Contrast conjunctions join clauses which share a common topic and differ from each other in some way.
File Extensions and File Formats
Linguists have identified the necessary difference between clauses of contrast conjunctions as one of 'polarity' or 'opposition', a difference which involves negation in one clause and its absence in the other. Lakoff : for example, describes one type of but-conjoining as the linking of clauses that '. Gleitman : 86 notes that but-conjoined clauses do not necessarily contrast in terms of opposition.
However, when one conjunct contains a negative element, and the other does not,. In other words, conjuncts of contrast conjunctions must differ in some way, but there are various ways in which.
The syntax of Dutch gapping › KNAW Research Portal
John likes apples and Mary likes pears. The conjuncts of 48 are not parallel. John likes apples and he eats one every day. The words in the conjuncts of 48 do not stand in the same syntactic relationship to each other, and the words in the two conjuncts do not correspond directly.
In particular, apples in the first conjunct, and one every day in the second conjunct, do not stand in the same relationship to the subject NPs and verbs of their respective conjuncts, and are neither syntactically nor semantically similar to each other. Parallel conjuncts may be oppositionally related if they differ from each other in terms of lexical items which represent different members of a related semantic class. The conjuncts of 47 are parallel and oppositionally related : Mary and John are members of the same semantic class of 'people1, and apples and pears are members of the same semantic class of 'fruit'.
The conjuncts of 48 are non-oppositionally related. Parallel conjuncts may be related in terms of an even closer kind of opposition than that found in They may differ from each other in that they contain pairs of constituents which are identical except that one is the negation of the other : good vs.
This seems to be the type of contrast that is described by Gleitman in the quote at the beginning of this section. For this reason I will refer to this type of contrast as 'paradigm oppositional contrast'. The conjuncts of 49 , unlike those of 47 , are related in terms of paradigm oppositional contrast.
John is a student and Mary isnft. The distinction between conjuncts which are non-oppositionally related, oppositionally related, and paradigmatically oppositionally related, will figure prominently in the discussion which follows,. Paradigm oppositional contrast.
In English, conjuncts which have parallel syntactic structures and which contrast in terms of negation and one other lexical item, whose main verbs are the copula be, can be joined by contrast conjunctions, provided that the negated predicate occurs in the first conjunct of the conjoined sequence. Compare 50 and John is not a Canadian but an American.
John is an American but not a Canadian. In Mandarin, conjuncts related in this way cannot be joined by a contrast conjunction, but can only be juxtaposed. In English, clauses related in terms of paradigm oppositional contrast whose main verbs are not the copula can be freely joined by contrast conjunctions.
In Mandarin, it is possible to join clauses related in this way with contrast conjunctions, but most native speakers feel that it is better to juxtapose them than to conjoin them. In English, clauses related in terms of non-paradigm oppositional contrast can be freely joined by contrast conjunctions. In Mandarin, the contrast joining of clauses related in this way is somewhat more acceptable than the joining of those related in terms of paradigm opposition with non-copula verbs, and is much better than the joining of those related in terms of paradigm opposition with copula verbs.
Q : Zhang San, Li Si, dou xihuan pingguo ma? In both languages, conjuncts which contrast but which are not oppo- sitionally related can be freely joined by contrast conjunctions. John not tall very able hit balketball 'John isn't tall but he's good at basketball'. In sum, contrast conjoining in Mandarin. The levels of opposition that are relevant in Mandarin can be represented in a hierarchical schema as follows :.
The higher up in the hierarchy a pair of clauses fit, the more closely oppositional they are, and the less freely they can be contrastive- ly conjoined in Mandarin. In fact, this hierarchy reflects the state of affairs of contrast conjoining in English as well as Mandarin.
The difference between English and Mandarin with respect to the hierarchy is that in English, only the first level is distinguished from the others in terms of contrast conjoining. That is, only clauses related in terms of paradigm oppositional contrast, whose verbs are the copula, are restricted in terms of contrast conjoining. Furthermore, in English, the restriction against joining clauses related in this way with contrast conjunctions is not as strong as that in Mandarin, In English, these clauses can be contrastively conjoined provided negation occurs in the first conjunct.
In Mandarin, they cannot be contrastively conjoined no matter where negation occurs. But despite differences in the strength and scope of constraints on contrast conjoining, it is still apparent that in both languages, contrast conjoining is more restricted the more directly oppositional clauses are. This fact runs counter to the descriptions of contrast cited at the beginning of this section. It seems that the most representative instances of contrast conjoining are not those in which clauses differ only in negation and a pair of lexical items.
In fact these instances are in many ways the least representative, in that they are most readily subject to conjoining constraints. In other words, clauses related in terms of paradigm opposition figure prominently in the systems of contrast conjoining in both English and Mandarin, but in both languages, their role is a negative one. They define the limit of acceptable contrast conjoining, and not 'typical' contrast conjoining.
Conjunct implications. Compare the acceptability of the following sentences in English and Mandarin. I originally not think come so late. This paper has demonstrated that the specification of syntactic rules for coordinate conjoining is not sufficient to generate only, and. It has shown instead that conjoining must be negatively constrained as well as positively specified in the grammar of a language. Schachter has proposed a Coordinate Constituent Constraint CCC which he suggests captures universal conditions which are necessary and sufficient to account for acceptable conjoining :.
The constituents of a coordinate construction must belong to the same syntactic category and have the same semantic function p. The findings of this paper suggest that the 'same semantic function1 claim of the CCC is too general a criterion to account for acceptable conjoining. Schachter intends 'same semantic function1 to refer in part to the performative force of conjuncts. But as we have seen here, con- juncts with different performative forces can be conjoined in both English and Mandarin.
Whatever constraints there are on the conjunction of performatives, they are not captured by the CCC 12 ,. The 'same syntactic category1 claim of the CCC reflects a characteristic of conjoined structures that is generally, but not always, true. That is, the conjuncts of coordinate conjunctions are usually, but not always, of the same syntactic category. In particular, after gapping occurs in languages in which it is permitted , the conjuncts of conjunctions are not syntactically identical. Furthermore, the 'same syntactic category' clause does not capture all syntactic constraints on conjoining.
It does not, for example, specify which types of syntactically identical constituents can function as the conjuncts of conjunctions. Neither does it indicate the freedom of conjoined structures to cooccur with other predicates. Yet these things must be specified in any complete description of conjoining. The findings of this paper suggest that they cannot be specified in any universal statement of conjoining constraints. Rather, it seems that constraints on conjoining are best specified as language specific features, which serve to modify the output of what well may be a universal conjoining rule.
Unfortunately, an examination of the conjoining rules of English and Mandarin is outside the scope of this paper.
Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation
However, it is expected that the conjoining rules are much more similar than the sets of conjoining constraints in the two languages. We have seen here that constraints on conjoining determine" the extent to which conjoining is an accessible process in each language. Languages which pose many constraints on conjoining, like Mandarin, cannot conjoin as frequently as languages with fewer constraints, like English. When a language cannot use conjoining, it also probably cannot make use of the narrative functions of conjoining mentioned at the beginning of this paper.
This may in turn lead not only to differences in sentence.
enter University of Reading, unpub. Modern studies in English, Prentice Hall, Inc. Logic and conversation; unpub ,ms. Halliday, M. Cohesion in English. Longman's English language series, no.