Comitative Coordination in Capeverdean

Comitative Coordination in Capeverdean José António Brito, Gabriela Matos, and Fernanda Pratas 1. Introduction In Capeverdean, a Portuguese-based Creole language, the word ku ‘with’ may function either as a coordinative conjunction, with an additive meaning, or as a preposition (Veiga 1995: 312, Batista 2002:134-135, Brito 2011, 2014). In (1), the first ku is a conjunction and the second one is a preposition. This language has another way of expressing additive coordination, the conjunction y ‘and’, which connects the two clauses in (1): (1) Djon ku Maria bai Somada y es ben Djon CONJ Maria go Somada and they come ‘Djon and Maria went to Somada and they came back with fish.’ ku PREP pexi. fish Comitative coordination is widely spread across languages. It occurs in European languages, e.g., Slavic languages (McNally 1993, Vassilieva & Larson 2005 for Russian; Skrabalova 2003 for Czech) and Romance languages (Camacho 2000 for Spanish; Colaço 2005, Matos & Raposo 2013 for Portuguese), but also in Asian, African and Oceanic languages (Stassen 2000, Haspelmath 2004, 2007). The word ku is diachronically related to Portuguese com ‘with’, a word with comitative value that also occurs as a preposition and a coordinative conjunction. 1 Still, Capeverdean coordinative ku presents some specific properties. In particular, it contrasts with the comitative coordination in Portuguese (and other European languages), by coordinating categories other than noun phrases (NPs) and applying iteratively. In addition, although it has an additive content, ku contrasts with y ‘and’ by not being able to coordinate predicative adjectival phrases (APs), finite clauses or verbal phrases (VPs) with aspect/tense specification. In this paper we describe the behavior of ku in Capeverdean and we propose an account for the above mentioned properties. * The presentation of this paper at GURT 2013/ ACAL 44 has been funded by the project ‘Events and Subevents in Capeverdean’ (PTDC/CLE-LIN/103334/2008). The research developed in this paper has also been funded by the project PEst-OE/LIN/UI0214/2013. We thank the audience of GURT 2013/ACCAL 44, for their comments. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their observations and suggestions to a previous version of the paper. José António Brito, Instituto Universitário de Educação, Universidade de Santiago, Cabo Verde, collaborator of Centro de Linguística da Universidade de Lisboa, [email protected]. Gabriela Matos, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa, Centro de Linguística da Universidade de Lisboa, [email protected]. Fernanda Pratas, Centro de Linguística da Universidade de Lisboa, [email protected]. 1 One anonymous reviewer has suggested that we “discuss ku in relation to the presumed substrate languages” of Capeverdean. We know that these substrate languages are mainly from the Mande and Atlantic families, spoken by the slaves from the Guinea Rivers area that were taken to Santiago Island in the 15th century (Carreira 1982). In fact, we aim to extend, in a very near future, the crosslinguistic study of ku to any cases of comitative coordination in these substrate languages. This is, however, out of the scope of the current paper. © 2015 José António Brito, Gabriela Matos, and Fernanda Pratas. Selected Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, ed. Ruth Kramer et al., 17-27. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 18 2. Ku as a comitative preposition and as a coordinative conjunction Not unexpectedly, the preposition ku behaves differently from the conjunction ku. In A to E we describe these distinguishing properties. A. Prepositional ku has an antonymous correlate, which is the preposition sen ‘without’. This is not the case for ku as a conjunction, (2) vs. (3): (2) a. b. (3) Es ben ku they come with ‘They came with fish.’ pexi. fish Es ben sen pexi. they come without fish ‘They came without fish.’ *Djon sen Maria bai Somada. Djon without Maria go Somada ´Djon without Maria went to Somada.’ B. Coordinative ku has an additive value, and in most contexts it may be replaced by the copulative conjunction y, which also exhibits an additive content. As shown in (4), both items translate into English ‘and’: (4) Djon ku /y Maria bai Somada Djon with / and Maria go Somada ‘Djon and Maria went to Somada.’ This is not possible for prepositional ku, as is shown by the contrast between (2a) vs. (5): (5) *Es ben y pexi. they come and fish ‘They came and fish.’ C. In contrast with prepositional ku, the comitative conjunction requires adjacency of the coordinate conjuncts: (6) a. b. [NP Ana] ku [NP Maria] kunpra pexi. Ana with Maria buy fish ‘Ana and Maria bought fish.’ #[NP Ana] kunpra pexi Ana buy fish ‘Ana bought fish and Maria.’ ku [NP Maria]. with Maria The sentence in (6b) is pragmatically anomalous in the intended reading. It means that Ana bought both fish and Maria. D. Just like the comitative coordination attested for other languages, for instance Portuguese (Colaço 2005) and Russian (McNally 1993, Vassileva & Larson 2005), the NPs connected by ku form a plural unit2: 2 Note that these languages also have a corresponding prepositional comitative construction. In this case the verb does not present plural agreement affixes. 19 (7) a. b. [O ouro com a prata] combinam-se the gold with the silver combine.3PL-REFL ‘The gold and the silver combine easily.’ [Ivan s Petej] usholi Ivan-NOM with Petej.INSTR ir.PL ‘Ivan and Pete went home.’ facilmente. (Portuguese) easily domoj home (Russian) Capeverdean verbs do not exhibit agreement inflection marks. However, there is evidence for the plural nature of the NP resulting from comitative coordination. In the points D.1 to D.3 we show the sources for this evidence. D.1. Comitative coordinate NPs may only be substituted by a plural pronoun, (8b): (8) a. [Bu pai ku bu mai] resebe-u 2SG father with 2SG mother welcome-CL2SG ‘Your father and your mother welcomed you.’ b. Es resebe-u. they welcome-you ‘They welcomed you.’ c. #E recebe-u. he welcome-you ‘He welcomed you.’ D.2. Comitative coordinate NPs bind plural anaphors: (9) a. [Ana ku Maria]i odja [ses kabesa]i na Ana with Maria see their heads in.the ‘Ana and Maria saw themselves in the mirror.’ spedju. mirror b. *[Ana ku Maria] odja [si kabesa]i na Ana with Maria see his/her head in.the ‘Ana and Maria saw herself in the mirror.’ spedju. mirror D.3. Comitative coordinate NPs control embedded null subjects that bind the reciprocal expression kunpanheru ‘each other’. (10) [Djon ku Maria] {kre / tenta / prumete } PRO ruspeta kunpanheru. Djon with Maria {want / try / promise} PRO respect fellow ‘Djon and Maria wanted / tried / promised to respect each other.’ E. Finally, a fifth property distinguishes ku as a preposition and as a conjunction. Just like other symmetrical coordinations, coordinative-ku construction obeys to the Coordinate Structure Constraint, which states that “in a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved, nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of that conjunct.” (Ross 1967). Thus, (11b) is marginal because the second conjunct, introduced by ku, has been extracted out of the coordinate structure and has been merged at the left periphery of the sentence: (11) a. [Ana ku Maria] odja ses kabesa na Ana with Maria see their heads in.the ‘Ana and Maria saw themselves in the mirror.’ spedju. mirror b. *Ku Maria, Ana odja ses kabesa na with Maria, Ana see their heads in.the ‘And Maria, Ana saw themselves in the mirror.’ spedju. mirror 20 This behavior contrasts with the one of prepositional ku, as shown in the example (12)3: (12) Ku Maria, Ana odja si kabesa na with Maria, Ana see her head in.the ‘Just like Maria, Ana saw herself in the mirror.’ spedju. mirror To sum up, there is strong evidence for an additive comitative conjunction in Capeverdean, ku, on a par with a homonymous preposition, which also expresses comitative meaning. 3. Coordinative ku vs. other comitative conjunctions in other languages Comitative coordination in Capeverdean presents properties that distinguish it from its correlates in Romance (e.g. Portuguese) and Slavic languages (e.g. Russian), and relate it to comitative coordination in WITH-languages (such as Japanese, Iraqw, Fongbe, Haitian, Hawsa, Vafsi, Sgaw Karen, Riau, Indonesian, Nêlêmwa, etc.), which use the same marker for expressing conjunctive and comitative relations (Stassen 2000, Haspelmath 2004, 2007). In this section, we list these distinguishing properties. 3.1. Ku-coordination is not restricted by the semantics of the verb In languages like Portuguese, comitative coordination is licensed by verbs that have a resultative reading (Colaço 2005)4, each conjunct being interpreted as part of the resulting element. This is shown in Portuguese by the contrast in acceptability between (13) and (14): (13) a. [O ouro com a prata] combinam-se the gold with the silver combine.3PL-REFL ‘The gold and the silver combine easily.’ b. [O João com a Maria] formam uma the João with the Maria form a ‘João and Maria form an undefeatable team.’ c. [Dois com três] são cinco. two with three are five ‘Two and three are five.’ (14)a. b. equipa imbatível. team undefeatable *[O ourives com o aprendiz ] combinaram the goldsmith with the apprentice combined ‘The goldsmith and the apprentice combined the metals.’ *[O João com a Maria] são jogadores the João with the Maria are players ´João and Maria are football players.’ facilmente. easily os metais. the metals de futebol. of football In contrast, in Capeverdean coordinative ku is independent of the semantic properties of the sentence predicate (see (15)): (15) a. 3 4 [Orivi ku aprendis] kunbina metal. goldsmith with apprentice combined metal ‘The goldsmith and the apprentice combined the metals.’ Notice that the reflexive constituent, si kabesa, is singular, since it is bound by the subject, Ana. In Portuguese, additive coordination is standardly expressed by e ‘and’ (cf. Matos 2003, Matos & Raposo 2013). 21 b. [Djon ku Maria] bai Somada. Djon with Maria go Somada ‘Djon and Maria went to Somada.’ c. [Ana ku Lita] Ana with Lita ‘Ana and Lita were ill.’ staba be.PST duenti. ill As expected, the corresponding examples in Portuguese are marginal (cf. (15) and (16)): (16) a. b. *[O João the João a Maria] vão a the Maria go.3PL to com with *[A Ana com a Lita] the Ana with the Lita ‘Ana and Lita were ill.’ estavam were Lisboa. Lisboa doentes. ill In sum, in contrast with Portuguese, comitative coordination in Capeverdean is not restricted by the semantic properties of the predicate of the sentence where it occurs. 3.2. Comitative coordination of NPs The examples in (17), like those of the previous sections, exhibit comitative coordination of NP subjects. These data could suggest that this is the only available option in Capeverdean, as it happens in some languages, for instance in some Spanish dialects reported by Camacho (2000).5 (17) a. b. [NP Ana] ku [NP Maria] sta xintadu. Ana with Maria be seated ‘Ana and Maria are seated.’ [NP Mi] ku [NP bo] nu ta me with you we HAB ´Me and you we study together. studa study djuntu. together However, this is not the most spread pattern and most languages also exhibit comitative coordination of object NPs. This is the case of Capeverdean and also of Portuguese, although in the latter language comitative coordination of objects is much more restricted than in Capeverdean by the semantic class of the predicates. As it also happens with subjects, in Portuguese only resultative verbs may present comitative coordination of NP objects: (18) a. O ourives the goldsmith combinou combined o ouro the gold 5 com with a prata. the silver Camacho (2000) assumes that examples presenting apparent object comitative coordination, like (i), from Peruvian Spanish, are better analyzed as cases of secondary predication, on the basis of the contrast of acceptability between (ii) and (iii): (i) Los invito a tí con María. CL.2PL invite to you with Maria ‘I invite you and Maria (to do something) (ii) Les invito café. CL.2PL invite coffee Í will buy you coffee. (iii) *Les CL.2PL invito invite a tí to you com Maria with Maria café. coffee 22 b. O ourives combinou-os the goldsmith combined-CL3PL. ‘The goldsmith combined them.’ Colaço (2005) also notices that, in cases like (18a), there is some structural ambiguity: the sentence may be interpreted as presenting comitative coordination, in which case the comitative conjunct may be referred by a plural pronoun, as in (18b), but it may also be analyzed as an object NP followed by a comitative PP, as in (19), where the accusative clitic only refers to o ouro ‘the gold’ in (18a): (19) O ourives combinou-o com the goldsmith combined-CL3SG with ‘The goldsmith combined it with the silver.’ a prata. the silver In Capeverdean the occurrence of an NP in object position is not restricted by the class of the predicates: (20) Ana kumpra [NP pexi Ana buys fish ‘Ana buys fish and papaia.’ papaia] papaia ku with In addition, although ku corresponds to a conjunction and a preposition, when it occurs next to an object NP it is preferably interpreted as a conjunction, as shown by the oddity of (21), which could only be acceptable if Maria, like fish, is conceived as a buyable object. To convey the adjunct comitative meaning in this context, Capeverdean usually uses the expression djuntu ku ‘together with’, as shown in (22): (21) #Ana kumpra [NP pexi Ana buys fish ‘Ana buys fish and Maria.’ (22) Ana kunpra [NP pexi] Ana buys fish ‘Ana buys fish and Maria.’ ku with Maria] Maria djuntu together ku with Maria. Maria 3.3. Comitative coordination of categories other than NP In Romance and Slavic languages like Portuguese or Russian, the comitative coordinator only coordinates NPs (Colaço 2005, McNally 1993), as shown in (23) for Portuguese: (23) a. b. [NP A Ana] com [NP o Pedro] the Ana with the Pedro ‘Ana and Pedro make a lovely couple.” *[AdvP Ontem] yesterday com with [AdvPhoje] today fazem make fazem make um lindo a lovely par. couple o fim-de-semana. the weekend. In contrast, Capeverdean ku coordinates categories other than NPs. Thus, on a par with examples like (24), exhibiting NP coordination, this conjunction also conjoins AdvPs, as illustrated in (25): (24) a. b. [NP Ana] ku [NP Maria] sta xintadu. Ana with Maria be seated ‘Ana and Maria are seated.’ [NP Mi] ku [NP bo] me with you ´Me and you we study together.’ nu ta studa we ASP study djuntu. together 23 (25) [AdvP Onti] ku [AdvP oji] yesterday with today ‘It was cold yesterday and today.’ faze make friu. cold Likewise, AP coordination with ku is possible in examples like (26). (26) a. b. Maria tene [NP buluza risku-risku [AP azul] Maria have blouse strips blue ‘Maria has a blue and white striped blouse.’ Kel buluza-li e [[AP azul] blouse-here be blue ‘This blouse is blue and white.’ DEM ku [AP with branku]]. white ku [AP branku]]. with white Similarly, ku-coordination may apply to PPs, as shown in (27): (27) Maria faze dosi [PP di koku] ku [PP Maria make jam of coconut with ‘Mary makes jam of coconuts and of papaia.’ di papaia]. of papaia Finally, ku may conjoin nominalized non-finite verbs, as exemplified in (28): (28) [Le] ku [skrebe] e sinplis. read with write be simple ‘It is easy to read and write.’ This behavior correlates Capeverdean with the so called WITH-languages, which always use the comitative conjunction in additive coordination. 3.4. Iteration of the comitative conjunction Similarly, in opposition to languages like Russian (29a) or Portuguese (29b), which only allow for binary comitative coordination (cf. (23a) vs. (29b)), ku may iterate in coordinative conjunction (cf. (30)), as is the case of its correlates in WITH -languages: (29) a. b. (30) *Anna s Mašej s Anne.NOM with Mary.INSTR with ‘Anne, Mary and Natasha came.’ Natašej Natasha.INSTR pridut. come.3PL ??O Zé com o Paulo com o Luís the Zé with t the Paulo with the Luís ‘Zé, Paulo and Luís form an undefeatable team.’ formam uma form a Palu ku Pedru ku Manel ku Palu with Pedru with Manel with ‘Palu, Pedru, Manel and Litu went to Praia.’ Litu Litu (McNally 1993) equipa imbatível. team undefeatable bai Praia. go Praia The data just presented show that ku has properties that differentiate it from comitative coordinators in several Romance and Slavic languages, and relate it to the comitative conjunctions in WITH -languages. We take this fact as indicating that Capeverdean ku is a full additive conjunction, whereas in languages like Portuguese or Russian the comitative coordinators have not yet fully achieved their grammaticalization process. In fact, in these languages, the comitative connective still retains some characteristics of the syntactic behaviour of the related preposition, such as the constraint to select NP as arguments (see the contrasts in (23)) and the ability to assign (Instrumental or Oblique) Case to the second term of the coordination, as illustrated in (29a), for Russian. 24 4. The distribution of ku and y in Capeverdean Despite being a full additive conjunction, ku ‘with’ is not in free variation with y ‘and’, a much less used additive conjunction. Thus, comitative ku cannot coordinate predicative APs, in contrast with what happened with APs denoting a compound property, as those illustrated in (26) above. When the coordination involves predicative APs, ku is replaced by y (31)6: (31) a. b. Djon e [AP alto] Djon be tall ‘Djon is tall and strong.’ y [AP forti] and strong *Djon Djon ku [AP forti] with strong e [AP alto] be tall Similarly, ku cannot coordinate finite sentences or two (or more) verbal predicates with finite tense (TNS) or aspect (ASP) specification (Brito 2011, 2012, 2014). The variety of Capeverdean spoken in the Santiago Island marks temporal meaning through three overt morphemes, two of them preverbal (ta e sata), and another one postverbal (-ba). In Pratas (2010, 2012) it has been argued that the language also has a zero morpheme (ø), without which some semantic contrasts would be hardly accounted for. The various temporal/aspectual interpretations available in the language are thus built through the presence or absence of -ba (in the first case we have a past reading, in the second case we have a nonpast reading), combined with any of the preverbal morphemes. Therefore, we have 7: ø V (“bare” form)= roughly, this corresponds to a present perfect reading of the type ‘John has left’ ta V = present habitual (or future, depending on other information available in the sentence) sata V = present progressive ø V-ba = past perfect ta V-ba = past habitual (or conditional, depending on other information available in the sentence) sata V-ba = past progressive. Returning now to the distribution of the comitative conjunction, the examples in (32) show that ku is banned from finite sentence coordination, which canonically exhibit an overt subject – Capeverdean is a non-consistent null subject language, which prohibits null referential subjects in all main clauses and only allows them in very specific embedded contexts (Costa & Pratas 2012). (32) *Ana skreve puema ku Maria le Ana write poem with Maria read ‘Ana wrote the poem and Maria read the book.’ livru. book The examples in (33) illustrate the exclusion of ku from tensed and aspect verbal coordination (cf. le and skrebe . in (33b), and ta le and ta skrebe in (33b)): (33) a. b. *Djon le ku Djon ASP/TNS.read with ‘Djon read and wrote Creole.’ skrebe write kriolu. Creole *Djon ta le ku ta skrebe Djon ASP read with ASP write ‘Djon reads and writes Creole.’ kriolu. Creole In these contexts, Capeverdean uses alternative kinds of coordination. Regarding full finite sentence coordination, y-coordination is the option available both in syndetic and asyndetic cases. In the latter case, as shown in (34b), an overt y-conjunction may be recovered: 6 Similarly, not all AdvPs may be coordinated by ku. While this coordination is acceptable with adverbs expressing time (e.g. oji ‘today’), it is impossible with modal adverbs (e.g., sértamente ‘certainly’). Adverbs in this language belong to different semantic classes with distinct distribution and properties. Their full understanding requires an in depth study, which is out of the scope of the current paper. 7 For more details on the complex temporal/aspectual system in the language, see Pratas (2010, 2012). 25 (34) a. b. Ana skreve puema y Maria le livru. Ana write poem and Maria read book ‘Ana wrote the poem and Maria read the book.’ Rapasinhu ta ben la di stranjeru ku si mo finu, young.man ASP come there from abroad with his hands delicate (y) nhos ta dexa-l pega na inxada pa kiria npólma. (and) you ASP let-3SG take in.the hoe to create blister ‘The young man came from abroad with delicate hands (and) you let him take the hoe to hurt his hands.’ (cf. Tavares 2010:35) Note that in both examples in (34) we may see a relation between the events denoted by the clauses. In (34a), the speaker may be referring to two simultaneous events, occurring in the same room. In (34b), we have two sequential events that are somewhat related (or at least the speaker sees some relation between them). In the case of verbal projections with aspect (ASP) specification or finite tense (TNS) interpretation, only a specific type of asyndetic coordination is possible, where a discourse pause between the connected predicates is characteristically absent and the additive conjunction may not be recovered 8, as shown by the contrast between (35a) and (35b)9: (35) a. b. Djon ta le ta skrebe Djon ASP read ASP write ‘Djon reads and writes Creole.’ kriolu. Creole *Djon ta le y ta skrebe Djon ASP read and ASP write ‘Djon reads and writes Creole.’ kriolu. Creole Therefore, our proposal is as follows. We claim that the exclusion of ku from the contexts illustrated in (31) and (32) follows from its intrinsic meaning. Although ku is an additive conjunction, it also has a comitative interpretation. This implies that it operates over constituents which denote entities, bringing them together into a group entity, as in the case of referential arguments, or denote properties that are interpreted as forming a compound property.10 8 This paratactic connection, which resembles a specific type of asyndetic coordination, recalls some serial constructions presented in the literature (see Muysken & Venestra 2006, and for Capeverdean, Brito 2011, 2012). The study of these constructions is out of the scope of the current paper. 9 Notice that (35b) is ungrammatical as a case of sentence coordination, with a null subject in the second term of the coordinate structure. As we have mentioned, Capeverdean is a non-consistent null subject language: it allows for expletive null subjects and also for a particular type of referential null subjects in embedded contexts, where the null subject is bound by an operator. The relevant point here is that it does not allow for referential null subjects in main clauses (cf. Pratas 2002, Pratas 2007, Costa & Pratas 2012). Thus, (35b) would be grammatical only if the second coordinated element had a clitic pronoun in the subject position, as in (i), below. In this case it would be interpreted as a well formed finite sentence: (i) 10 Djon ta le y e ta skrebe Djon ASP read and 3SG ASP write ‘Djon reads and writes Creole.’ \ kriolu. Creole Our proposal differs from others that study languages where comitative coordination is restricted to subject NPs (Camacho 2000) or only conjoins NPs (e.g. McNally 1993, Darymple et al 1998, Skrabalova 2003). Camacho (2000) assumes that in Spanish the comitative expression denotes a collectivity, in the sense that the involved entities jointly participate in an event. McNally (1993) claims that in Russian and Polish the collective interpretation is not required, but the comitative coordinate expression must denote that the individuals involved are together in a relevant sense. In Capeverdean comitative coordination is not restricted to NPs. However, its distribution suggests that although the more severe restrictions that operate over NP Comitative Coordination do not show up, the core value of comitative coordination still prevails. 26 This meaning prevents ku from coordinating predicative APs denoting related but independent properties or from applying to related finite sentences or verbal projections which denote simultaneous or sequential events. In none of these cases the resulting coordination would denote a group entity or a compound property. 5. Conclusions All the empirical evidence presented in this paper leads us to conclude that the form ku in Capeverdean recovers two distinct classes of words with a comitative meaning but a distinct syntactic behavior: an additive conjunction and a preposition. Like other comitative conjunctions across languages, ku conjoins NPs producing a coordinate structure that denotes a plural entity and obeys the Coordinate Structure Constraint. In opposition to comitative conjunctions in languages like Portuguese or Russian, and like WITH -languages, coordinative ku is not sensitive to the semantic properties of the sentence main verb, may coordinate categories other than NPs and may iterate. This shows that it behaves as a full additive conjunction. However, ku is excluded from tensed verbal predicates and sentence coordination, a fact that we impute to its meaning: having a comitative value, ku may only apply to elements that denote entities or properties to derive constituents that denote group entities or compound properties. Thus, it is excluded from contexts where the coordination would derive expressions that denote independent conjoined predicates, as well as (simultaneous or sequential) events or situations. References Baptista, Marlyse. 2002. The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole: The Sotavento Varieties. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Brito, José António. 2011. Aspectos Sintácticos Centrais da Coordenação no Caboverdiano, variante de Santiago. MA. thesis, Lisboa: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa. Brito, José António. 2012. “Coordenação Frásica e Predicativa sindética vs. assindética aditiva”, paper presented at XXVIII ENAPL. Universidade do Algarve, October, 25-27. Brito, José António. 2014. Coordenação Comitativa no Caboerdiano. Estudos de Linguística, vol. II, Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra, 95-111. Camacho, José. 1999. “La Coordination”. Bosque, Ignacio & Violeta Demonte (eds.). Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, vol. 2. 2635-94. Madrid: Editorial Espasa Calpe, SA. Carreira, António. 1982. O Crioulo de Cabo Verde, Surto e Expansão. Mem Martins: Europam. Colaço, Madalena. 2005. Configurações de Coordenação Aditiva: Tipologia, Concordância e Extracção. PhD thesis, Lisboa: Universidade de Lisboa. Costa, João & Fernanda Pratas. 2012. “Embedded null subjects in Capeverdean”. Journal of Linguistics 49:33-53. Cambridge University Press. Haspelmath, Martin (ed.). 2004. Coordinating constructions. Typological Studies in Language, 58, 3-39. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. “Coordination." In Shopen, Timothy (ed.). Language typology and syntactic description, vol. II: Complex constructions. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-51. Matos, Gabriela. 2003. “Estruturas de Coordenação”. In Mateus, Maria Helena, Ana Brito, Inês Duarte, Isabel Faria, Sónia Frota, Gabriela Matos, Fátima Oliveira, Marina Vigário & Alina Villalva, Gramática da Língua Portuguesa. 5th ed., Lisboa: Caminho, 549-592. Matos, Gabriela & Eduardo Raposo. 2013. “Estruturas de coordenação”. In Raposo, Eduardo, Mª Fernanda Nascimento, Mª Antónia Mota, Luísa Segura & Amália Mendes (eds.). Gramática do Português. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian. McNally, Louise. 1993. “Comitative coordination: a Case study in Group formation”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11:2, 347-379. Muysken, Pieter & Tonjes Veenstra. 2006. “Serial Verbs”. In Everaert, Martin & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Vol. IV, 234-270. Oxford: Backwell Publishing. Pratas, Fernanda. 2002. O Sistema Pronominal do Caboverdiano (variante de Santiago): Questões de Gramática, MA thesis. Lisboa: Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Pratas, Fernanda. 2007. Tense features and argument structure in Capeverdean predicates. PhD thesis. Lisboa: Universidade Nova de Lisboa. 27 Pratas, Fernanda. 2010. States and temporal interpretation in Capeverdean. In Reineke Bok-Bennema, Brigitte Kampers-Manhe, and Bart Hollebrandse (eds.). Romance languages and linguistic theory 2008—selected papers from ’Going Romance 26’ Groningen 2008. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 215–231. Pratas, Fernanda. 2012. ‘I know the answer’: A perfect state in Capeverdean. In Franco, Irene, Sara Lusini, and Andrés Saab (eds.). Romance languages and linguistic theory 2010—selected papers from ‘Going Romance 24’ Leiden, 2010. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 65–86. Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD thesis, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT. Skrabalova,Hana.2003.Comitative constructions in Czech. http://www.lrl.univ-bpclermont.fr/IMG/pdf/FDSL4.pdf Stassen, Leon. 2000. “AND-languages and WITH-language”, Linguistic Typology, 4.1: 1-55. Tavares, Armindo. 2010. Trilogia II / Trilojiâ II, Amadora: Offset mais Artes Gráficas. Vassileva, Masha & Richard Larson. 2005. “The Semantics of the Plural Pronoun Construction”, Natural Language Language Semantics, 13: 101-124. Veiga, Manuel. 1995. O Crioulo de Cabo Verde, Introdução à Gramática. Praia: Instituto Caboverdiano do Livro. Veiga, Manuel. 2009. Odju d’Agu, Praia: Instituto da Biblioteca Nacional e do Livro. Selected Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference on African Linguistics edited by Ruth Kramer, Elizabeth C. Zsiga, and One Tlale Boyer Cascadilla Proceedings Project Somerville, MA 2015 Copyright information Selected Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference on African Linguistics © 2015 Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA. All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-57473-465-2 library binding A copyright notice for each paper is located at the bottom of the first page of the paper. Reprints for course packs can be authorized by Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Ordering information Orders for the library binding edition are handled by Cascadilla Press. To place an order, go to www.lingref.com or contact: Cascadilla Press, P.O. Box 440355, Somerville, MA 02144, USA phone: 1-617-776-2370, fax: 1-617-776-2271, [email protected] Web access and citation information This entire proceedings can also be viewed on the web at www.lingref.com. Each paper has a unique document # which can be added to citations to facilitate access. The document # should not replace the full citation. This paper can be cited as: Brito, José António, Gabriela Matos, and Fernanda Pratas. 2015. Comitative Coordination in Capeverdean. In Selected Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, ed. Ruth Kramer et al., 17-27. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. www.lingref.com, document #3123.