Cover not available
Part of
Pseudo-Coordination and Multiple Agreement Constructions
Edited by Giuliana Giusti, Vincenzo Nicolò Di Caro and Daniel Ross
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 274] 2022
► pp. 1–32

Chapter 1
Pseudo-Coordination and Multiple Agreement Constructions

An overview

ORCID logo | Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
ORCID logo | Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
 | University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign | University of CaliforniaRiverside
This introductory chapter provides background on the phenomena of Pseudo-Coordination (PseCo) and Multiple Agreement Constructions (MACs) with the aim of familiarizing readers with major trends in previous research on these varied phenomena. Common structural and functional properties used to identify PseCo and MACs are described, along with a detailed discussion of the features that make crucial differences within each phenomenon in individual languages and cross-linguistically. We also observe interesting similarities between the two phenomena and across related and unrelated languages. We maintain a pre-theoretical view here that is compatible with the different approaches represented in the volume.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research on PseCo
  • 3.Structural and functional properties of PseCo
  • 4.Variation in PseCo
  • 5.Multiple Agreement Constructions
  • 6.Overview of the contributions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.274.01giu
References (164)
References
Aasen, Ivar. 1848. Det norske Folkesprogs Grammatik. Kristiania: Trykt hos Werner & Comp.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds), Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Airola, Anu. 2007. Coordinated Verb Pairs in Texts. University of Helsinki Ph.D. dissertation. [URL]
Andersson, Peter & Blensenius, Kristian. 2018a. Matches and mismatches in Swedish [gå och V] ‘go/walk and V’: An exemplar-based perspective. Constructions and Frames 10(2). 147-177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. En historisk studie av pseudosamordning: konstruktionen gå och v i svenskan. In Harry Lönnroth, Bodil Haagensen, Maria Kvist & Kim Sandvad West (eds), Studier i svensk språkhistoria 14 (Vaasan Yliopiston Tutkimuksia 305), 80–101. Vaasan yliopisto. [URL]
Andrason, Alexander. 2018. The WZIĄĆ gram in Polish: A serial verb construction, or not? STUF – Language Typology and Universals 71, 577–629. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andriani, Luigi. 2017. The Syntax of the Dialect of Bari. University of Cambridge Ph.D. dissertation. DOI logo
Anward, Jan. 1988. Verb-Verb agreement in Swedish. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics (Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax). 1–34.Google Scholar
Arnaiz, Alfredo & Camacho, José. 1999. A Topic Auxiliary in Spanish. In Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach & Fernando Martínez Gil (eds), Advances in Hispanic Linguistics: Papers from the 2nd Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, vol. 2, 317–331. Boston: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Ascoli, Graziadio I. 1898. Un problema di sintassi comparata dialettale. Archivio glottologico italiano, 14: 453–468.Google Scholar
Bachmann, Ingo. 2013. Has go-V ousted go-and-V? A study of the diachronic development of both constructions in American English. In Hilde Hasselgård, Jarle Ebeling & Signe Oksefjell Ebeling (eds), Corpus perspectives on patterns of lexis, 91–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Badawi, El-Said, Carter, Michael G. & Gully, Adrian. 2004. Modern Written Arabic: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas, Bhatia, Archna & Polinsky, Maria. 2009. Closest conjunct agreement in head final languages. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9. 67–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco & Ciucci, Luca. 2012. Parataxis, Hypotaxis and Para-Hypotaxis in the Zamucoan Languages. Linguistic Discovery 10(1). 89–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Vikner, Sten. 2017. Having the edge: a new perspective on pseudocoordination in Danish and Afrikaans. In Nicholas LaCara, Keir Moulton & Anne-Michelle Tessier (eds). A Schrift to Fest Kyle Johnson. Linguistics Open Access Publications 1. 77–90. [URL]
Bjerre, Anne & Bjerre, Tavs. 2007. Pseudocoordination in Danish. In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG07. 6–24. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Blensenius, Kristian. 2015. Progressive constructions in Swedish. Göteborgs Universitet Ph.D. dissertation. [URL]
Bolton, Rosemary A. 1990. A Preliminary Description of Nuaulu Phonology and Grammar. University of Texas at Arlington M.A. thesis.
Boneh, Nora. 2020. Pseudo-grammaticalization: The anatomy of “come” in Modern Hebrew pseudo-coordination constructions. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 5(2): 16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bravo, Ana. 2020. On Pseudo-coordination in Spanish. Borealis – An international Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 9(1): 125–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Jessica M. M. 2017. Heads and adjuncts: An experimental study of subextraction from participials and coordination in English, German and Norwegian. University of Cambridge Ph.D. dissertation. DOI logo
Camilleri, Maris. 2016. Temporal and Aspectual auxiliaries in Maltese. University of Essex Ph.D. dissertation. [URL]
Carden, Guy & Pesetsky, David. 1977. Double-Verb Constructions, Markedness, and a Fake Coordination. Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 82–92.
Cardinaletti, Anna & Giuliana Giusti. 1998. Motion Verbs as Functional Heads. GenGenP (Geneva Generative Papers) 6(1). 50–60.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Giusti, Giuliana. 2001. “Semi-lexical” Motion Verbs in Romance and Germanic. In Semi-lexical categories, Norbert Corver & Henk Van Riemsdijk (eds), 371–414. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Motion Verbs as Functional Heads. In The Syntax of Italian Dialects, Christina Tortora (ed.), 31–49. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2020. Multiple agreement in southern Italian dialects. In Linguistic variation: structure and interpretation [Studies in Generative Grammar 132] Ludovico Franco & Paolo Lorusso (eds), 125–148. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 1991. The Morphology and Syntax of Determiner Phrases in Kiswahili. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.
. 2001. Multiple Agreement and Case Deletion: Against φ-incompleteness. Syntax 4(3). 147–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Rethinking Complementizer Agreement: Agree with a Case-Checked Goal. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3). 393–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2003. The Interaction of Passive, Causative and “Restructuring” in Romance. In The Syntax of Italian Dialects, Christina Tortora (ed.), 50–66. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Colaço, Madalena & Gonçalves, Anabela. 2016. <V-and-V> constructions in Portuguese: The case of <ir-and-V>. In Mary Aizawa Kato & Francisco Ordoñez (eds), The morphosyntax of Portuguese and Spanish in Latin America, 135–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2016. Morphomic splits. In Ana Luís & Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero (eds), The Morphome Debate, 64–88. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1966. “Tomo y me voy”: ein Problem vergleichender europäischer Syntax. Vox Romanica, 25, 13–55.Google Scholar
. 1977. « Tomo y me voy »: Un problema de sintaxis comparada europea. In Estudios de lingüística románica, 79–151. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.Google Scholar
Covarrubias, Magdalena, Guerrero, Silvana, González, Carlos, Jaque, Matías, Orqueda, Verónica & Hasler, Felipe. 2020. Aquí llegas, pero allá coges: distribución dialectal de los auxiliares de las construcciones multiverbales de verbos finitos coordinados en español. Itinerarios 31. 229–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croitor, Blanca. 2017. Un tip special de coordonare. In Sintaxa ca mod de a fi: omagiu Gabrielei Pană Dindelegan, la aniversare [Colecția Personalități Ale Universității Din București], Adina Dragomirescu, Alexandru Nicolae, Camelia Stan & Rodica Zafiu (eds), 149–57. București: Editura Universității din București.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2013. Beyond the Stem and Inflectional Morphology: an Irregular Pattern at the Level of Periphrasis. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 262–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio & Calabrese, Andrea. 2021. Fifty shades of morphosyntactic microvariation: Motion verb constructions in southern Italian dialects. In Marc-Olivier Hinzelin, Natascha Pomino & Eva-Maria Remberger (eds), Formal Approaches to Romance Morphosyntax, 145–198. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Csató, Éva Ágnes. 2001. Turkic double verbs in a typological perspective. In Karen H. Ebert & Fernando Zúñiga (eds), Aktionsart and aspectotemporality in non-European languages: proceedings from a workshop held at the University of Zürich, June 23–25, 2000, 175–187. Zürich: Universität Zürich, Seminar für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28(2). 195–217.Google Scholar
De Angelis, Alessandro. 2016. Origini formali e funzionali della particella (m)i, (m)u, ma nell’area messinese e calabrese centro-meridionale. In Patrizia Del Puente (ed.), Dialetti: per parlare e parlarne. Atti del IV Convegno Internazionale di Dialettologia. Progetto A.L.Ba. (Potenza, Castelmezzano, Lagopesole, 6–8 novembre 2014). 75–95. Venosa: Osanna Edizioni.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Between Greek and Romance: Competing complementation systems in Southern Italy”. In Piera Molinelli (ed.) Language and Identity in Multilingual Mediterranean settings. Challenges for Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter. 135–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Angelis, Alessandro & Krstić, Milena. 2014. “Perdita dell’infinito e obviation effect in alcune varietà slave e italo-romanze: per un’analisi contrastiva”. In Ivica Pesa Matracki, Maslina Ljubicic, Nada Zupanovic Filipin, Vinko Kovacic (eds) Atti del Convegno internazionale in onore del Prof. Zarko Muljacic (1922–2009). Zagreb: FF-press. 249–260.Google Scholar
de Vos, Mark. 2005. The syntax of verbal pseudocoordination in English and Afrikaans. LOT Dissertation Series 114. Utrecht: LOT.
Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1993. Serial Verb Constructions. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), Syntax: ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung [An International Handbook of Contemporary Research], vol. 1, 799–825. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Del Prete, Fabio & Todaro, Giuseppina. 2020. Building complex events: The case of Sicilian Doubly Inflected Construction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38(1). 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Caro, Vincenzo Nicolò. 2015. Syntactic constructions with motion verbs in some Sicilian dialects: a comparative analysis. Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia M.A. thesis. [URL]
. 2017. Multiple Agreement Constructions: A Macro-Comparative Analysis of Pseudo-Coordination with the Motion Verb Go in the Arabic and Sicilian Dialects. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 19(2).Google Scholar
. 2019a. Multiple Agreement Constructions in Southern Italo-Romance. The Syntax of Sicilian Pseudo-Coordination. PhD dissertation, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.
. 2019b. The Inflected Construction in the dialects of Sicily: parameters of micro-variation. In Italian Dialectology at the Interface, Silvio Cruschina, Adam Ledgeway & Eva-Maria Remberger (eds), 63–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019c. Perifrasi verbali deontiche e paradigmi difettivi nel dialetto di Delia, in Bollettino del Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani, 30: 217–244.Google Scholar
Di Caro, Vincenzo Nicolò & Giusti, Giuliana. 2015. A Protocol for the Inflected Construction in Sicilian Dialects. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie occidentale 49. 393–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul, Hakulinen, Auli, Heinemann, Trine, Niemi, Jarkko & Rossi, Giovanni. 2021. Hendiadys in naturally occurring interactions: A cross-linguistic study of double verb constructions. Journal of Pragmatics (article in press). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eaton, Helen. 2018. Coordination and Subordination in Sandawe Clauses (SIL Electronic Working Papers 2018–001). SIL International. [URL]
Ebert, Karen H. 2000. Progressive Markers in Germanic Languages. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, 605–653. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Edzard, Lutz. 2014. Complex Predicates and Circumstantial Clause Combining (CCC): Serial Verbs and Converbs in a Comparative Semitic Perspective. In Maria Persson & Bo Isaksson (eds), Strategies of Clause Linking in Semitic Languages: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Clause Linking in Semitic Languages, Kivik, Sweden, 5–7 August 2012, 207–230. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Ekberg, Lena. 1993. The cognitive basis of the meaning and function of cross-linguistic take and V. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 8, 21–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endresen, Rolf Theil. 1995. Norwegian og and å – a Cognitive View. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 18(2), 201–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fulci, Innocenzio. 1855. Lezioni filologiche sulla lingua siciliana, Catania, Tip. del Reale Ospizio di Beneficenza.Google Scholar
Gamliel, Ophira & Mar’i, Abd al-Rahman. 2015. Bleached Verbs as Aspectual Auxiliaries in Colloquial Modern Hebrew and Arabic Dialects. Journal of Jewish Languages 3(1–2). 51–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gesenius, Wilhelm. 1844. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testamente Including the Biblical Chaldee. (Ed.) E. Robinson. Washington, D.C.: Crocker and Brewster.Google Scholar
Gleitman, Lila R. 1965. Coordinating Conjunctions in English. Language 41(2). 260–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guţu-Romalo, Valeria. 1961. Semiauxiliare de aspect? Limba Romînǎ 10. 3–15.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1983. Paratactic if-clauses. Journal of Pragmatics 7(3). 263–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Vilkuna, Maria, Korhonen, Riitta, Koivisto, Vesa, Heinonen, Tarja-Riitta & Alho, Irja. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. [URL]
Haslinger, Irene & van Koppen, Marjo. 2002–2003. De verbale hendiadys als pseudocoördinatie. Taal en Tongval 15–16. 102–122.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hesse, Andrea. 2009. Zur Grammatikalisierung der Pseudokoordination im Norwegischen und in den anderen skandinavischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline & Petersen, Hjalmar. 2012. Pseudo-coordinations in Faroese. in Kurt Braunmüller & Christoph Gabriel (eds), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies. Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism, vol. 13. 259–280. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Koops, Christian. 2008. A quantitative approach to the development of complex predicates. Diachronica 25(2). 242–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40. 67–80.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Eric. 2017. On the Origin and Development of an Embedded V-Initial Construction in Frisian. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 77(1–2). 171–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Robin. 1997. Semantic differentiation between three Tokelauan complementizers. Oceanic Linguistics 36(2). 208–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 2002. Hendiadys and auxiliation in English. In Joan L. Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds), Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 145–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huehnergard, John. 1997. A grammar of Akkadian. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Hyams, Nina. 1993. On the Independence and Interdependence of Syntactic and Morphological Properties: English Aspectual Come and Go. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 11. 313–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1895. En sproglig værdiforskydning: og = at. Dania: Tidsskrift for Folkemål og Folkeminder 3. 145–183.Google Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi & Edzard, Lutz. 2015. Coordinated clause structures in Scandinavian and Semitic involving a finite verb form and an infinitive. In Lutz Edzard (ed.), Arabic and Semitic Linguistics Contextualized: A Festschrift for Jan Retsö, 486–505. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jóhannsdóttir, Kristín M. 2011. Aspects of the Progressive in English and Icelandic. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Johnsen, Lars G. 1988. A note on subcoordination. Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics 6. 195–201.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, Annette Myre. 2003. La pseudocoordination verbale en norvégien et en espagnol. Revue Romane 38(1). 53–66.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Günlog. 1991. Pseudocoordination – A VP + VP coordination. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 47. 130–156.Google Scholar
. 2014. Pseudo-coordination in Swedish with gå ‘go’ and the ‘surprise effect’. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 93. 26–50.Google Scholar
Kanchev, Ivan. 2010. Семантика, типология и произход на конструкцията вземам/взема че (та, и) + глагол от свършен вид [On the semantics, typology and origin of the construction вземам/взема че (та, и) + perfective aspect verb]. Съпоставително езикознание [Contrastive Linguistics] 35(3). 40–44. [URL]
Kinn, Torodd, Blensenius, Kristian & Andersson, Peter. 2018. Posture, location, and activity in Mainland Scandinavian pseudocoordinations. CogniTextes: Revue de l’Association française de linguistique cognitive 18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Valentin. 1971. « Взял и … л ». In Viktora Ivanoviča Borkovskogo (ed.), Problemy istorii i dialektologii slavjanskich jazykov, 134–139. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo “Nauka.”Google Scholar
Kjeldahl, Anne. 2010. The syntax of quirky verbal morphology. Ph.D. dissertation. Aarhus: University of Aarhus.
Kor Chahine, Irina. 2007. О Возможном Пути Грамматикализации Русского взять. Russian Linguistics 31(3). 231–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, Tania A. 1999. On sit/stand/lie auxiliation. Linguistics 37(2). 191–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Heine, Bernd, Hong, Bo, Long, Haiping, Narrog, Heiko & Rhee, Seongha. 2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, Julia. 2006. The first verb of pseudocoordination as an auxiliary. Presented at Slavic Linguistic Society 1, Indiana University Bloomington, 2006.
Kvist Darnell, Ulrika. 2008. Pseudosamordningar i Svenska: särskilt sådana med verben sitta, ligga och stå. Institutionen för lingvistik, Stockholms universitet Ph.D. dissertation. [URL]
Lakoff, George. 1986. Frame Semantic Control of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Chicago Linguistic Society 22(2). 152–168.Google Scholar
Larsson, Lars-Gunnar. 1992. “Ta och prata om ringfingret”. Om begränsningar i den jämförande språkforskningens möjligheter. Årsbok (Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskaps-Samfundets i Uppsala) 1991–1992. 87–97.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 1997. Asyndetic complementation in Neapolitan dialect. The Italianist 17(1). 231–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. Clausal complementation. In Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, 1013–1028. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. From Coordination to Subordination: The Grammaticalisation of Progressive and Andative Aspect in the dialects of Salento. In Fernanda Pratas, Sandra Pereira & Clara Pinto (eds), Coordination and Subordination: Form and Meaning – Selected Papers from CSI Lisbon 2014, 157–184. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
. 2021. Coming and going in Calabrian. Revue Roumain de Linguistique 66(1): 3–35.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam, Schifano, Norma & Silvestri, Giuseppina. 2018. The Expression Of Progressive Aspect In Grico: Mapping Morphosyntactic Isoglosses In An Endangered Italo-Greek Variety. Transactions of the Philological Society 116(2). 179–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leone, Alfonso. 1995. Profilo di sintassi siciliana. Palermo: Centro studi filologici e linguistici siciliani.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1983. A Grammar of Manam. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Lillas, Rosmari. 2012. Hendiadys in the Hebrew Bible. An Investigation of the Applications of the Term. University of Gothenburg Ph.D. dissertation. [URL]
Lillas-Schuil, Rosmari. 2006. A survey of syntagms in the Hebrew Bible classified as hendiadys. In Lutz Edzard & Jan Retsö (eds), Current issues in the analysis of Semitic grammar and lexicon II: Oslo-Göteborg Cooperation 4th-5th November 2005, 79–100. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 2002. The Syntactic Structures of Norwegian Pseudocoordinations. Studia Linguistica 56 (2). 121–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Pseudocoordination with posture verbs in Mainland Scandinavian: A grammaticalized progressive construction? Nordic Journal of Linguistics 42(1). 87–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lovestrand, Joseph & Ross, Daniel. 2021. Serial verb constructions and motion semantics. In Antoine Guillaume & Harold Koch (eds), Associated Motion, 87–128. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, Lorusso, Paolo & Savoia, Leonardo M. 2017. a/bare finite complements in Southern Italian varieties: mono-clausal or bi-clausal syntax? Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali 3. 11–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, Rita & Savoia, Leonardo. 2005. I dialetti Italiani e Romanci. Morfosintassi Generativa, vol. I: Introduzione – Il soggetto – La struttura del complementatore, frasi interrogative, relative e aspetti della subordinazione. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Savoia, Leonardo M. 2007. A Unification of Morphology and Syntax: Investigations into Romance and Albanian dialects. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, Francesca, Mattiola, Simone & Vecchi, Greta. 2019. La costruzione “prendere e V” nell’italiano contemporaneo. In Bruno Moretti, Aline Kunz, Silvia Natale & Etna Krakenberger (eds), In Le tendenze dell’italiano contemporaneo rivisitate: Atti del LII Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana (Berna, 6–8 settembre 2018), 115–137. Milano: Società di Linguistica Italiana.Google Scholar
Merlan, Aurélia. 1999. Sobre as chamadas “perífrases verbais paratácticas” do tipo « PEGAR E+ V2 » nas línguas românicas (com referência especial ao português e romeno). Línguas e Literaturas, Revista da Faculdade de Letras, Universidade do Porto 16. 159–205.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1899 [1890–1902]. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen vol. 3, Romanische Syntax. Leipzig: O. R. Reisland.Google Scholar
Mitrović, Moreno. 2014. Morphosyntactic atoms of propositional logic: a philological programme. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
. 2021. Superparticles: A Microsemantic Theory, Typology, and History of Logical Atoms (Studies in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nau, Nicole, Kozhanov, Kirill, Lindström, Liina, Laugalienė, Asta & Brudzyński, Paweł. 2019. Pseudocoordination with “take” in Baltic and its neighbours. Baltic Linguistics 10. 237–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, John (ed.). 2002. The linguistics of sitting, standing, and lying. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 2009. Go-and-V, come-and-V, go-V and come-V: A corpus-based account of deictic movement verb constructions. English Text Construction 2(2). 185–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Peter Juul. 2011. Kongruenskonstruktion i dansk: en syntaktisk analyse af indhold og udtryk. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Nordström, Jackie. 2010. Modality and Subordinators. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orqueda, Verónica, González, Carlos, Guerrero, Silvana, Hasler, Felipe, Jaque, Matías, Garrido, Claudio & Covarrubias, Magdalena. 2020. Llegar no es igual a coger. Dos momentos en la gramaticalización de las construcciones multiverbales en español. In Mar Garachana (ed.), La evolución de las perífrasis verbales en español. Una aproximación desde la gramática de construcciones diacrónica y la gramaticalización, 287–313. Berlin: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1917. Hendiadys in English: Together with some observations on the construction of certain verbs I & II. Neophilologus 2(1). 202–218, 284–292. DOI logo & DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Roberge, Paul. 1994. On the origins of the Afrikaans verbal hendiadys. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 28. 45–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, Angélica. 2006. “Eu fui e fiz esta tese”: as construções do tipo foi fez no portugues do Brasil. São Paolo: Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem, Universidade Estadual de Campinas Ph.D. dissertation. [URL]
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1969. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Vol. 3, Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
. 1977. Grammatica storica dei dialetti italogreci: (Calabria, Salento). (Trans.) Salvatore Sicuro. Rev. and extended ed. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Ross, Daniel. 2013. Dialectal variation and diachronic development of try-complementation. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences: Illinois Working papers 38. 108–147. [URL]
. 2014a. El origen de los estudios sobre la pseudocoordinación verbal [The origin of research on verbal pseudocoordination]. Diálogo de la Lengua 6. 116–132. [URL]
. 2014b. The importance of exhaustive description in measuring linguistic complexity: The case of English try and pseudocoordination. In Frederick J. Newmeyer & Laurel B. Preston (eds), Measuring Grammatical Complexity, 202–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. What can Faroese pseudocoordination tell us about English inflection? LSO Working Papers in Linguistics (University of Wisconsin-Madison) 10: 74–91. [URL]
. 2016a. Between coordination and subordination: Typological, structural and diachronic perspectives on pseudocoordination. In Fernanda Pratas, Sandra Pereira & Clara Pinto (eds), Coordination and Subordination: Form and Meaning – Selected Papers from CSI Lisbon 2014, 209–243. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
. 2016b. Going to Surprise: the grammaticalization of itive as mirative. In Jacek Woźny (ed.), Online proceedings of Cognitive Linguistics in Wrocław Web Conference 2016. Wrocław: Polish Cognitive Linguistics Association & University of Wrocław. [URL]
. 2017. Pseudocoordinación del tipo tomar y en Eurasia: 50 años después [Pseudocoordination with take and in Eurasia: 50 years later]. Presented August 3, 2017, at Lingüística Coseriana VI, Lima, Peru. [URL]
. 2018. Small corpora and low-frequency phenomena: try and beyond contemporary, standard English. Corpus 18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Pseudocoordination, serial verb constructions and multi-verb predicates: The relationship between form and structure. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. DOI logo
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Cambridge (Massachusetts): PhD dissertation, MIT.
Schmerling, Susan F. 1975. Asymmetric coordination and rules of conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 211–231. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shopen, Timothy. 1971. “Caught in the Act”. Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 254–263.Google Scholar
Škodová, Svatava. 2009. Pseudokoordinace v syntaxi současné češtiny [Pseudo-coordination in the syntax of contemporary Czech]. Univerzita Karlova v Praze Ph.D. dissertation. [URL]
Sornicola, Rosanna. 1976. Vado a dire, vaiu a ddicu: problema sintattico o problema semantico? Lingua Nostra 37(3–4). 65–74.Google Scholar
Soto Gómez, Juan Francisco. 2021. Pseudo-Coordination in Spanish: A two constructions analysis. Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia M.A. thesis. [URL]
Squillaci, Maria Olimpia. 2016. When Greek meets Romance: A morphosyntactic analysis of language contact in Aspromonte. University of Cambridge Ph.D. dissertation.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 1999. The go-and-Verb construction in a cross-linguistic perspective: image-schema blending and the construal of events. In Proceedings of the Second Annual High Desert Linguistics Society Conference, 1999, Dawn Nordquist & Catie Berkenfield (eds), 123–34. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico: High Desert Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
. 2000. The English GO-(PRT)-AND-VERB Construction. Berkeley Linguistics Society 26(1). 259–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoynova, N. M. 2007. Конструкция типа взять и сделать в русском языке. In Ф. И. Дудчук, Н. В. Ивлиева & А. В. Подобриаев (eds), Структуры и интерпретации: работы молодых исследователей по теоретической и прикладной лингвистике, 144–171. Moscow: Издательство Московского университета.Google Scholar
Svorou, Soteria. 2018a. Constructional pressures on ‘sit’ in Modern Greek. In K. Aaron Smith & Dawn Nordquist (eds), Functionalist and Usage-based Approaches to the Study of Language: In honor of Joan L. Bybee, 17–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. Motion Verb Integration and Core Cosubordination in Modern Greek. In Rolf Kailuweit, Lisann Künkel & Eva Staudinger (eds), Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar, 281–304. Freiburg: Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taube, Moshe. Forthcoming. Verbal hendiadys in Yiddish (2014 draft). In Neil G. Jacobs, Howard I. Aronson & T. Shannon (eds), Yiddish and Typology. [URL]
Teleman, Ulf. 1974. Manual för grammatisk beskrivning av talad och skriven svenska. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Todaro, Giuseppina & Del Prete, Fabio. 2019. The morphosyntax-semantics interface and the Sicilian Doubly Inflected Construction. In Italian Dialectology at the Interface, Silvio Cruschina, Adam Ledgeway & Eva-Maria Remberger (eds). 131–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2007. Conjunctive Reduction and its Origin: A Comparative Study of Tsou, Amis, and Squliq Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 46(2). 585–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan & Wu, Chun-Ming. 2012. Conjunctive Reduction Revisited: Evidence from Mayrinax Atayal and Southern Paiwan. Oceanic Linguistics 51(1). 160–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 2003. Ta og ro deg ned noen hakk: on pseudocoordination with the verb ta ‘take’ in a grammaticalization perspective. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26(2). 165–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Max Leopold. 1955. Expletive Verbalformen in den Sprachen des Mittelmeeres. Romanische Forschungen 67(1/2). 1–8.Google Scholar
Weiss, Daniel. 2007. The Grammar of Surprise: The Russian Construction of the Type Koška vzjala da umerla ‚Suddenly, the cat died‘. In Kim Gerdes, Tilmann Reuther & Leo Wanner (eds.), MTT 2007: Meaning-Text Theory 2007: proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory, Klagenfurt, May 20–24, 2007, 427–436. München: Otto Sagner. [URL]
. 2012. Verb serialization in northeast Europe: The case of Russian and its Finno-Ugric neighbours. In Björn Wiemer, Bernhard Wälchli & Björn Hansen (eds), Grammatical replication and borrowability in language contact, 611–646. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 1996. Pseudocoordination is subordination. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 58. 29–53.Google Scholar
. 2007. The Syntax of Tenselessness. Tense/Mood/Aspect-agreeing Infinitivals. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The syntax of surprise: Unexpected event readings in complex predication. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 84. 181–224.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie. 2006. Go-V and go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy? In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, 101–125. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuasa, Etsuyo & Sadock, Jerrold M. 2002. Pseudo-subordination: a mismatch between syntax and semantics. Journal of Linguistics 38(1). 87–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 2003. Go look at the modern language to test hypotheses about the past [Abstract]. [URL]