On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Dylan wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> The following example tripped me up in The Guardian today:
> 
> (1) Currently the annual bill stands at £7.2bn and is rising
> 
> To me it's decidedly odd, but it seems syntactically well formed. Any 
> comments on the oddness, or do you find it completely unacceptable? It 
> seems to me that the semantic types of the verbs is crucial since:
 
I find it both syntactically and semantically well-formed.  These
sentences (" the temperature is rising" posed problems for
truth-functional-semantics logicians, and I remember Montague being
pleased with his solution (which I no longer remember) and an article
in LI by Barbara Partee explaining for linguists both why the sentences
were difficult semantically and something of the solution.  If you're
interested I might be able to find it.

> (2a) Currently the annual bill stands at £7.2bn and is holding (steady)
> (2b) Currently the annual bill stands at £7.2bn and holding (?steady)
> 
> are both fine (2a is better with _steady_, 2b slightly worse.)
 
I agree with both of your judgements here.  See below near the end.

> It led me to musing on the _... and V-ing_ construction....
> 
> Some observations.
> 
> O1) The _-ing_ 'part' expresses change (or explicit/implicit lack 
> thereof) in the measure.
> O2) An adverb makes the examples with BE much more acceptable (c.f. 2a.) 
> A GB/P&P derived approach would likely say that is a result of the fact 
> that the _-ing_ head must project in order to take a modifier but 
> cannot (or optionally doesn't) without the modifier.
> 
> The questions which come to mind are:
> 
> Q1) is the _V-ing_ actually verbal, or rather adjectival (surely not 
> nominal)? Indeed, is it really necessary to decide? Other (non _-ing_) 
> adjectives are generally not acceptable (unless, of course, the verb is 
> BE):
> 
> (3a) *Currently the annual bill stands at £7.2bn and excessive
> (3b) Currently the annual bill is £7.2bn and excessive
> 
> Although (3b) is marginal, I feel.
 
Again I agree with you.

> Q2) what status ('word class') might be applicable to AND (if any); and 
> if it is a coordinator, what is the _-ing_ form coordinated with? 
> Clearly there is no problem coordinating a V and Adj (ignoring the 
> alternative bracketing):
> 
> (4) The fire was {[burning brightly] and [very hot]}
 
Fine.

> but participles can't generally stand alone like this:
> 
> (5) David ran to the shop and (*0/was) panting
 
Agreed.

> In many cases, the issue doesn't seem to arise:
> 
> (6) The total is £7.2bn and rising
> 
> since the 'obvious' coordination analysis is completely suitable (and 
> most likely right.)
 
Yes.

> Q3) what word does the _-ing_ form depend on syntactically. Clearly its 
> semantic subject is the matrix subject (for the examples, at least) but 
> it would seem problematic if the _-ing_ form depended /syntactically/ 
> on the syntactic subject since this is not generally allowed for either 
> participles or adjectives uses: both depend on a verb in the usual case 
> (albeit a copular or aux.)
 
Isn't this why there is, at least for me, a clear contrast between (1)
and (2b)?  Note that (2b) probably is best analysed as having a "classical"
participial clause" (which is what may cause the coordination "blink" we
have).  Cf (2b'):

> (2b) Currently the annual bill stands at £7.2bn and holding (?steady)
(2b') Holding (steady), the annual bill currently stands at #7.2bn.

> I hope I've made sense so far - as usual my thought processes are 
> somewhat haphazard. Also, I hope I haven't made any errors or general 
> 'fact'. Still, mark it up as another in my growing collection of 
> oddities surrounding coordination...

Interesting data.

Chet