-based syntax-semantics processing. Lisbon: Universidade de Lisboa dissertation.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2008. Linearization-based word-part ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 31. 261–307. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-008-9040-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, Rui P., and Paperno, Denis. 2007. On the Russian hybrid coordination construction. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2007), 46–64. DOI: 10.21248/hpsg.2007.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara, and Gračanin-Yüksek, Martina. 2013. Towards a new typology of coordinated wh-questions. Journal of Linguistics 49(1). 1–32. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226712000175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copestake, Ann, Flickinger, Dan, Pollard, Carl; and Sag, Ivan A.. 2005. Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation 3. 281–332. DOI: 10.1007/s11168-006-6327-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold. 2003. An asymmetric theory of peripheral sharing in HPSG: Conjunction reduction and coordination of unlikes. Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2003, 47–62. Online: http://cs.haifa.ac.il/~shuly/fg03/.Google Scholar
Czardybon, Adrian. 2017. Definiteness in a language without articles—A study on Polish. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Czuba, Krzysztof, and Przepiórkowski, Adam. 1995. Agreement and case assignment in Polish: An attempt at a unified account. Technical Report 783, IPI PAN. Warsaw: Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences. Online: http://nlp.ipipan.waw.pl/~adamp/Papers/1995-agrcase/.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary (ed.) 1999. Semantics and syntax in lexical functional grammar: The resource logic approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 2017. Unlike phrase structure category coordination. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies (The very model of a modern linguist—in honor of Helge Dyvik) 8. 33–55. DOI: 10.15845/bells.v8i1.1332.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Hinrichs, Angie, Lamping, John; and Saraswat, Vijay. 1993. The resource logic of complex predicate interpretation. Proceedings of ROCLING 1993, 3–21. Online: http://www.aclclp.org.tw/rocling/1993/K01.pdf.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, and Kaplan, Ronald M.. 2000. Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language 76(4). 759–98. DOI: 10.2307/417199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald M.; and King, Tracy Holloway. 2004. Linguistic generalizations over descriptions. Proceedings of the LFG'04 Conference, 199–208. Online: https://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/9/pdfs/lfg04dkk.pdf.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, King, Tracy Holloway; and Sadler, Louisa. 2009. Indeterminacy by underspecification. Journal of Linguistics 45(1). 31–68. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226708005513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Lowe, John J.; and Mycock, Louise. 2019. The Oxford reference guide to lexical functional grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198733300.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, and Malchukov, Andrej L.. 2008. Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39(4). 565–87. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.4.565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1968. Coordination: Its implications for a theory of general linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dziwirek, Katarzyna. 1990. Default agreement in Polish. Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective, ed. by Dziwirek, Katarzyna, Farrell, Patrick, and Mejías-Bikandi, Errapel, 147–61. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin (ed.) 1995. Discourse configurational languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12. 95–107. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v12i0.1866.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, Lila R. 1965. Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language 41(2). 260–93. DOI: 10.2307/411878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gračanin-Yüksek, Martina. 2007. About sharing. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/39343.Google Scholar
Gribanova, Vera. 2009. Structural adjacency and the typology of interrogative interpretations. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1). 133–54. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40071468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groos, Anneke, and van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1981. Matching effects in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar. Theory of markedness in generative grammar: Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW conference, ed. by Belletti, Adriana, Brandi, Luciana, and Rizzi, Luigi, 171–216. Pisa: Scola Normale Superiore di Pisa.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 1987. On acceptable violations of parallelism constraints. Functionalism in linguistics, ed. by René, Dirven and Fried, Vilém, 425–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hasselblatt, Cornelius. 2008. Grammatisches Wörterbuch des Estnischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple Agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of HUMIT 2000) 40. 67–80.Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N. 1990. Assumptions about asymmetric coordination in German. Grammar in progress: GLOW essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, ed. by Mascaró, Joan and Nespor, Marina, 221–35. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1987. Zwicky on heads. Journal of Linguistics 23(1). 109–32. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700011051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1990. English word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1995. Does English really have case? Journal of Linguistics 31(2). 375–92. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700015644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2013. Symmetric and asymmetric alternations in direct object encoding. STUF—Language Typology and Universals 66(4). 378–403. DOI: 10.1524/stuf.2013.0019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaworska, Ewa. 1986. Prepositional phrases as subjects and objects. Journal of Linguistics 22(2). 355–74. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700010835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1988. Coordination. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kalin, Laura, and Weisser, Philipp. 2019. Asymmetric DOM in coordination: A problem for movement-based approaches. Linguistic Inquiry 50(3). 662–76. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. 2017. Preserving grammatical functions in LFG. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies (The very model of a modern linguist—in honor of Helge Dyvik) 8. 127–42. DOI: 10.15845/bells.v8i1.1342.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., and Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 173–281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., and Zaenen, Annie. 1995. Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar, ed. by Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald M., Maxwell, John T. III, and Zaenen, Annie, 137–65. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1995. Linearization-based German syntax. Columbus: The Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 2000. Linear syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 2001. On coordination of wh-phrases in Russian. Tübingen: University of Tübingen, and Moscow: Moscow State University, ms. Online: https://www.lingexp.uni-tuebingen.de/sfb441/b2/papers/whcord.pdf.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 111(4–7). 315–76. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(00)00035-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosek, Iwona. 1999. Przyczasownikowe frazy przyimkowo-nominalne w zdaniach współczesnego języka polskiego. Olsztyn: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego.Google Scholar
Kubota, Yusuke, and Levine, Robert. 2015. Against ellipsis: Arguments for the direct licensing of ‘noncanonical’ coordinations. Linguistics and Philosophy 38. 521–76. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-015-9179-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Jonas. 2001. Resource sensitivity in the syntax-semantics interface: Evidence from the German split NP construction. Constraint-based approaches to Germanic syntax, ed. by Meurers, W. Detmar and Kiss, Tibor, 177–215. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lambek, Joachim. 1958. The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65(3). 154–70. DOI: 10.1080/00029890.1958.11989160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambek, Joachim. 1961. The calculus of syntactic types. Structure of language in its mathematical aspects, ed. by Jakobson, Roman O., 166–78. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Laskowski, Roman. 1998. Zagadnienia ogólne morfologii. Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego: Morfologia, 2nd edn., ed. by Grzegorczykowa, Renata, Laskowski, Roman, and Wróbel, Henryk, 27–86. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Split ergativity based on nominal type. Lingua 148. 183–212. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Thomas. 1989. A grammar of Modern Tamil. Pondicherry: Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D. 2011. Linearization and its discontents. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2011), 126–46. DOI: 10.21248/hpsg.2011.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Roger. 2001. Feature indeterminacy and the coordination of unlikes in a totally well-typed HPSG. San Diego: University of California, San Diego, ms. Online: http://idiom.ucsd.edu/~rlevy/papers/feature-indet.pdf.Google Scholar
Lipták, Anikó. 2003. Conjoined questions in Hungarian. Multiple wh-fronting, ed. by Boeckx, Cedric and Grohmann, Kleanthes K., 141–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lipták, Anikó. 2011. Strategies of wh-coordination. Linguistic Variation 11(2). 149–88. DOI: 10.1075/lv.11.2.02lip.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mańczak, Witold. 1956. Ile jest rodzajów w polskim? Język Polski 36. 116–21.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 8. 234–53.Google Scholar
Mel'čuk, Igor. 1988. Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany, NY: The SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2017. Spurious coordination in Vlach multiple wh-fronting. A schrift to fest Kyle Johnson, ed. by LaCara, Nicholas, Moulton, Keir, and Tessier, Anne-Michelle, 271–80. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst. DOI: 10.7275/R57D2S95.Google Scholar
Miechowicz-Mathiasen, Katarzyna. 2012. Licensing Polish higher numerals: An account of the accusative hypothesis. Current issues in generative linguistics: Syntax, semantics and phonology (Generative linguistics in Wrocław 2), ed. by Błaszczak, Joanna, Rozwadowska, Bożena, and Witkowski, Wojciech, 58–75. Wrocław: University of Wrocław.Google Scholar
Morrill, Glyn V. 1990. Grammar and logical types. Proceedings of the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium, 429–50.Google Scholar
Morrill, Glyn V. 1994. Type logical grammar: Categorial logic of signs. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-1042-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan, Abeillé, Anne, Borsley, Robert D.; and Koenig, Jean-Pierre (eds.) 2021. Head-driven phrase structure grammar: The handbook. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5543318.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1999. First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30(4). 643–68. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4179085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, Philip, Joy, Tanaka, Misako; and van, Hans Koot, de. 2022. Subordination and binary branching. Syntax, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogren, David. 2015. Differential object marking in Estonian: Prototypes, variation, and construction-specificity. SKY Journal of Linguistics 28. 277–312. Online: http://www.linguistics.fi/julkaisut/SKY2015/SKYJoL28_Ogren.pdf.Google Scholar
Ogren, David. 2018. Object case variation in Estonian da-infinitive constructions. Tartu: University of Tartu dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10062/59226.Google Scholar
Paperno, Denis. 2012. Semantics and syntax of non-standard coordination. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/87m6k1k3.Google Scholar
Parrott, Jeffrey K. 2009. Danish vestigial case and the acquisition of vocabulary in distributed morphology. Biolinguistics 3(2–3). 270–304. DOI: 10.5964/bioling.8711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara Hall. 1970. Negation, conjunction, and quantifiers: Syntax vs. semantics. Foundations of Language 6(2). 153–65. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25000447.Google Scholar
Patejuk, Agnieszka. 2015. Unlike coordination in Polish: An LFG account. Krakow: Institute of Polish Language, Polish Academy of Sciences dissertation. Online: http://nlp.ipipan.waw.pl/Bib/pat:15.pdf.Google Scholar
Patejuk, Agnieszka, and Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2012. Lexico-semantic coordination in Polish. Proceedings of the LFG'12 Conference, 461–78. Online: http://www.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/17/papers/lfg12patprz2.pdf.Google Scholar
Patejuk, Agnieszka, and Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2014. Control into selected conjuncts. Proceedings of the LFG'14 Conference, 448–60. Online: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/19/papers/lfg14patprz1.pdf.Google Scholar
Patejuk, Agnieszka, and Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2018. Predicative constructions with infinitival and clausal subjects. Proceedings of the LFG'18 Conference, 304–24. Online: https://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/LFG-2018/lfg2018-patejuk-przepiorkowski.pdf.Google Scholar
Patejuk, Agnieszka, and Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2019. Coordination of unlike grammatical functions. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling, SyntaxFest 2019), 26–37. DOI: 10.18653/v1/W19-7705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patejuk, Agnieszka, and Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2021. Category mismatches in coordination vindicated. Linguistic Inquiry. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Peter G. 1981. Problems with constraints on coordination. Linguistic Analysis 8. 449–60.Google Scholar
Peterson, Peter G. 2004. Coordination: Consequences of a lexical-functional account. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22. 643–79. DOI: 10.1023/B:NALA.0000027673.49915.2b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Prażmowska, Anna. 2015. Is unlike coordination against the law (of the coordination of likes)? Young minds vs. old questions in linguistics: Proceedings of the fourth Central European Conference in Linguistics for Postgraduate Students, 169–84. Lublin: The Institute of East-Central Europe and the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 1999. Case assignment and the complement/adjunct dichotomy: A non-configurational constraint-based approach. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10900/46147.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2013. The syntax of distance distributivity in Polish: Preserving generalisations with weak heads. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2013), 161–81. DOI: 10.21248/hpsg.2013.9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2021a. Case. In Müller et al., 245–74. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5599830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2021b. Three improvements to the HPSG model theory. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2021), 165–85. DOI: 10.21248/hpsg.2021.9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2022a. A compositional intersective account of heterofunctional coordination. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 32, to appear. Online: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/006489.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2022b. Polyadic cover quantification in heterofunctional coordination. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 26, to appear. Online: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/006342.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam, Bańko, Mirosław, Rafał, , Górski, L.; and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara (eds.) 2012. Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam, Bańko, Mirosław, Rafał, , Górski, L., Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara, Łaziński, Marek; and Pęzik, Piotr. 2011. National Corpus of Polish. Proceedings of the 5th Language & Technology Conference: Human language technologies as a challenge for computer science and linguistics, 259–63.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam, Hajnicz, Elżbieta, Andrzejczuk, Anna, Patejuk, Agnieszka; and Woliński, Marcin. 2017. Walenty: Gruntowny składniowo-semantyczny słownik walencyjny języka polskiego. Język Polski 97. 30–47.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam, Hajnicz, Elżbieta, Patejuk, Agnieszka, Woliński, Marcin, Skwarski, Filip; and Świdziński, Marek. 2014. Walenty: Towards a comprehensive valence dictionary of Polish. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14), 2785–92. Online: http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/index.html.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam, and Patejuk, Agnieszka. 2012. On case assignment and the coordination of unlikes: The limits of distributive features. Proceedings of the LFG'12 Conference, 479–89. Online: http://www.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/17/papers/lfg12przpat1.pdf.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam, and Patejuk, Agnieszka. 2021. Coordinate structures without syntactic categories. Modular design of grammar: Linguistics on the edge, ed. by Arka, I Wayan, Asudeh, Ash, and King, Tracy Holloway, 205–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192844842.003.0013.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1986. Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language 62(4). 751–73. DOI: 10.2307/415171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reape, Mike. 1992. A formal theory of word order: A case study in West Germanic. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1842/26867.Google Scholar
Reape, Mike. 1994. Domain union and word order variation in German. German in head-driven phrase structure grammar, ed. by Nerbonne, John, Netter, Klaus, and Pollard, Carl, 151–97. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Richter, Frank. 2004. A mathematical formalism for linguistic theories with an application in head-driven phrase structure grammar. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen dissertation. [Defended in 2000.] Online: https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/46230/pdf/richter-diss.pdf.Google Scholar
Richter, Frank. 2021. Formal background. In Müller et al., 89–124. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5599822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saab, Andrés, and Zdrojewski, Pablo. 2021. On the nonexistence of asymmetric DOM in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 52(4). 852–66. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Gazdar, Gerald, Wasow, Thomas; and Weisler, Steven. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3. 117–71. DOI: 10.1007/BF00133839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saloni, Zygmunt. 1974. Klasyfikacja gramatyczna leksemów polskich. Język Polski 54. 3–13.Google Scholar
Saloni, Zygmunt, and Świdziński, Marek. 2007. Składnia współczesnego języka polskiego. 5th edn. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Sannikov, Vladimir Z. 1979–1980. Sočinitel'nye i sravnitel'nye konstrukcii: Ix blizost', ix sintaksičeskoe predstavlenie I–II. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 4–5.413–32, 211–42.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1977. Constraints on coördination. Language 53(1). 86–103. DOI: 10.2307/413057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skrabalova, Hana. 2007. Wh-questions with conjoined wh-words. Czech in generative grammar, ed. by Dočekal, Mojmír, Karlik, Petr, and Zmrzlíková, Jana, 161–74. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Świdziński, Marek. 1992. Realizacje zdaniowe podmiotu-mianownika, czyli o strukturalnych ograniczeniach selekcyjnych. Opisać słowa: Materiały sesji naukowej w pierwszą rocznicę śmierci Profesor Danuty Buttlerowej, ed. by Markowski, Andrzej, 188–201. Warsaw: Dom Wydawniczy Elipsa.Google Scholar
Świdziński, Marek. 1993. Dalsze kłopoty z bezokolicznikiem. Językoznawstwo synchroniczne i diachroniczne, ed. by Sambor, Jadwiga, Linde-Usiekniewicz, Jadwiga, and Huszcza, Romuald, 303–14. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 2015. Elements of structural syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisser, Philipp. 2020. On the symmetry of case in conjunction. Syntax 23(1). 42–77. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitman, Neal. 2004. Semantics and pragmatics of English verbal dependent coordination. Language 80(3). 403–34. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2004.0157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin S. 1981. Transformationless grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 12(4). 645–53. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178247.Google Scholar
Witkoś, Jacek, Dziubała-Szrejbrowska, Dominika, Cegłowski, Piotr; and Łeska, Paulina. 2018. The syntax of numeral noun constructions: A view from Polish. Berlin: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worth, Andrew Christopher. 2016. English coordination in linear categorial grammar. Columbus: The Ohio State University dissertation. Online: http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1451933040.Google Scholar
Wróbel, Henryk. 2001. Gramatyka języka polskiego. Krakow: OD NOWA.Google Scholar
Yatabe, Shûichi. 2001. The syntax and semantics of left-node raising in Japanese. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2000), 325–44. DOI: 10.21248/hpsg.2000.19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yatabe, Shûichi. 2004. A comprehensive theory of coordination of unlikes. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2004), 335–55. DOI: 10.21248/hpsg.2004.19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yatabe, Shûichi. 2012. Comparison of the ellipsis-based theory of non-constituent coordination with its alternatives. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2012), 454–74. DOI: 10.21248/hpsg.2012.26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yatabe, Shûichi, and Tam, Wai Lok. 2021. In defense of an HPSG-based theory of non-constituent coordination: A reply to Kubota and Levine. Linguistics and Philosophy 44. 1–77. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-019-09283-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2012. There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29(3). 491–539. DOI: 10.1515/tlr-2012-0017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Niina Ning. 2009. Coordination in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21(1). 1–29. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4175761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar