17. Conjunction‎ > ‎

17.5 Conjunction of unlike categories

By convention, a phrase containing the conjunction of two or more constituents has the same category as the first coordinate member.
(IP-MAT (NP-SBJ *pro*)
(TR-P Tenho)
(VB-PP andado)
(ADJP (ADJP (Q muito) (CODE ...))
(CONJP (CONJ e)
(PP (P com)
(NP (N tosse))))))...
(POST SCRIPTUM; ID CARDS0006,.2)

( (IP-MAT (CONJ E)
(NP-SBJ (PRO tu))
(VB-P deves)
(CP-THT (CP-THT (C que)
(IP-SUB (NP-SBJ (D o) (PRO$ teu) (N comportamento))
(SR-SP seja)
(CP-CMP (WADVP-1 0)
(C como)
(IP-SUB (ADVP-MSR *T*-1)
(PP (P de)
(NP (N pessoa)
(PP (P de)
(NP (N bem)))))))))
(CONJP (CONJ e)
(IP-INF (TR ter)
(NP-ACC (N paciência))))) ...
(POST SCRIPTUM; ID CARDS0018,.25))

( (IP-MAT (CONJ E)
(NP-SBJ (D o) (N padre))
(HV-D auia)
(IP-SMC (PP-ACC (P por)
(NP (N molher)))
(NP-SBJ (D-UM-F hũũa)
(N dona)
(ADJP (ADJP (Q muẏ) (ADJ-F fremosa))
(CONJP (CONJ e)
(PP (P de)
(NP (ADJP (ADV-R tam) (ADJ boo))
(N doairo)
(CP-DEG (C que)
(IP-SUB (NP-SBJ (N mariuilha))
(SR-D era)))))))))
(WOCHWEL; ID JAR89,.101))

( (IP-MAT (ADVP (ADV Dentro)
(PP (P d@)
(NP (D @o) (N palácio))))
(NP-SBJ (D-F-P as)
(N-P preciosidades)
(PP (P de)
(NP (N arte))))
(SR-P são)
(ADJP (ADJP (ADJ-F-P maravilhosas))
(CONJP (CONJ e)
(PP (P sem)
(NP (N conto)))))
(PUNC .))
(TYCHO BRAHE; ID O_001_PSD,128.1305))

( (IP_MAT (VB_P Ajunto)
(PP (P a@)
(NP (D_F_P @as) (VB_AN_F_P sobreditas) (N_P notícias)))
(NP-ACC (OUTRO_F outra)
(ADJP (ADJP (ADV_R mais) (ADJ_F específica))
(CONJP (CONJ e)
(CP_REL (WNP-2 (WPRO que))
(PUNC ,)
(IP_SUB (NP-SBJ *T*-2)
(PP (P por)
(NP (D_F esta) (N razão)))
(PUNC ,)
(NP-1 (SE se))
(VB_P representa)
(PP (P a@)
(NP (D_P @os) (N_P ânimos)))
(IP-SMC (NP-SBJ *-1)
(ADJP (ADV_R mais) (ADJ_F horrorosa))))))))
(PUNC .))
(TYCHO BRAHE; ID B_003,166.2342))
Conjunction of possessive and PP The conjunction of a possessive and a PP, such as the one illustrated in (1), is treated as a case of conjunction of unlike categories and not as a case of ellipsis.
    (1) Adoro o teu cão e da Maria.
By default, the category enclosing the entire conjunction structure is that of the first conjunct, which in this case corresponds to an NP.
( (IP-MAT (NP-SBJ *pro*)
(ADVP (Q Muito))
(VB-D estimei)
(NP-ACC (NP (N-P novas) (PRO$-F-P vossas))
(CONJP (CONJ e)
(PP (P de@)
(NP (D-P @esses) (N menino))))
(CONJP (CONJ e)
(PP (P de@)
(NP (D-F @a) (PRO$-F nossa) (N velha))))
(CONJP (CONJ e)
(PP (P de)
(NP (PRO$-F vossa) (N mãe)))))
(. .))
(POST SCRIPTUM; ID CARDS4031,.1))

(...)
(IP-SUB (NP-SBJ (D o) (ADJ mesmo) (N padre))
(VB-P comunica)
(NP-ACC (NP (D-P os)
(PRO$-P vossos)
(N-P delírios))
(CONJP (CONJ e)
(PP (P de)
(NP (OUTRO-P outros)
(, ,)
(PP (ADV também)
(P de@)
(NP (D-F @a) (PRO$-F vossa) (N religião)))))))))))
(. .))
(POST SCRIPTUM; ID CARDS0039,.9))
Conjunction of clitics and PPs The conjunction of a clitic and a PP, such as the one illustrated in (2), is treated as a case of conjunction of unlike categories and not as a case of ellipsis.
    (2) Adoro-te e à Maria.
By default, the category enclosing the entire conjunction structure is that of the first conjunct, which in this case corresponds to an NP. To deal with this structure and clitic doubling in a similar way, CONJP is labelled with the dash tag -PRN.
( (IP-MAT (IP-MAT (NP-SBJ *pro*)
(VB-P Sei)
(, ,)
(ADVP (ADV porém))
(, ,)
(ADVP (ADV também))
(NP-ACC (D-F a)
(N razão)
(CP-REL (WPP-1 (P por)
(WNP (WPRO que)))
(IP-SUB (PP *T*-1)
(NP-SBJ *pro*)
(NP-ACC (NP (CL o))
(CONJP-PRN *ICH*-6))
(NEG não)
(VB-P prendem)
(, ,)
(CONJP-PRN-6 (CONJ e)
(PP (P a)
(NP (PRO ela)))))))))
[...]
(POST SCRIPTUM; ID CARDS0138,.13)

( (IP-MAT (NP-SBJ *pro*)
(NP-ADV (Q-F-P Muitas) (N-P vezes))
(, ,)
(CP-ADV (C quando)
(IP-SUB (NP-SBJ *pro*)
(ET-D estava)
(PP (P de)
(NP (N semana)))))
(, ,)
(NP-ACC (CL me)
(CONJP-PRN *ICH*-1))
(VB-D levava)
(, ,)
(CONJP-PRN-1 (CONJ e)
(PP (P a)
(NP (PRO$ meu) (N irmão))))
(, ,)
(PP (P a)
(NP (NPR Queluz)))
(. .))
(TYCHO BRAHE; ID A_003_PSD,05.31))
When two words that conjoin at the word level have different labels, a CONJP is added. In most cases of single-word conjunction, the difference between conjoining like and unlike categories is an artefact of our system of labelling rather than reflecting true conjunction of unlike categories.