Munn’s (1993) Boolean Phrase (BP) Adjunction Analysis

Munn’s (1993) analysis is based on his belief that co-ordination should be incorporated into X-bar theory. Jackendorf f (1977) presents co-ordination as a flat structure with either multiple heads or no heads, as in (19).

(19) XP1

XP XP and XP

According this analysis “and” is syncategorematically linked to a series of XPs so that all the elements are equal. Munn observes that such a flat structure violates both binary branching (as we have already seen with Hurford) and endocentricity, two of the principal features of X-bar

theory. Nevertheless, the flat structure analysis has had a long history and is still being

advocated at the present time. Its proponents include Chomsky (1965), Dik (1968), Dougherty (1969), Gazdar et al (1985), Goodall (1987), Johnson (2002) and Phillips (2003). In the meantime, Munn’s analysis has independently duplicated by Collins (1988) and subsequently supported by Bošković and Franks (2000) and Alharbi (2002).

At the core of Munn’s analysis is the conviction that the two conjuncts of a co-ordinate phrase are not equal semantically, nor is the conjunction empty of meaning. Following Ross (1967), Munn argues that the conjunction and the second conjunct form a phrasal constituent.

Given this interpretation, Munn observes that there are two possibilities for configuration of what he calls the Boolean Phrase (BP). These are illustrated in (20).

(20) a. BP

NP B’

B NP

Spec/Head BP

b. NP

NP BP

B NP

Adjoined BP

The question is, where should the first conjunct be placed? Munn at first decided to place it in the Specifier position, while placing the second constituent in the complement position. This is illustrated in (20a). Munn’s later choice was to adjoin the first conjunct to the constituent formed by the conjunction and the second conjunct. This is illustrated in (20b). Munn believes that adjunction supplies the most accurate interpretation of co-ordination, the principal reason being the asymmetry that exists between the two conjuncts. In Munn’s adjunction analysis the head B and its complement, the second conjunct, form the maximal projection of the BP. This means that B, or “and,” is the head of its own phrase. Moreover, the first conjunct NP₁ and the second conjunct NP2 are of the same category and at the same bar level. The B and the second conjunct project to an X’’ level, and the Specifier place is left empty as a landing site for the null operator. This is illustrated in (21)

(21) NP

NP₁ BP

B’

B NP2

Munn’s argument for favouring the right node adjunction analysis of co-ordinate

structures over the Spec/Head analysis is focused mainly on binding criteria. But first he points out that in co-ordinate structures the second conjunct – that is, the internal conjunct consisting of the co-ordinator and the second conjunct – can be extraposed, while the first, or external

conjunct, may not be extraposed. This is illustrated in (22).

(22) a. John bought a book and a newspaper.

b. John bought a book yesterday and a newspaper.

c. *John bought a newspaper yesterday a book and.

d. *John bought a book and yesterday, a newspaper.

These examples show that the internal conjunct must be a maximal projection, since movement, such as exposition, applies only to maximal projections. This in turn means that the adjoined BP structure is preferable to the Spec/Head BP structure, since the internal conjunct of the adjoined BP is a maximal projection, while the internal conjunct of the Spec/Head BP is not a maximal projection.

Munn goes on to argue that binding asymmetry is necessary for co-ordination. This is why flat structures are ruled out. The first conjunct must c-command the second conjunct, while the second conjunct must not c-command the first conjunct (Reinhart, 1976). This is illustrated with reference to numerical expressions in (23).

(23) a. seven hundred and twenty-three.

b. *and twenty-three seven hundred.

Munn points out that if NPo in the adjoined structure, or BP in the Spec/Head structure, were simultaneously a projection of both NPs, NP_o, or &P, would be the c-command domain for both conjuncts, but this would violate the principle that conjuncts may not be coreferent. Such a c-command argument is enough to dismiss the flat structure analysis of co-ordination, but to dismiss the Spec/Head analysis Munn turns to the concept of m-command (Chomsky, 1986) as an alternative to strict c-command. According to the expanded command definition, X m-commands Y if both are maximal projections. Consider the two structures again, given in (19) and repeated here as (24).

(24) a. BP

NP₁ B’

B NP2

Spec/Head BP

b. NP₀

NP1 BP

B NP2

Adjoined BP

In the Spec/Head construction (24a) NP1 does not c-command the BP (or &P, the internal conjunct) because it is dominated by BP. Also, NP1 does not m-command B’, because B’ is not a maximal projection. Moreover, in the Spec/Head construction BP is the c-command domain for both NP₁ and NP₂, violating, as we have already seen, the rule against co-reference. But in the adjoined construction (24b) NP1 does c-command the BP (or the &P, the internal conjunct) because they are sisters. Moreover, NP1 m-commands the BP because they are both maximal projections. Furthermore, the stricture against co-reference is not violated because NP0 is the c-command domain for NP₁, but BP is the c-command domain for NP_2.

For the purposes of applying X-bar theory to numerical expressions the adjunction analysis appears to be better than the Spec/Head analysis for two important reasons: the first conjunct both c-commands and m-commands the second conjunct, and the conjunction

ultimately projects NP0 , the desired outcome, instead of BP (&P). These features are absent in

the Spec/Head analysis. This means that the sample number 567, illustrated throughout this paper, would be an NP with the semantic additive sense of “five hundred plus sixty-seven.” In other words, in keeping with the central proposal of this thesis, a numeral expression is both a sum and a nominal compound.