R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

Category Mismatches in Coordination Vindicated

Agnieszka Patejuk
Adam Przepio´rkowski

Bruening and Al Khalaf (2020) deny the possibility of coordination
of unlike categories. They use three mechanisms to reanalyze such co-
ordination as involving same categories: conjunction reduction, super-
catégories, and empty heads. We show that their proposal leaves many
cases of unlike category coordination unaccounted for, and we point
out various methodological, technique, and empirical problems that it
faces. We conclude that the so-called Law of the Coordination of Likes
is a myth. Plutôt, all conjuncts must satisfy any external restrictions
on the syntactic position they occupy. Such restrictions may be rigid,
resulting in categorial sameness, but when they are underspecified or
disjunctive, category “mismatches” may arise.

Mots clés: unlike category coordination, empty heads, supercategor-
ies, conjunction reduction, coordination

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

1 Introduction

The view that only the same grammatical categories may be conjoined (par exemple., Chomsky 1957:36),
elevated to the status of a universal law (Williams 1981:sec. 2), has been repeatedly questioned
(par exemple., Sag et al. 1985, Bayer 1996). At present, a more frequent view—concisely expressed in the
following quotation from The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL)—seems
to be that any constituents may be coordinated, as long as each is licensed in the syntactic position
occupied by the coordinate structure:

(1) If (and only if) in a given syntactic construction a constituent X can be replaced without
change of function by a constituent Y, then it can also be replaced by a coordination of
X and Y. (Huddleston and Pullum 2002:1323)1

Any apparent “sameness” requirements result from the fact that each conjunct must satisfy the
constraints imposed on the syntactic position occupied by the coordinate structure. These con-
straints may be rigid, resulting in the sameness of categories of all conjuncts. Cependant, quand

We wish to thank the following people for their comments on previous versions of this article: Bob Borsley, Mary
Dalrymple, John J. Lowe, Joan Maling, Ora Matushansky, Geoff Pullum, Eric Reuland, and the anonymous reviewers
of Linguistic Inquiry. (The usual disclaimers apply.) Agnieszka Patejuk gratefully acknowledges the Mobilnos´c´ Plus
mobility grant awarded by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education.

1 (1) is a variant of the so-called Wasow’s Generalization: “If a coordinate structure occurs in some position in a
syntactic representation, each of its conjuncts must have syntactic feature values that would allow it individually to occur
in that position” (Pullum and Zwicky 1986:752–753, (4)).

Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 54, Nombre 2, Spring 2023
326–349
(cid:2) 2021 par le Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Publié sous
a Creative Commons Attributions 4.0 International (CC PAR 4.0) Licence.
https:/ /doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00438

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

327

such constraints are underspecified or disjunctive, each conjunct may satisfy these in a different
chemin, leading to category mismatches.

Bruening and Al Khalaf (B&AK) (2020) deny the possibility of coordination of unlike
catégories. To reanalyze category mismatches in coordination as involving the same categories,
they use three mechanisms: conjunction reduction (CR), supercategories (SCs), and empty heads
(EHs).

B&AK use CR—coordination of larger constituents and subsequent ellipsis—for coordina-
tion of arguments with modifiers, as in (2un), where the coordination of an NP (meat) and a PP
(at restaurants) is claimed to actually involve two VPs, as shown in (2b), contrary to what the
placement of neither . . . nor . . . might suggest.

(2) un. I eat neither meat nor at restaurants.

(Zhang 2009:187, (7.24c))

b. je [VP [VP eat neither meat] nor [VP eat at restaurants]].

B&AK do not say much about CR; instead, they concentrate on SCs and EHs.

B&AK introduce two supercategories (SCs): Pred (inspired by PredP; Bowers 1993) for pre-
dicative phrases, as in (3), and Mod (inspired by ModP; Rubin 2003) for modifiers, as in (4).
Such predicative or modifier constituents have complex categories consisting of an SC and the
usual basic category (NP, AP, etc.), Par exemple, Pred:NP or Pred:AP. Dans de tels cas, the identity
of the SCs is sufficient for coordination to be licensed.

(3) un. Pat is a Republican and proud of it.
(Sag et al. 1985:117, (2b))

b. Pat is [Pred:(cid:2)NP,AP(cid:3) [Pred:NP a Republican] et [Pred:AP proud of it]].

(4) un. We walked slowly and with great care.

(Sag et al. 1985:140, (57))

b. We walked [Mod:(cid:2)AdvP,PP(cid:3) [Mod:AdvP slowly] et [Mod:PP with great care]].

B&AK use empty heads (EHs) in subcategorization violation examples such as (5un), où
one conjunct is a CP, even though the verb subcategorizes for the preposition on followed by an
NP (voir (5b)), and not a CP (voir (5c)). On B&AK’s analysis in (6), (cid:2)N is a phonetically and
semantically empty nominal head, converting a CP into an NP.

(5) un. You can depend on my assistant and that he will be on time.

(Sag et al. 1985:165, (124b))
b. You can depend on my assistant.
c. *You can depend (sur) that he will be on time.

(6) You can depend on [NP [NP my assistant] et [NP (cid:2)N [CP that he will be on time]]].

In sections 2–3, we show that both strategies, SC and EH, face numerous empirical, technique,
and methodological problems. Though these problems suffice to invalidate B&AK’s proposal, dans
section 4 we further refute B&AK’s empirical arguments against unlike category coordination

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

328

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

and present new data supporting the existence of coordination of unlike categories, in accordance
with the CGEL quotation in (1). While we follow B&AK in relying on data from English, similar
arguments could be made on the basis of other languages.2

2 Supercategories

Consider (7)–(8) (B&AK 2020:25, (85) et (84), respectivement); (8) represents coordination in
(7un), and the representation of (7b) would be analogous.

(7) un. Danny becameC:NP/AP [Pred:(cid:2)NP,AP(cid:3) a political radical and very antisocial].
b. *Danny becameC:NP/AP [Pred:(cid:2)NP,PP(cid:3) a political radical and under suspicion].

(8)

Pred:{NP,AP}

Pred:NP

Pred:AP

a political radical

Coord
et

Pred:AP

very antisocial

The “C:NP/AP” index on became indicates that this verb c-selects an NP or an AP. This require-
ment is satisfied in (7un), as each of the base categories within the complex category Pred:(cid:2)NP,AP(cid:3)
is either an NP or an AP, but not in (7b), because of the violating base category PP. Donc, for the
purpose of categorial selectional restrictions, base categories do count as syntactic categories. Par
contraste, if SCs are present, base categories do not count as syntactic categories for the purpose
of the same-category coordination schema in (9) (B&AK 2020:24, (82)); Par exemple, Pred:NP
and Pred:AP in (8) are taken to be the same category (cid:4)dans (9).

(9)

(cid:2)

Coord

(cid:2)

2.1 Technical Problems: Complexity, Vagueness, and Inconsistency

The deceptively simple schema in (9) hides this underlying complexity of B&AK’s analysis. Il
faithfully reflects only the situation where the same simple categories are coordinated. In the case

2 Voir, Par exemple, Dik 1968:28 for early examples of unlike category coordination in French and Latin, Hartung
2012:157 for some examples from German, and Przepio´rkowski and Patejuk 2012 and Patejuk 2015:chap. 4 for Polish.

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

329

of SCs, as in (8), it must instead be interpreted as follows:3 (un) SCs of all constituents apart from
Coord must be the same (see Pred in (8)); (b) the complete complex categories of the sister of
Coord and its mother must be the same (see Pred:AP); (c) the set of base categories within the
complex category of the coordination contains exactly the base categories of its daughters (voir
(cid:2)NP,AP(cid:3)).

Malheureusement, it is not clear what theoretical mechanism makes it possible to collect base
categories into sets, nor is it clear what theoretical properties complex categories such as Pred:
(cid:2)NP,AP(cid:3) have. The theoretical vagueness surrounding complex categories is striking, given that
the proposed mechanisms are completely new and crucial for B&AK’s claim that there are no
categorial mismatches in coordination. Aussi, the fact that base categories within such complex
categories do count as syntactic categories for the purpose of categorial selectional restrictions
of the verb, but at the same time do not count as syntactic categories for the purpose of the claim
that coordination involves the same categories, reveals internal conceptual inconsistency.

2.2 Empirical Problem: Semantically Specified Arguments

Let us consider some attested examples4 (from the English Web 2015 corpus5 and Google, quelques
simplified) involving the verbs treat (dans (10)–(11)), word (dans (12)–(13)), and behave (dans (14)–
(17)).

(10) Do you treat the four museums [[AdvP individually] ou [PP as a collective]]?

(11) . . . not all of us treat our animals [[PP with respect] et [AdvP humanly]]!

(12) While we agree that the reply from the Ministry could have been worded [[AdvP differ-

ently] et [PP in the way CAA suggested]] . . .

(13) . . . information . . . worded [[AdvP clearly] et [PP in a straightforward manner]].

(14) I know the basics of matting, but how do I make a footage behave, alternately,

[[AdvP normally] et [PP like a matte]]?

(15) . . . individual components may behave [[PP in unforeseen ways] et [AdvP even mali-

ciously]] either intentionally or not.

(16) WIP reserves the right to disqualify any entrant who . . . behaves [[AdvP inappropriately]

ou [NP a way that is not consistent with the Code of Conduct]].

(17) Many in DC behave [[NP this way] ou [AdvP worse]].

All these verbs take an argument expressing manner. In all three cases, it is clear that the relevant
dependent is an argument, not a modifier: it is obligatory; c'est, without it the sentence becomes
ungrammatical or the verb changes its meaning.6 While the argument/modifier distinction is no-

3 A fully explicit rendering of B&AK’s view would be even more complex, as it would have to take into account

the fact that, in nested coordination, base categories may be sets, not atoms.

4 We have consulted with native speakers of English regarding all attested examples cited in this article.
5 Accessible via SketchEngine (http://www.sketchengine.eu; Kilgarriff et al. 2008, 2014).
6 Aussi, B&AK (2020:16) explicitly state that behave “selects an adverb.”

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

330

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

toriously murky, it is generally accepted that obligatory dependents are arguments.7 This manner
argument may bear various syntactic categories: not just AdvP (par exemple., individually ), but also at
least PP (par exemple., with respect) and NP (this way). As the above examples show, manner phrases of
different categories may be coordinated in these argument positions. How could B&AK account
for such examples?

The EH strategy—postulating an empty nominal head converting a CP into an NP, discussed
in section 3—is unavailable, as such manner arguments are not canonically nominal and, besides,
there are no CPs in these examples that could be analyzed as NPs.8

The CR strategy also fails here; Par exemple, the hypothetical input to ellipsis in the case

de (14) would be flawed.

(14′) ? . . . how do I make a footage [[VP behave, alternately, normally] et [VP behave,

alternately, like a matte]]?

De plus, many of these examples are clearly nonelliptical according to B&AK’s tests because
coordinate structures behave as constituents and, in particular, may form the pivot of (inverted)
pseudoclefts, as in the following cases:9

(11′) . . . [[PP with respect] et [AdvP humanly]] is not how all of us treat our animals!
(13′) . . . [[AdvP clearly] et [PP in a straightforward manner]] is how the information pro-

vided is worded.

So the only possibility left is to use the SC strategy. Cependant, these manner arguments are
not predicates, nor are they modifiers. Néanmoins, given that the functional projection MannerP
has been postulated in the literature (par exemple., in Scott 2002:104 and Alexeyenko 2012), one might—
slightly modifying a statement in B&AK 2020:10—“propose that there was something right about
the MannerP analysis” and introduce a new supercategory, Manner.10

De la même manière, predicates like reside take obligatory locative arguments, including NP and PP

arguments, as in the pseudocleft examples in (18)–(19) (from English Web 2015).

(18) [NP Cleveland] is where my heart resides.

(19) [PP Behind these shops] is where many families reside.

(20) [[NP That place] et [PP behind these shops]] are where many families reside.

7 The following quotations are typical (we assume that modifier and adjunct are synonyms): “[C]omplements tend
to be obligatory, whereas adjuncts are always optional” (Borsley 1999:67); “[je]n contrast to arguments, adjuncts are never
obligatory” (Ackema 2015:264).

8 The EH strategy could be extended by postulating a variety of empty heads “converting” one category into another
(say, an empty Adv combining with an NP or a PP and making it an AdvP), but—as discussed in section 3.4—this move
would make such an account unfalsifiable.

9 See Munn 2000:14 for an early application of this test, as well as Peterson 2004:648 for a similar argument based

on topicalization.

10 En fait, Sag et al. (1985:143) suggest that the MANNER feature could be used to account for unlike category
coordination of manner modifiers in (4un) (We walked slowly and with great care), and they also discuss the TEMP feature
for temporal modifiers (as in They wanted to leave tomorrow or on Tuesday).

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

331

Given that a coordination of such locative NP and PP arguments may form a pivot in pseudoclefts,
as in (20), this is a genuine case of coordination of unlike categories by B&AK’s standards, un
that is not covered by their analysis—unless yet another SC mimicking a functional projection
(par exemple., LocP in Kim 2019:chap. 4) is assumed.

The same argument can be made on the basis of predicates that select for durative arguments,
such as last, as in the following attested (English Web 2015 and Google) examples illustrating
various combinations of categorially unlike conjuncts:

(21) I feel like my stay in Vienna lasted [les deux [AdvP forever] et [NP no time at all]].

(22) Immunity may last [[NP 10 années] ou [AdvP longer]].

(23) A chronic disease lasts [[PP for months] ou [AdvP longer]].

(24) Bouts in the early rounds will last [either [NP three minutes] ou [CP until someone scores

five points]].

(25) . . . this promotion will only last [[PP for 3 jours] ou [CP until all stocks run out]].

Encore, it is possible to construct corresponding pseudocleft sentences (so that CR is not applicable)
and to reverse the order of conjuncts (so that EH is not applicable). And again, B&AK’s approach
could be “rescued” by postulating yet another SC inspired by a functional projection (par exemple., Dura-
tiveP in Kratzer 2004:412).

2.3 Methodological Problem: Unfalsifiability

A methodological problem with the SC strategy is that, once SCs loosely inspired by functional
projections are generally admitted, the claim that only same categories may be coordinated be-
comes unfalsifiable. The reason is this. While—as we endeavor to demonstrate in this article—
there is no requirement that only same categories may be coordinated, conjuncts are “same” by
virtue of occupying the same syntactic position: they bear the same grammatical function, le
same semantic role, or—in some constructions—at least the same information-structural status.
Given the multitude of functional projections proposed since the 1980s, there is a good chance
that for any grammatical, semantic, or pragmatic property that unlike category conjuncts can
share, there exists a corresponding functional projection. If so, another “supercategory” may be
postulated, loosely inspired by that functional projection, which “explains” the “apparent” co-
ordination of unlike categories.

Ainsi, unless the applicability of this strategy is limited in a principled way, B&AK’s claim
that there are no categorial mismatches in coordination becomes unfalsifiable and, as such, is of
limited scientific value (Popper 1935).11 For this reason, in what follows we assume that the

11 This danger is real—see Goodall 1987:43–46. Là, “archicategories” Manner, Time, and Predicate are introduced
following suggestions in Chomsky 1965, playing the same role as B&AK’s SCs Mod and Pred, but then a new archicategory
is added in an ad hoc manner for (5un) and similar examples.

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

332

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

SC strategy is limited to Pred and Mod. But then (10)–(17) et (20)–(25) constitute genuine
counterexamples to B&AK’s analysis.

2.4 Empirical Problem: Modifier and Argument

Consider the verbs die and reside. Die takes only one argument (the subject), and any locative
phrase is an optional modifier, so—for B&AK—in Rome in (26) has the complex category Mod:
PP. Par contre, reside takes two obligatory arguments (*St. Peter did reside is ungrammatical),
so in Rome in (27) has the simple category PP.

(26) St. Peter did die [Mod:PP in Rome].

(27) St. Peter did reside [PP in Rome].

What, alors, is the category of the shared dependent in Rome in (28): PP or Mod:PP?

(28) St. Peter did reside and die [??? in Rome].

(English Web 2015)

Such examples provide another kind of empirical counterargument against SCs.

2.5 Empirical Problem: Coordination of Unlike Supercategories

Consider (29) (B&AK 2020:11, (35b)), which involves coordination of two predicative modifiers.
B&AK mark conjuncts with the SC Mod, adding that they could perhaps be marked with the SC
Pred “in place of or in addition to” Mod.

(29) [[Mod:PP In jeans and a T-shirt] et [Mod:AP sporting two days’ growth on his chin]],

John presented a less than inspiring figure.

This is another place where B&AK are vague about the exact properties of one of the two main
mechanisms—SCs and EHs—they invoke to claim that there are no category mismatches in coor-
dination: it is left undecided whether the SC of predicative modifiers is Mod (as in (29)), Pred,
ou (cid:2)Mod,Pred(cid:3). The last possibility seems most intuitive—the other two seem arbitrary—but it
faces empirical problems.

Consider example (30) involving coordination of two modifiers.

(30) Reluctantly and embarrassed, the white officer released the Black man . . .

(Theodore Kirkland, Spirit and Soul: Odyssey of a Black Man in America, 339)

The first modifier, reluctantly, is an unambiguous adverb and cannot predicate of the subject. Par
contraste, the other modifier, the adjective embarrassed, is predicative.12 Hence, on the most intu-

12 It is uncontroversial that embarrassed may act as a predicative adjective, as it may occur with verbs such as

become, seem, look, and appear. Other predicative adjectives may also be coordinated with adverbs, as in (je).

(je) Reluctantly, and full of tears, I threw in the towel and got a cab . . .

(http://endduchenne.co.uk/london2cambridge/)

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

333

itive interpretation of B&AK’s SC mechanism, the relevant constituent in (30) would have the
structure in (31).13

(31) [(cid:2)Mod,???Pred(cid:3):(cid:2)AdvP,AP(cid:3) [Mod:AdvP Reluctantly] et [(cid:2)Mod,Pred(cid:3):AP embarrassed]] . . .

Cependant, (30) should be ungrammatical on this interpretation because the two conjuncts in (31)
bear different supercategories, Mod and (cid:2)Mod,Pred(cid:3), violating the schema in (9).14

De la même manière, one of the two arbitrary possibilities mentioned by B&AK, that of assigning just
Pred to predicative modifiers, would also lead to coordination of unlike SCs, as illustrated in
(32).

(32) [???:(cid:2)AdvP,AP(cid:3) [Mod:AdvP Reluctantly] et [Pred:AP embarrassed]] . . .

Only the second arbitrary possibility, that of assigning just Mod to predicative modifiers,

leads to a grammatical structure (obeying the schema in (9)), shown in (33).

(33) [Mod:(cid:2)AdvP,AP(cid:3) [Mod:AdvP Reluctantly] et [Mod:AP embarrassed]] . . .

Toujours, nothing in B&AK’s analysis predicts that the coordinate constituent in (30) has the structure
dans (33) plutôt que (31) ou (32); another assumption is needed to ensure this.15

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

2.6 Theoretical Weakness: Lack of Independent Motivation

The final problem with the SC strategy is its lack of independent motivation. When proposing
the SCs Pred and Mod, B&AK refer to Bowers 1993 and Rubin 2003, respectivement. Cependant,
the SCs Pred and Mod have little in common with the original functional projections PrP (hence-
forth, PredP) and ModP, and arguments for those functional categories do not automatically carry
over to the similarly named supercategories.

En fait, some of the original empirical arguments for PredP and ModP can be interpreted as
arguments against the SCs Pred and Mod. En particulier, both functional heads—usually phoneti-
cally empty—were argued to have lexical realizations in some constructions in some languages
(see Bowers 2001:sec. 1.6 on Pred and Rubin 2003:sec. 3 and references there on Mod). If so,
the original functional projections PredP and ModP may be properly—lexically—larger than the
embedded predicates or modifiers of category NP, PP, AP, et ainsi de suite. This should be contrasted
with the supercategories Pred and Mod, which are coextensive with the underlying NPs, PPs, APs,
et ainsi de suite.

13 On B&AK’s approach, examples such as (30) must be analyzed as involving SCs. CR is not viable, as the coordinate
structure is a fronted constituent, c'est, not a result of ellipsis. EHs, postulated by B&AK, are also not fit for the job:
the adverbial EH, turning APs into AdvPs, does not operate in syntax proper, but is confined to the lexical entries of
adverbs that are not morphologically related to adjectives (as discussed in section 3.6). The adverb reluctantly is morpho-
logically related to the adjective reluctant.

14 One way to defend the structure in (31) is to loosen B&AK’s requirement that the SCs be identical and only
require that they be compatible (c'est à dire., have nonempty intersection). Cependant, this would further complicate the account
and make the schema in (9) even more at odds with the actual analysis.

15 It could be said that all three variants are in principle possible, c'est, that predicative modifiers may bear any
of the three SCs: Mod, Pred, ou (cid:2)Mod,Pred(cid:3). Cependant, this would lead to spurious ambiguities in examples such as (29),
which would receive three synonymous and homophonous structures.

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

334

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

Aussi, as made clear in the extensive critique of PredP in Matushansky 2019, the original
theoretical arguments for this functional projection are void in current versions of mainstream gen-
erative grammar; on the contrary, theoretical arguments may be constructed against the usefulness
of PredP in contemporary linguistic theory. De la même manière, a critique of the original motivation for
ModP may be found in Song 2020:sec. 3. Ainsi, the original functional projections PredP and
ModP do not provide either empirical or theoretical motivation for the SCs Pred and Mod proposed
by B&AK. Since B&AK do not adduce any independent motivation for these SCs, we conclude
that such SCs are a completely new mechanism, motivated solely by the use to which B&AK
put it: to work around unlike category coordination.

3 Empty Heads

The second strategy used by B&AK to avoid unlike category coordination is to assume two EHs
whose effect is to “convert” one category into another: a null N converting (within syntax proper)
CPs into NPs and a null Adv (present only in the lexicon, apparently inactive in syntax proper)
converting adjectives into adverbs. The EH strategy is invoked in the analysis of unlike category
coordination of arguments, where the argument farther from the head violates this head’s selec-
tional restrictions, c'est, for situations schematically shown in (34).

(34) un. H [A1 Coord A2]
b. [A1 Coord A2] H

(where H A1 is acceptable, but H A2 is not)
(where A2 H is acceptable, but A1 H is not)

B&AK provide (5un), repeated here as (35), as an example of (34un), et (36) as an instance of
(34b).

(35) You can depend on [[ A1 my assistant] et [ A2 that he will be on time]].

(Sag et al. 1985:165, (124b))

(36) [[ A1 That she got third place] et [ A2 her injury in the final round]] notwithstanding,

she felt good about her performance in the Olympics.
(B&AK 2020:14, (43un))

In both examples, the CP is reanalyzed as an NP headed by the semantically and phonetically
vide (cid:2)N (cf. (6)).

3.1 Methodological and Empirical Problem: Subcategorization Violations

The main methodological problem with this part of B&AK’s argumentation is that it is limited
to—and draws far-reaching conclusions from—the very narrow range of data related to subcate-
gorization violations, a phenomenon that “has nothing to do with coordination per se” (Bayer
1996:585n7). Mais, even focusing on unlike category coordination in nonpredicative argument
positions, for which the EH strategy was designed, the vast majority of cases involve coordination
of unlike category arguments that do satisfy selectional restrictions and that may occur in any
order within coordinate structures (subject to general restrictions such as the weight of conjuncts).

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

335

One case in point are arguments expressing manner, location, or duration, discussed in sec-
tion 2.2. It is also easy to find examples of coordination of NP and CP arguments that are similar
à (35) but do not violate any subcategorization requirements: Par exemple, arguments of convey
(voir (37)), mean (voir (38)), understand (voir (39)), suggérer (voir (40)), and show (voir (41)), among
many other verbs. ((37)–(41) are from the English Web 2015 corpus.)

(37) . . . a stance which conveyed [les deux [NP power] et [CP that he was at ease]].

(38) That meant [either [NP a pardon] ou [CP that her appeal would be expedited]].

(39) I understand [[NP those concerns] et [CP that they are sincerely held]].

(40) . . . suggérant [either [NP false modesty] ou [CP that even they don’t really understand

what they’ve done]] . . .

(41) This boycott would show [not only [NP unity] mais [CP that there is a price to pay for

killing us]].

Since the conjuncts in these examples are nonpredicative arguments, the SC strategy is not applica-
ble here. What speaks against the CR analysis is not only the placement of both . . . et . . . ,
either . . . ou . . . , and not only . . . mais . . . , but also the possibility of forming pseudoclefts, comme
dans (42) (cf. (41)).16

(42) [Not only [NP our great unity in the face of oppression] mais aussi [CP that there is a price

to pay]] is what this boycott would show.

Surtout, what speaks against the EH analysis and thus makes such sentences genuine counterex-
amples to B&AK’s analysis is the possibility of changing the order of conjuncts, as illustrated
dans (43) (again, cf. (41)).

(43) This boycott would show [not only [CP that there is a price to pay] mais aussi [NP our

great unity in the face of oppression]].

Many more examples involving coordination of categorially unlike arguments are provided

in sections 3.2 et 4.

3.2 Empirical Problem: Order of Conjuncts

B&AK’s analysis predicts that whenever coordination of an NP and a CP is possible, and it can-
not be accounted for via CR or SCs, only one order of conjuncts is possible, with the “true” NP
closer to the selecting head (see section 3.5 for technical details). Par exemple, alors que (44) is fine,
B&AK simply judge (45) as “less acceptable” and do not scrutinize it more closely.

(44) Pat remembered [[NP the appointment] et [CP that it was important to be on time]].

(Sag et al. 1985:165, (123un))

16 Some modifications were introduced in (42)–(43) to balance weights of conjuncts.

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

336

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

(45) ??Pat remembered [[CP that it was important to be on time] et [NP his resume´]].

(B&AK 2020:19, (69un))

We agree that (45) is less acceptable, but we claim that it is still fully grammatical. The diminished
acceptability is a matter of relative weights of the two conjuncts. Par exemple, Sag et al. (1985:
167n34) cite examples such as (46)–(47) (their (je)–(ii)), where the two conjuncts have similar
weights, as both acceptable.

(46) I didn’t remember until it was too late [[NP John’s inability to get along with Pat], et

[CP that he had no background in logic]].

(47) I didn’t remember until it was too late [[CP that John had no background in logic], et

[NP his inability to get along with Pat]].

Sag et al. (1985:167n34) note that their theory (just like B&AK’s account) would predict (47)
to be grammatical only under the ellipsis (CR) analyse, which would in turn predict the impossibil-
ity of topicalization of (47) (in contrast to (46)). They construct topicalized versions of (46)–(47),
mark the latter with one question mark, and ask readers to “assess for themselves the accuracy
of this prediction.” However, it is well-known that—“outside of some very well-rehearsed exam-
ples such as Beans, I like” (Davies and Dubinsky 2009:122)—topicalization structures are often
less acceptable than their nontopicalized versions for processing reasons, and it is difficult to
compare acceptability of sentences that are not fully acceptable to begin with. Donc, let us
consider the following pseudocleft versions of these examples:

(48) [[NP John’s inability to get along with Pat] et [CP that he had no background in logic]]

is what I didn’t remember until it was too late.

(49) [[CP That John had no background in logic] et [NP his inability to get along with Pat]]

is what I didn’t remember until it was too late.

(48)–(49) are both acceptable and, si (49) seems a little more awkward, this is expected given
that it is syntactically more ambiguous and so more difficult to process.17

En résumé, contrary to B&AK’s claim, any order of NP and CP conjuncts within the prop-
ositional argument of remember is possible. Combined with the pseudocleft facts in (48)–(49)
and with the lack of appropriate supercategories in this case, this means that none of B&AK’s
strategies is available. C'est, verbs such as remember, selecting for an NP or a CP (or a coordina-
tion thereof ), contradict B&AK’s analysis.

3.3 Empirical Problem: Overgeneration

Probably the starkest empirical problem that this part of B&AK’s analysis faces is overgeneration.
The analysis predicts that any predicate that combines with an NP will also combine with the

17 When and his is processed, the NP can be (incorrectly) hypothesized to be conjoined with the noun logic, rather

than with the preceding CP.

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

337

coordination of an NP and a CP, even if it does not combine with a CP directly. C'est, every
such predicate behaves like depend (sur) dans (5).

This prediction is wrong: verbs such as withdraw and strengthen select for an NP that may
express a proposition, and yet this NP cannot be coordinated with a CP, as shown in the following
examples:

(50) (cid:2)He withdrew/This strengthens(cid:3) (cid:2)this claim / the claim that Homer is a genius(cid:3).
(51) *(cid:2)He withdrew/This strengthens(cid:3) that Homer is a genius.
(52) *(cid:2)He withdrew/This strengthens(cid:3) this claim and that Homer is a genius.

This is a known issue, pointed out in Bayer’s (1996:585–586) critique of Sag et al. 1985,

which makes the same wrong prediction.

Even allowing for semantic restrictions, this prediction is incorrect. The preposition despite, for exam-
ple, permits NP complements which denote facts or propositions, but not [CP] complements, and con-
juncts containing [CP] are disallowed as well.

[(53)] un. Despite LaToya’s intransigence, Michael signed the contract.

b. Despite the fact that all the musicians quit, Michael signed the contract.
c. *Despite that all the musicians quit, Michael signed the contract.
d. *Despite LaToya’s intransigence and that all the musicians quit, Michael signed the

contract.

If we require the complement of despite to be an NP, and reject any attempts to compromise this re-
quirement, the ungrammaticality of [(53d)] follows immediately.

While B&AK refer to Bayer 1996, they do not address this problem. We see no way of

accounting for such examples within B&AK’s set of assumptions.

3.4 Methodological Problem: Multiple Nominalizing Empty Heads and Unfalsifiability

As mentioned earlier, the nominal EH crucial for B&AK’s account is semantically empty; it
cannot bear any s-features, so it cannot head an argument that is semantically selected. Cependant,
in footnote 27 B&AK also admit the existence of other—semantically contentful—nominal EHs.
One such EH should be responsible for nominalizing question CPs; since they may occur as
objects of prepositions, including the object of (depend) sur (voir (54)), the EH nominalizing such
question CPs cannot be semantically empty.

(54) The price and the quality depend on how desperate you are.

(English Web 2015)

This semantically contentful EH would be the second null head responsible for the coordination
of NPs and CPs, namely, for cases involving question CPs, as in (55) (B&AK 2020:20n24).18

18 The alternative mentioned in the same footnote, namely, that NPs such as the things he can do in (55) are of
category CP, is not viable, as they may—bearing the same meaning—occur as subjects, which B&AK assume to be
uniformly NPs (see immediately below). This alternative would also leave (54) unexplained.

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

338

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

(55) It’s amazing how tall he is and the things he can do.

(Munn 1993:119, (3.24un))

In footnote 25, B&AK assume that “CPs can occur in subject position, but they must be

NPs with a null N head when they do.” In this context, consider (56)–(57).

(56) *[CP That he was late all the time] resulted in his being dismissed.

(B&AK 2020:13, (40un))

(57) [[CP That he was late all the time] et [NP his constant harassment of coworkers]]

resulted in his being dismissed.
(B&AK 2020:13, (41un))

B&AK’s unacceptability marking of (56) is misleading. In footnote 7, they say that “[je]n an in-
formal poll of approximately seven speakers, two had the pattern of judgments described here,»
while five accepted (56). If so, is the nominalizing EH at work in (56) in the language of the
five speakers who accept it the same as the EH at work in (57) in the language of the two speakers
who accept (57) but not (56)?

B&AK seem to assume (in the same footnote) that these are the same EHs, c'est, that there
is just one nominal null head able to convert a CP[que] into an NP. Mais, given that this null head
is semantically empty, this means that such subjects cannot be semantically selected; in particular,
they cannot be specified as [(cid:3)animate] ou [(cid:3)sentient]. This is counterintuitive and hence should
be carefully justified; B&AK do not provide such a justification.

The alternative is that the five speakers (the majority) accepting (56) have another—semanti-
cally contentful—nominalizing EH. But then, given that this EH behaves differently from the
EH that nominalizes question CPs (question CPs, but not declarative CPs, may be immediate
objects of prepositions), this would be yet another—third—EH crucial in B&AK’s attempt to
eliminate unlike category coordination, one that is not constrained by the various properties that
B&AK assume, not correlated with short answers, et ainsi de suite. This would take us one step forward
on the slippery slope toward the possibility of postulating “category converting” EHs at will, que
est, toward unfalsifiability.

3.5 Technical Problems: Complexity, Vagueness, and Inconsistency

In their analysis, B&AK assume that trees are built from left to right rather than from the bottom
en haut. Par exemple, there is a derivational stage of (35) where a partial tree for you can depend on
is constructed, and another stage, corresponding to you can depend on my assistant, with only
partial representation of the coordinate structure (see B&AK 2020:26). While we find this part
of the proposal unobjectionable and quite intuitive from the perspective of analysis (but not syn-
thesis), B&AK make a number of nonstandard and vague assumptions about features, resulting
in a rather complex analysis.

D'abord, features are divided into syntactic and semantic. The nominal EH at work in (35)–(36)
may bear syntactic features (number, genre, etc.), but not semantic features (animacy, sentience,
etc.). Deuxième, when a coordinate structure is built, features of particular conjuncts—it is not clear

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

339

whether only semantic features or all features19—are collected into a stack, rather than a set. À
any stage of the derivation, the root of the coordinate structure contains the current stack. Troisième,
the lack of semantic features on the EH does not mean that no features are added to the stack;
rather, it means that a special element (feature?) “—” is added. Fourth, semantic feature checking
“must take place as soon as it can” (B&AK 2020:27) et, if checking fails at this vague point,
the derivation crashes.

Let us see how this analysis is intended to work. D'abord, consider example (35) ( You can
depend on my assistant and that he will be on time). The preposition on (or perhaps the combination
depend on; B&AK are not clear on this) syntactically selects an NP and has semantic features
to check. According to B&AK (2020:26), semantic features are checked when the coordinate
structure contains the first conjunct: at this point, the root of this structure contains the stack
(cid:2)S(cid:3),20 et le (verb plus) preposition checks its semantic features; voir (58). When the second
conjunct—headed by the semantically contentless empty (cid:2)N—is merged, the root contains the
stack (cid:2)S, —(cid:3) (assuming that the top of the stack is on the right). At this stage, the preposition
sees the lack of semantic features (—), but this is not an issue because its semantic features have
already been checked; voir (59). If the order of the conjuncts were different, c'est, if the clausal
NP were the first conjunct, then at the crucial point the stack would be (cid:2)—(cid:3), and checking would
échouer; voir (60). The fact that the stack would change to (cid:2)—, S(cid:3) once the whole coordinate structure
is built does not matter because the derivation has already crashed; voir (61).

(58)

(59)

onC:NP;S

NP(cid:2)S(cid:3)

onC:NP;S

NP(cid:2)S, —(cid:3)

NPS

my assistant

Coord

my assistant

Coord
et

(cid:2)

N that . . .

19 This is important for B&AK’s analysis: if all features are within the same stack, additional mechanisms are

necessary to make sure that semantic features are always on top, above any syntactic features.

20 S seems to stand for a number of semantic features, but it is not clear whether they are a single element of the

stack (as a bundle), or whether particular semantic features are successive elements of the stack.

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

340

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

(60)

*PP

(61)

*PP

onC:NP;S

NP(cid:2)—(cid:3)

onC:NP;S

NP(cid:2)—, S(cid:3)

(cid:2)

N that . . .

Coord

(cid:2)
N that . . .

Coord
et

NPS

my assistant

Dans (36) (That she got third place and her injury in the final round notwithstanding . . . ),
when the left-to-right derivation reaches the postposition notwithstanding, the coordinate structure
is fully built and its root contains the stack (cid:2)—, S(cid:3). As S is the top of the stack, the postposition
can check its s-features. If the order of conjuncts were reversed, the stack at that point would be
(cid:2)S, —(cid:3), and the derivation would crash.

For this analysis to work, it is crucial which parts of the structure are built exactly when.
Par exemple, assuming that a single (c'est à dire., connected) partial tree is present at each stage,21 un
skeletal coordinate structure is built for (35) at the stage of you can depend on my, when only a
part of the first conjunct is constructed. Presumably, this is the earliest stage when s-features of
the selector may—and, thus, must—be checked. But are the semantic features of the first conjunct
already in the root stack at that stage, even though the source of such features, the noun, is not
present yet? It would seem that at that point the stack at the root should still be empty, so the
derivation should crash. Malheureusement, the presentation of B&AK’s analysis is too vague to de-
cide this matter.

Cependant, it is relatively clear that “s-feature checking at the earliest opportunity” leads to
inconsistency, given that B&AK bind their analysis of coordination with short answers. Consider
the dialogue in (62), with the short answer That he will be on time.

(62) Q: What can you depend on?

UN: [You can depend on [NP (cid:2)N [CP that he will be on time]]].

On B&AK’s analysis, (62) is acceptable because the selector is elided before PF, so the fact that
its s-features have not been checked by then does not matter. Mais, according to B&AK’s set of
assumptions, unchecked s-features lead to a crash not at PF, but much earlier: when the selector
has the first opportunity to check its s-features and fails to do so. Clairement, in the case of (62),

21 If not, c'est, if partial trees can be built before they are merged, then it should be possible to build a tree for
the whole coordinate structure, with S at the top of the stack, before it is merged with the tree containing the selector.
This would invalidate B&AK’s analysis.

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

341

this opportunity arises when the CP is merged into the tree, before ellipsis takes place. Mais, given
that this CP is really an NP headed by a semantically contentless EH, c'est, given that the stack
of this CP is (cid:2)—(cid:3), the selector cannot check its s-features, so the derivation crashes. This means
that B&AK’s analysis does not account for subcategorization violations in short answers, despite
their claims.

On the other hand, if s-feature checking could wait until PF, there is no reason why (35)
with the order of conjuncts reversed is unacceptable: s-feature checking could wait until the full
coordinate structure is built, with the resulting stack (cid:2)—, S(cid:3). In short, there is a conflict between
B&AK’s analysis of coordination and their analysis of short answers—the two phenomena that
they strive to account for in a uniform manner.

3.6 Non-ly Adverbs

B&AK extend the EH analysis to cases such as The Once and Future King, The Now and Future
Caliphate, and A Soon and Distant Christmas (B&AK 2020:14–15, (44un), (48b), (47c)). The first
example receives the analysis in (63) (B&AK 2020:31–32).

(63) le [N′ [N′ [Adv [Adj once] (cid:2)Adv] [N′ king]] et [N′ [Adj future] [N′ king]]]

This analysis is based on the assumption that—like -ly adverbs (par exemple., crucially ), which are com-
posed of an adjective (par exemple., crucial) and the Adv head -ly—non-ly adverbs such as once also
contain an adjective and an Adv head, but this head is semantically and phonetically empty (voir
(cid:2)Adv in (63)), so it may be elided, as shown in (63).

On this analysis, all non-ly adverbs should pattern with once, now, et ainsi de suite. Cependant, ce

prediction is false: as shown in (64)–(68), many non-ly adverbs behave differently.

(64) *the here and very expensive shop

(cf. the local and very expensive shop)

(65) *a there but reasonable shop

(cf. a distant but reasonable shop)

(66) *the well and wise man

(cf. the good and wise man)

(67) *a perhaps but not certain outcome

(cf. a possible but not certain outcome)

(68) *the together and equal liability

(cf. the joint and equal liability)

B&AK’s analysis also predicts a strong correlation between coordination and displacement:
(69) is supposed to show that non-ly adverbs, even though they apparently cannot occur immedi-
ately prenominally (we will refute this claim of B&AK forthwith), are acceptable as nominal
modifiers when displaced (while -ly adverbs can never be understood as nominal modifiers, même
when displaced).

(69) un. *I was expecting a soon visit.

b. How soon a visit are you expecting?
I wasn’t expecting that soon a visit.
c.
d. A visit so soon would be wonderful.

(B&AK 2020:31, (96))

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

342

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

Cependant, this presumed correlation breaks down in the case of other non-ly adverbs, tel que
here and there, which cannot occur prenominally and cannot be coordinated with an adjective
(voir (64)–(65)), yet may occur postnominally, as in (70)–(71).

(70) A visit there is all Bart wants.

(71) A war here is not what Springfield needs.

B&AK’s analysis is also based on the incorrect assumption that once, now, soon, et ainsi de suite,
cannot occur immediately prenominally. Attested counterexamples abound, tel que (72)–(75).

(72) The Once-King of Penn State

(https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/11/10/sports/ncaa
football/paterno-timeline.html)

(73) Twice Winner of the Man Booker Prize

(front cover of Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall)

(74) Many years ago Korn’s father had dealings with the now president.

(Steve Cavanagh, The Devil’s Advocate, 313)

(75) They call him the Thane of Glamis, Thane of Cawdor, and the soon king.

(https://quizlet.com/265292369/macbeth-act-1-quiz-review-flash-cards/)

These empirical problems are fatal for the part of B&AK’s analysis that is concerned with
non-ly adverbs. But their analysis is also based on a number of nonstandard assumptions, dans
addition to those concerning the nominal EH(s).

The first such assumption is that adverbs such as once, now, and soon are prefabricated
syntactic trees projected from (cid:2)Adv in the lexicon. Deuxième, (cid:2)Adv is assumed to be active only
within the lexical entries of non-ly adverbs. C'est, it does not occur in the lexicon on its own;
it is not active in syntax proper because, if it were, it could turn any adjective into an adverb so
that any adjective could occur in strictly adverbial positions. This distinguishes (cid:2)Adv from (cid:2)N,
which operates only in syntax proper. Troisième, as shown in (63), ellipsis does not just make parts
of the structure phonetically unrealized; instead, it nonmonotonically alters the structure already
built, so that now the remaining constituent [Adj once]—rather than [Adv [Adj once] (cid:2)Adv]—is an
immediate constituent of N′. Fourth, B&AK posit a special constraint, (76) (their (99)), lequel
must be checked only at PF, as it is violated in (63) before ellipsis applies.22

22 Note that this constraint would also be satisfied by the ellipsis of the first [N′ king] alone in (63), as the remaining
N′ would then have the structure [N′ Adv], which would not violate (76). But then a similar analysis, with ellipsis of
[N′ king] alone, would license any Adv constituents under N′, including -ly adverbs, so the analysis would incorrectly
predict the grammaticality of, say, *the formerly and future king. A simple way to repair this aspect of B&AK’s analysis
is to reformulate (76) by saying that an Adv cannot be an immediate constituent of the N′ (regardless of the presence of
other immediate constituents).

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

343

(76) *[N′ Adv N′]

Fifth, B&AK must assume that the ellipsis of [N′ king] may extend to the Adv head only because
it is semantically and phonetically empty. Otherwise, the same analysis would be available for
-ly adverbs, whose head is not phonetically empty.

In brief, B&AK’s analysis of constructions such as the once and future king is based on
wrong empirical generalizations and makes wrong empirical predictions, besides making contro-
versial and insufficiently justified assumptions. Ainsi, it does not provide independent evidence
for an analysis of unlike category coordination in terms of EHs.

4 Empirical Arguments against Coordination of Unlike Categories?

In sections 2 et 3, we refuted B&AK’s analysis on empirical, technique, and methodological
grounds. Dans cette section, we provide further arguments for what we consider to be the standard
view—summarized in (1), the quotation from CGEL—and refute what may be interpreted as
B&AK’s arguments against this standard view.

B&AK never actually refer to this standard view. Plutôt, they provide arguments against
a superficially similar claim, namely, that it should be sufficient for a selecting element to permit
a coordination of X and Y if it permits X and Y separately (B&AK 2020:9, 18–19). This putative
claim significantly differs from that of CGEL: it lacks the key requirement that X and Y have
the same function. Without this requirement, the claim considered by B&AK is obviously false.
Par exemple, as shown in (77), while give may combine with a theme and a goal, these two
arguments cannot be coordinated, even if they have the same categories, simply because they
bear different functions.

(77) un. Marge gave [NP Homer] [NP a donut].

b. *Marge gave [[NP Homer] et [NP a donut]].

(* on the intended reading)

Nevertheless, some of the examples provided by B&AK are more subtle and might be inter-
preted as potential counterexamples to the CGEL position, so it is important to show that they
do not contradict the view expressed in (1). The complete list of such counterexamples—see
B&AK’s (64)—is given in (78) (in a different order, reflecting the ensuing discussion, but retain-
ing B&AK’s unacceptability judgments).

(78) un. *She splashed wine and on Sarah.

b. *She lost the match and to an underdog.
c. *She’s speaking nonsense and with Sarah.
d. *She agreed to leave and with Sarah.
e. *She met Bill and with Sarah.
F. *She fights tyranny and against injustice.
g. *I’ve never heard his stories or of him.
h. *He believes her claim and in fairy creatures.
je. *He believes that Santa exists and in fairy creatures.

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

344

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

Examples (78a–b) are similar to (77b): an attempt is made to coordinate two different gram-

matical functions of the same verb. Compare (78a–b) with the following examples:

(78′) un. She splashed wine on Sarah.

b. She lost the match to an underdog.

Examples (78c–g) are of a different nature: as confirmed by general and valence dictionaries,
they involve two different meanings of the verbs speak, agree, meet, fight, and hear, so an attempt
to coordinate their arguments results in zeugma. Par exemple, in the case of speak in (78c)—an
example important for B&AK, as it is cited twice in their article (their (25) et (64b))—A Va-
lency Dictionary of English distinguishes four general senses of this verb, with speak nonsense
exemplifying sense A and speak with Sarah, sense C (Herbst et al. 2004: 790–792); relevant
senses of speak are also distinguished by online valence dictionaries such as VerbNet, FrameNet,
and PropBank (all accessible at https://uvi.colorado.edu/uvi_search) and by general dictionaries
(par exemple., meanings 12–13 and 3 in https://www.dictionary.com/).23

When meanings expressed by two homophonous predicates are sufficiently close, quelques
speakers may assume the existence of just one predicate, so examples of the kind B&AK consider
to be ungrammatical may be found in corpora. This is true of hear (voir (79)), but also fight (voir
(80)) (both examples from English Web 2015).

(79) As always we look forward to hearing [[NP your feedback] et [PP of any bugs you

find]] . . .

(80) He then stated a number of ways people can fight [[NP the intolerance] et [PP against

those who twist religion to use it for evil]] . . .

Enfin, in contrast to (78a–g), we consider examples (78h–i), involving the verb believe,
to be grammatical: there is a meaning of believe associated with a valence frame in which one
of the positions may be realized as a CP[que], an NP, or a PP[dans].24 Here are some relevant
attested examples (all from English Web 2015):

(81) . . . as long as you believe [[NP the right things] et [PP in absolute truth]] . . .

(82) Xenocrates . . . believed [[CP that stars are fiery Olympian Gods] et [PP in the existence

of sublunary daimons and elemental spirits]].

(83) We all believe [[PP in positive energy] et [CP that what you give comes back]].

23 It seems that some speakers of English have yet another, more idiomatic meaning of speak (not recorded in the

dictionaries we consulted), which allows for both nonsense and a PP[avec] argument.

(je) Whereas it informs when we speak nonsense with someone we love, we can imply that speaking nonsense with

someone we do not love has no point.
(Google)

Dans de tels cas, nonsense and PP[avec] have different functions, so their coordination is ruled out for the same reason as
in the case of (78a–b).

24 The relevant entry in Herbst et al. 2004:78 assumes that the NP and the CP have the same function, but also that

the PP[dans] realizes a different function. Corpus examples below contradict this latter view.

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

345

(84) There’s a comedic element to Kelvin, but the audience also has to believe [[NP his

sincerity] et [CP that he really loves Kacie]].

Exemple (81) involves the same kind of unlike category coordination as (78h), and yet it is fully
acceptable. De la même manière, (82) has the same structure as (78je), and it is spotless. The reversed order
of PP and CP conjuncts is exemplified in (83). Enfin, apart from the coordination of an NP and
a PP or a CP and a PP, (84) illustrates the third possibility, c'est, coordination of an NP and a
CP.

B&AK (2020:19) admit that some of the examples in (78) may be acceptable to some
speakers, but only with special intonation and interpretation suggesting ellipsis (c'est à dire., the CR
strategy). Par exemple, (78b) may have the following structure (cf. B&AK 2020:19, (65) et
sec. 2.1):

(85) Elle [[VP lost the match], et [VP lost it to an underdog]]!

(it (cid:4) the match)

We agree that, to the extent that (78b) may be made acceptable, it is an instance of ellipsis with
special intonation, as shown in (85). Cependant, examples (81)–(84) are not amenable to such an
interpretation: the intonation observed in (85) is absent there and the input to ellipsis of the kind
indicated in (85) is ungrammatical, as demonstrated in (81′) et (84′).

truth]], you are OK . . .

(81′) *. . . as long as you [[VP believe the right things] et [VP believe them in absolute
(eux (cid:4) the right things)
(84′) *. . . the audience also has to [[VP believe his sincerity] et [VP believe it that he really
(it (cid:4) his sincerity)

loves Kacie]].

Another argument B&AK advance for the CR analysis of such examples is that these coordi-
nate structures do not behave like constituents: they cannot be fronted or form the pivot of pseu-
doclefts. (86)–(87) are B&AK’s (66un) et (67un), with their judgments.

(86) *Her claim and in fairy creatures, he believes.

(87) *Her claim and in fairy creatures is what he believes.

B&AK do not state whether there are speakers who accept (78h) and fail to accept (86)–(87)—only
then could their argument be valid. But even if such speakers exist, there are good independent
reasons for the diminished acceptability of (86)–(87). This is most clear in the case of the pseu-
docleft construction, which is unacceptable with just the PP conjunct; voir (88).

(88) *In fairy creatures is what he believes.

Ce, in line with the CGEL quotation in (1), explains the ill-formedness of (87). As to (86), nous
have already noted (in section 3.2) that topicalization often results in awkwardness (especially
out of context), so the diminished acceptability of (86) is to be expected.

En fait, by B&AK’s standards, pseudoclefts provide evidence that coordinate structures in
at least some of the examples in (81)–(84) are constituents. Consider (84) again. Each of the
conjuncts there may form the pivot of a pseudocleft, donc, as the CGEL condition in (1) predicts,
the coordination of NP and CP may also form such a pivot.

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

346

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

(89) . . . his sincerity is what the audience also has to believe.

(90) . . . that he really loves Kacie is what the audience also has to believe.
(84(cid:5)) There’s a comedic element to Kelvin, mais [[NP his sincerity] et [CP that he really

loves Kacie]] is what the audience also has to believe.

There are many other verbs like believe, whose argument may be realized as a CP[que], un
NP, or a PP—or by a coordination of different subsets of these categories, in various orders. Un
such verb is think, as the following examples from English Web 2015 demonstrate:

(91) On the way there, I kept thinking [[NP positive thoughts] et [PP about how much fun

I was having]].

(92) When I think [[PP of my parents] et [CP that they have never been further East than

Europe]], I can’t help but feel guilty . . .

(93) None of them thought [[PP about budgets] et [CP that money is limited]].

There are also many predicates that combine just with a CP or a PP (to the exclusion of an
NP), some of them—hope, boast, and ashamed—discussed in a different context by B&AK. Pour
example, they give (94) as an illustration that subcategorization violations are limited: they state
that predicates such as hope “only permit CPs” (p. 16), so an NP cannot occur within coordination.

(94) *She hopes [[CP that the defending champs will win] et [NP a good result for the host

country]].
(B&AK 2020:16, (49b))

Cependant, B&AK do not mention that hope also permits PPs, which may be freely coordinated
with CPs, in any order, as shown in (95)–(96) (from English Web 2015).

(95) Nous espérons [[PP for another good year], et [CP that we continue to grow]].

(96) Nous espérons [[CP that 2013 numbers are much higher] et [PP for better performance next

année]].

Many other combinations of unlike categories may be found with other predicates. What
can be particularly interesting from the point of view of theories of control is the case where one
of the conjuncts is a controlled infinitival phrase (InfP), while the other is an NP or a CP, as in
the case of verbs such as want or teach, illustrated in (97)–(101) (from English Web 2015).

(97) “But,” as Besemov would conclude, “no one wanted [either [NP my information] ou

[InfP to open their eyes]].»

(98) We teach them [[NP manners] et [InfP to be respectful]].

(99) This class educates parents on the importance of water safety by teaching children

[[InfP to float] et [NP other lifesaving techniques]].

(100) You have taught me [[InfP to rest physically], et [CP that it is okay to work hard]].

(101) You teach me [[CP that hard work pays off] et [InfP to never give up on a goal]].

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

347

Such examples provide a new argument against the movement theory of control (Hornstein 1999),
based on the fact that, on that theory, control into a single conjunct would violate Ross’s (1967:
sec. 4.2) Coordinate Structure Constraint (specifically, its “element constraint”; Grosu 1973), donc
all these examples should be ungrammatical.25

5 Conclusion

While Bruening and Al Khalaf (2020) employ three different strategies to deal with what they
consider to be only apparent unlike category coordination, their proposal still leaves many different
cases of such coordination unaccounted for. These include predicates such as behave, reside, et
last, which impose mainly semantic restrictions on their arguments, but also such run-of-the-mill
verbs as believe, hope, teach, et ainsi de suite. In the discussion of B&AK’s analysis, we also pointed
out a number of methodological, technique, and empirical problems, which we consider to be fatal
for their proposal.

We conclude that the Law of the Coordination of Likes, as it is sometimes called, is a myth.
Coordination does not impose any such constraint; rather, all conjuncts must satisfy any external
restrictions on the syntactic position they occupy. In some cases such restrictions are rigid, result-
ing in categorial sameness; in other cases they are underspecified or disjunctive, resulting in cat-
egory “mismatches.”

Les références

Ackema, Pierre. 2015. Arguments and adjuncts. In Syntax – theory and analysis: An international handbook.
Volume 1, éd. by Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou, 246–274. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Alexeyenko, Sascha. 2012. Manner modification in event semantics. In Proceedings of IATL 2011, éd. par
Evan Cohen, 203–218. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 65. Cambridge, MA: AVEC, MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics.

Bayer, Samuel. 1996. The coordination of unlike categories. Language 72:579–616.
Borsley, Robert D. 1999. Syntactic theory: A unified approach. 2nd ed. Londres: Edward Arnold.
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24:591–656.
Bowers, John. 2001. Predication. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, éd. by Mark Baltin

and Chris Collins, 299–333. Oxford: Puits noir.

Bruening, Benjamin, and Eman Al Khalaf. 2020. Category mismatches in coordination revisited. Linguistic

Inquiry 51:1–36.

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: AVEC Presse.
Davies, William D., and Stanley Dubinsky. 2009. On the existence (and distribution) of sentential subjects.
In Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Linguistic explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter, éd. by John
C. Gerdts, Donna B. Moore, and Maria Polinsky, 111–128. Cambridge, MA: AVEC Presse.
Dik, Simon C. 1968. Coordination: Its implications for a theory of general linguistics. Amsterdam: North

Holland.

Goodall, Grant. 1987. Parallel structures in syntax: Coordination, causatives and restructuring. Cambridge:

la presse de l'Universite de Cambridge.

25 Kehler’s (2002) analysis of some non-“across-the-board” violations of Ross’s (1967) constraint in terms of discourse

coherence relations is not applicable here, as conjuncts in most examples are discourse-parallel.

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

348

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

Grosu, Alexander. 1973. On the nonunitary nature of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry

4:88–92.

Hartung, Nele. 2012. Und-Koordination in der fru¨hen Kindersprache: Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung.

Doctoral dissertation, Universita¨t Tu¨bingen.

Herbst, Thomas, David Heath, Ian F. Roe, and Dieter Go¨tz, éd.. 2004. A valency dictionary of English:
A corpus-based analysis of the complementation patterns of English verbs, nouns and adjectives.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30:69–96.
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language.

Cambridge: la presse de l'Universite de Cambridge.

Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, Californie: CSLI Publications.
Kilgarriff, Adam, Vı´t Baisa, Jan Bu’ta, Milo’ Jakubı´?ek, Vojteˇch Kova´rˇ, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychly´, et

Vı´t Suchomel. 2014. The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography 1:7–36.

Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychly´, Pavel SmrÅ, and David Tugwell. 2008. The Sketch Engine. In Practical

lexicography: A reader, éd. by Thierry Fontenelle, 297–306. Oxford: Presse universitaire d'Oxford.

Kim, Min-Joo. 2019. The syntax and semantics of noun modifiers and the theory of Universal Grammar:

A Korean perspective. Cham: Springer.

Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Telicity and the meaning of objective case. In The syntax of time, éd. by Jacqueline

Gue´ron and Jacqueline Lecarme, 389–423. Cambridge, MA: AVEC Presse.

Matushansky, Ora. 2019. Against the PredP theory of small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 50:63–104.
Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Doctoral dissertation, Univer-

sity of Maryland.

Munn, Alan. 2000. Three types of coordination asymmetries. In Ellipsis in conjunction, éd. by Kerstin

Schwabe und Ning Zhang, 1–22. Tu¨bingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Patejuk, Agnieszka. 2015. Unlike coordination in Polish: An LFG account. Doctoral dissertation, Institut

of Polish Language, Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow.

Peterson, Peter G. 2004. Coordination: Consequences of a lexical-functional account. Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory 22:643–679.

Popper, Karl. 1935. Logik der Forschung. Vienna: Julius Springer.
Przepio´rkowski, Adam, and Agnieszka Patejuk. 2012. On case assignment and the coordination of unlikes:
The limits of distributive features. In Proceedings of the LFG’12 Conference, éd. by Miriam Butt
and Tracy Holloway King, 479–489. Stanford, Californie: CSLI Publications. http://cslipublications.stan
ford.edu/LFG/17/lfg12.html.

Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1986. Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict.

Language 62:751–773.

Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, AVEC.
Rubin, Edward J. 2003. Determining pair-Merge. Linguistic Inquiry 34:660–668.
Sag, Ivan A., Gerald Gazdar, Thomas Wasow, and Steven Weisler. 1985. Coordination and how to distin-

guish categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:117–171.

Scott, Gary-John. 2002. Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of nominal phrases. In Functional
structure in DP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, volume 1, éd. by Guglielmo Cinque,
91–120. Oxford: Presse universitaire d'Oxford.

Song, Chenchen. 2020. Categorizing verb-internal modifiers. In Syntactic architecture and its consequences
je: Syntax inside the grammar, éd. by Andra´s Ba´ra´ny, Theresa Biberauer, Jamie Douglas, and Sten
Vikner, 357–384. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Williams, Edwin. 1981. Transformationless grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 12:645–653.
Zhang, Niina Ning. 2009. Coordination in syntax. Cambridge: la presse de l'Universite de Cambridge.

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

349

Agnieszka Patejuk
Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences
Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics, University of Oxford

agnieszka.patejuk@gmail.com

Adam Przepio´rkowski
Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences
Institute of Philosophy, University of Warsaw
Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics, University of Oxford

przepiorkowski.adam@gmail.com

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi

/
je
je

n
g
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

5
4
2
3
2
6
2
0
7
7
8
5
0

/
je
je

n
g
_
un
_
0
0
4
3
8
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Télécharger le PDF