Plural Comitative Constructions in Polish
Beata Trawiński
Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen
Sonderforschungsbereich 441
Nauklerstraße 35
D-72074 Tübingen
trawinski@sfs.uni-tuebingen.de
1 Introduction
This paper deals with Polish comitative construc-
tions (CCs) involving the preposition z ‘with’, as ap-
pears in (1).
(1) Jan z Maria˛ odjechali.
Jan.NOM with Maria.INSTR left.PLUR
‘Jan and Maria left.’
The CC in (1) consists of the nominative singular
NP Jan and the z-PP, and combines with the plural
predicate. Because of the plural agreement, we will
refer to this type of CC as the plural comitative con-
struction (PCC).1
PCCs have previously been treated by linguists in
terms of coordination2 (cf. (Vassilieva and Larson,
2001) for corresponding Russian expressions and
(Dyła, 1988) and Dyła and Feldman (to appear) for
Polish), complementation (cf. (Feldman, 2002) and
Dyła and Feldman (to appear) for Russian) and ad-
junction (cf. (McNally, 1993) and (Ionin and Ma-
tushansky, 2002) for Russian). However, most of
these analyses remain problematic in some respects.
For example, the analysis of (Vassilieva and Larson,
2001) fails to explain the case assignment on the sec-
ond NP, cannot rule out the ungrammatical inversion
of the first and the second NPs and cannot account
1
Note that CCs in Polish, as well as in many other languages,
can also involve singular agreement on the verb. The treatment
of CCs with singular agreement on the verb seems relatively
straightforward. However, this is not the case for PCCs. There-
fore, PPCs will be the exclusive focus of this paper.
2
Note, however, that there has been no uniform treatment
of coordination. Thus, coordination might correspond to other
syntactic structures, such as adjunction, depending on the anal-
ysis used.
for grammatical structures involving a conjunction.
The approach of (Dyła, 1988) and Dyła and Feldman
(to appear) cannot prohibit the inversion of the first
and the second NPs, nor ungrammatical iteration. In
addition, it is both conceptually and formally incom-
patible with HPSG, which provides the underlying
grammatical framework. (Feldman, 2002) analyzes
the Russian comitative preposition s ‘with’ as a noun
which selects two complements. However, by treat-
ing s ‘with’ as a noun, neither the vocality alterna-
tion (cf. s vs. so), which is typical for prepositions
but not for nouns, nor the modification by the adverb
vmeste ‘together’, can be explained.
This paper offers an HPSG adjunction-based anal-
ysis of PCCs that accounts for their syntactic, se-
mantic and pragmatic properties by providing a spe-
cial lexical entry for the preposition z. Conse-
quently, no additional constraints on phrase struc-
ture or semantic constraints will be needed in order
to license PCC.
In the following section we will present the re-
sults of an examination of PCCs with respect to var-
ious linguistic phenomena such as number and gen-
der resolution, control phenomena, distributivity, ex-
traction, case assignment, iteration, recursion and
pro-drop phenomena. The aim of our tests was to
provide an empirical basis for generalizations about
the syntactic and semantic properties of PCCs. At
the same time, we have investigated coordinate, ad-
junct and complement structures with respect to the
same phenomena. The objective was to determine
which of these structures shares the most syntactic
135



word 

PHON  z  




    

 






prep   
 




PFORM z    









     


  






HEAD noun    



CAT    

VAL  COMPS   



HEAD   







MOD : LOC nom-obj  
 



        







CONT
INDEX 1  
 



3     

RESTR 2 
INSTANCE 1  



  




     


CAT
  





HEAD noun   
 



 





CASE instr     



   $



SPR    



CAT     



  



SYNS
LOC



VAL  SUBJ     
 


VAL  COMPS  LOC COMPS     




 

npro 


 

    


 4   




CONT
INDEX 
 






RESTR 5 
INSTANCE 4    6  
 


 


 





npro  
 


 
PERSON 3rd
INDEX 
NUMBER plur 
CONT
   
  conjoin-rel  
RESTR 2  5 ! 
CONJUNCTS  1 , 4 
#"

$
 6 neset % 3 neset   6 eset % 3 eset 

Figure 1: The relevant part of the lexical entry of the preposition z ‘with’

and semantic properties with the PPC. 3 initeness, number or restrictiveness of the NPs in-
volved.
2 Results of the Empirical Observations In the next section we will provide our HPSG
analysis for PCC in Polish.
Based on a number of linguistic tests, we have been
able to observe that PCCs behave in the same way as
3 The Analysis
does ordinary coordination with regard to number
resolution, gender resolution, control of pronouns, We have adopted the proposal by (McNally, 1993),
PRO subjects and distributive interpretation. How- thereby treating PCCs as adjunct-structures. 4 The
ever, with respect to case assignment and the gram- core component of our analysis is the lexical entry
matical category of the constituents involved, PCCs for the preposition z in Figure 1.
share its properties with both NP-adjuncts and NP- The lexical entry in Figure 1 licenses the prepo-
complements. Since PCCs also show the same be- sition z ‘with’, which selects one non-pronominal
havior as NP-adjuncts with respect to the control of complement and modifies an NP. In this respect, the
pronouns within z-PPs, the occurrence of pronouns description in Figure 1 does not differ from descrip-
within PCCs, iteration, and recursion, we consider tions of other modifying prepositions. However, the
it plausible to analyze PPCs syntactically as an in- CONTENT value in Figure 1 differs from that of or-
stance of adjunction. dinary modifying prepositions. The value of the at-
Based on these empirical observations, two gener- tribute CONTENT is a nominal object of the usual
alizations can be made: (1) PCCs share their seman- form. Note that the NUMBER value is assumed to
tic properties with ordinary coordination, (2) PCCs be plural. The GENDER value depends on the GEN -
share their syntactic properties NP-adjunction. Fur- DER values of the selected NP and the modified NP.
thermore, PCCs show several idiosyncratic features, Since PCCs show the same gender resolution pattern
e.g., with respect to the distribution of pronouns as coordination, we assume that PCCs are subject of
within PCCs, or concerning requirements for def-
4
Note that (McNally, 1993) has not provided a description
3
In the full version of the paper, we will provide appropriate of gender and number resolution, or of any control-related phe-
examples for each of the tests. nomena.

136
 PHON & Jan, z, Maria˛ '

 CAT | HEAD 1
SYNS  LOC 
CONT 2 ( 

. 1

PHON & Jan ' PHON & z, Maria˛ ' 

 CAT | HEAD 1 noun HEAD 5

SYNS 4  LOC 
CONT | INDEX 3 | GENDER virile (   CAT  MOD : 4 
SYNS
LOC

VAL | COMPS & '

0
CONT 2

. /

PHON & z'  PHON & Maria˛ '

   



HEAD 5 prep    HEAD noun

CAT instr 



MOD : 4    SYNS 6  LOC  CASE
CAT
7 | GENDER fem 



   CONT | INDEX 



VAL | COMPS ) 6 *    

SYNS LOC NUM plur
INDEX  PER 3rd
GEND virile 
   CONT 2     
conjoin-rel
RESTR +  
CONJUNCTS 3 , 7  -,

Figure 2: The structure of the PCC Jan z Maria˛ ‘Jan and Mary’

general constraints on gender resolution. set in the semantic representation of the preposition
The RESTR feature of the preposition z ‘with’ pro- z ‘with’ contains the index values of the selected and
vides information on the relation between the object the modified NPs. This reflects the fact that the both
denoted by the selected NP and the object denoted NPs are interpreted as conjuncts.
by the modified NP. This involves a conjoin relation. Note that z provides its own INDEX value, which
The value of the CONJUNCTS feature, which is ap- percolates to the mother node according to the com-
propriate for the sort conjoin-rel, is a set of index mon semantics principle of HPSG in the tradition of
objects identified as the INDEX values of the modi- (Pollard and Sag, 1994). Thus, the entire PCC can
fied and the selected NPs. Note that the proposed ar- control third person plural virile pronouns as well as
chitecture of the CONTENT value of the preposition PRO subjects.
z ‘with’ which occurs in PCCs makes it possible to
account for a distributive and collective reading of 4 Summary and Outlook
PCCs.5
The last two conjuncts of the description in Fig- We have provided a lexicalist analysis of Polish
ure 1 ensure that the selected NP and the modified PCCs assuming PCCs are head-adjunct-structures.
NP are either both modified or both not modified. In our future work, we will examine whether other
PCCs require the same level of modification from types of CCs in Polish involving the preposition z,
both constituents. However, an additional constraint such as plural pronoun CCs (cf. (2) with the plural
is needed which will ensure that the complement NP pronoun my ‘we’) and verb-coded CCs (cf. (2) with
and the modified NP agree with respect to definite- pro), can be described in a similar way. 6
ness. 6
As indicated by R1-R3, the CC in (2) has three possible in-
The structure in Figure 2 describes the PCC Jan terpretations. According to the first interpretation (see the trans-
z Maria˛ ‘Jan and Mary’, using the lexical entry in lation R1), the first person plural pronoun my (‘we’) and pro de-
note a set of individuals including the speaker but not including
Figure 1. the individual denoted by the NP selected by the preposition
By virtue of the description in Figure 1, the prepo- z, that is, Maria. In contrast, the meaning of the pronoun my
sition z selects first the non-pronominal NP Maria˛ as (‘we’) and pro according to the interpretation indicated by the
translation R2, includes both the denotation of Maria and the
its complement, assigning to it the instrumental case. speaker. It does not include any further individuals, and thus
Then z combines with the NP Jan. The CONJUNCTS carries the meaning Maria and I. Finally, the pronoun my (‘we’)
and pro according to the third interpretation (see the translation
5
For more details on a collective and distributive reading as- R3) refer to a set of individuals including the speaker, the in-
sociated with (Russian) comitative constructions see (Dalrym- dividual denoted by the argument of z, i.e., Maria, and some
ple et al., 1998). further individuals.

137
(2) My / pro z Maria˛ odjechaliśmy.
we / pro with Maria left
R1: ‘We left with Maria.’
R2: ‘Maria and I left.’
R3: ‘Maria and the rest of us left.’

We will attempt to provide a uniform treatment of

all CC types in Polish that can license each of the
interpretations indicated in R1-R3 and that accounts
for the idiosyncratic properties of CCs.

References
Mary Dalrymple, Irene Hayrapetian, and Tracy Holloway
King. 1998. The Semantics of the Russian Comitative
Construction. Natural Language and Linguistic The-
ory, 16:597–631.
Stefan Dyła and Anna Feldman. to appear. On Comi-
tative Constructions in Polish and Russian. In Pro-
ceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Formal
Description of Slavic Languages, Lepizig.
Stefan Dyła. 1988. Quasi-Comitative Coordination in
Polish. Linguistics, 26:383–414.
Anna Feldman. 2002. On NP-Coordination. In
Maaike Schoorlemmer Sergio Baauw, Mike Huiskes,
editor, Yearbook 2002, pages 39–67. Utrecht Institute
of Linguistics OTS.
Tania Ionin and Ora Matushansky. 2002. DPs with a
Twist: A Unified Analysis of Russian Comitatives. In
Proceedings of FASL 11, Amherst, MA.
Louise McNally. 1993. Comitative Coordination: A
Case Study in Group Formation. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory, 11:347–379.
Carl J. Pollard and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-
Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Maria B. Vassilieva and Richard K. Larson. 2001. The
Semantics of the Plural Pronoun Construction. In
R. Hastings, B. Jackson, and Z. Zvolenszky, edi-
tors, Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory
(SALT) XI, Ithaca. CLC Publications, Dept. of Linguis-
tics, Cornell University.

138