---
title: "Noun-noun coordination in English and functional structure in the"
description: "This short theoretical paper (a squib) uses one corner of English syntax to weigh in on the NP-vs-DP debate, i.e. whether… 30 references."
authors: ["Andrew McInnerney"]
year: 2026
venue: "Glossa: a journal of general linguistics"
source: "https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/24173/"
doi: "10.16995/glossa.24173"
licence: "CC BY 4.0"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/mcinnerney-2026-noun-noun-coordination-english-functional/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/mcinnerney-2026-noun-noun-coordination-english-functional/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2026](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2026/page/43/) / Noun-noun coordination in English and functional structure in the nominal domain

# Noun-noun coordination in English and functional structure in the nominal domain

**Authors:** Andrew McInnerney · **Year:** 2026 · **Venue:** [Glossa: a journal of general linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/) ([Glossa a journal of general linguistics 2026](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/2026/)) · **Publisher:** [Ubiquity Press](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/ubiquity-press/) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.24173) · [PDF](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/24173/galley/44767/download) · [DOI 10.16995/glossa.24173](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.24173) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W7154893323)

**Citations:** 0 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14)

## Summary
This short theoretical paper (a squib) uses one corner of English syntax to weigh in on the NP-vs-DP debate, i.e. whether nominal phrases are headed by the noun or by functional heads above it. The phenomenon is the coordination of two bare singular count nouns, such as *brother and sister*. With ordinary determiners, these coordinations act plural. They take plural verb agreement, can be subjects of collective predicates, and can antecede plural pronouns and reciprocals. Yet they also combine with *each* and *every*, which reject morphological plurals, and then they require singular agreement. The author rules out ellipsis-based explanations and concludes that the coordination itself carries no number feature. Number must come from a separate functional head, a Num projection, above the coordinated NPs. On this view, *each/every* select a bare, numberless NP, and the singular form only looks like the bare form. The result supports positing functional structure in nominals. It holds under the assumption that English agreement is purely formal.

## Key points
- With determiners like *the/our/my*, noun-noun coordinations pass every plurality diagnostic tested: plural verb agreement, collective predicates (*met*, *are alike*), plural reflexives, and *each other*.
- With *each/every*, the same coordinations are acceptable and take only singular agreement (*Each man and woman is…*). Plural agreement is ungrammatical, and reciprocal predicates fail.
- Both conjunction-reduction and quantifier-deletion analyses are rejected. Coordinated full QPs (*each man and each woman*) permit plural agreement, but the noun-noun version does not.
- Proposed structure: [DP D [NumP Num(SG/PL) [NP NP and NP]]]. *Each/every* take a bare NP directly, and plural *-s* reflects Num PL. Joint-reading cases like *my spouse and best friend is* use Num SG.
- Rejected or deferred alternatives: a special coordination number feature (pl&) is called ad hoc, and an HPSG semantic-agreement account is left for future work. Other quantifiers (*no, neither, either, any*) need *or*, not *and*.

## Interesting ideas
- The number of "N and N" is decided by the determiner layer above the coordination, not by the conjunction itself, so a fixed rule like "coordination means plural" is wrong.
- Formal number marking and real-world plurality are separate quantities: *scissors* is plural in form but one object, and *my spouse and best friend is* names one person.
- *Every bone and joint* quantifies distributively over the members of both noun sets, not over a single group.
- The paper argues entirely through diagnostic minimal pairs (collective predicates, reflexives, reciprocals, agreement), each tested against singular, plural, and coordinated variants.
- Ellipsis explanations are tested by asking what agreement the supposed full form would allow and checking whether the surface form matches it.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (tree): Agreement-based consistency checks and repair rules should consult the determiner. *each/every* plus coordinated nouns should license a singular verb rather than flag an error.
- **I2** (world): Entity creation should count referents from meaning (a joint vs split reading) and treat verb agreement only as evidence. A singular verb after a coordination hints that both nouns may denote one entity.
- **I3** (world): When building quantified states, expand *each/every* + coordination into a distributive statement over the union of both classes. This blocks collective or reciprocal readings for such subjects.
- **I4** (learn): Turn these triples into a small negative-control test suite. It can check whether the parser and frame layers treat coordinations correctly in each determiner context.
- **I5** (back): When generating or compressing text, collapsing "each X and each Y" into "each X and Y" changes which verb forms and predicates are allowed. The generator should re-check agreement and reciprocals after such reductions.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [University of Michigan](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/university-of-michigan/) — University, Ann Arbor, United States · 86 works · 15,493 citations

📚 Shelves (5): [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 17,450 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 17,296 works · [💭 Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/) · 1,649 works · [💭 Experimental and Cognitive Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/experimental-and-cognitive-psychology/) · 930 works · [💭 Developmental and Educational Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/developmental-and-educational-psychology/) · 523 works

🧭 Topics (1): [English](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/english/) · 2,379 works

## Cite

Cite as: Andrew McInnerney. 2026. Noun-noun coordination in English and functional structure in the nominal domain. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@article{mcinnerney2026noun,
  title = {{Noun-noun coordination in English and functional structure in the nominal domain}},
  author = {Andrew McInnerney},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2026},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.24173},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.24173}
}
```

- [← previous Not Gemma at AR-MS NakbaNLP 2026: Mubsir OCR: End-to-End Recognition of Arabic Handwritten Text](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/ali-2026-not-gemma-ar-ms-nakbanlp/)
- [next → NoviceTrio in #SMM4H-HeaRD 2026: Hybrid Clinical Transformer Ensembles for Insomnia Detection and Evidence Extraction from Clinical Notes](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/naskar-2026-novicetrio-smm4h-heard-2026-hybrid/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2026](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2026/page/43/)

## References

30 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. MIT dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Abney%2C+Steven+P%2E+1987%2E+The+English+noun+phrase+in+its+sentential+aspect%2E+MIT+dissertation%2E)
2. Barrie, Michael & Li, Audrey & Wiltschko, Martina & Park, Jong Un. 2021. In defense of DP (or KP). Linguistic Research 38(2). 207–238. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Barrie%2C+Michael+%26+Li%2C+Audrey+%26+Wiltschko%2C+Martina+%26+Park%2C+Jong+Un%2E+2021%2E+In+defense+of+DP+%28or+KP%29%2E+Linguistic+Research+38%282%29%2E+207%E2%80%93238%2E)
3. Blümel, Andreas. 2024. Labeling Theory and the nominal phrase. In Lu, Jiayi & Petersen, Erika & Zaitsu, Anissa & Harizanov, Boris (eds.), Proceedings of the 40 th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 11–21. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bl%C3%BCmel%2C+Andreas%2E+2024%2E+Labeling+Theory+and+the+nominal+phrase%2E+In+Lu%2C+Jiayi+%26+Petersen%2C+Erika+%26+Zaitsu%2C+Anissa+%26+Harizanov%2C+Boris+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+the+40+th+West+Coast+Conference+on+Formal+Lingu)
4. Blümel, Andreas & Holler, Anke. 2022. DP, NP, or neither? Contours of an unresolved debate. Glossa 7(1). 153. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bl%C3%BCmel%2C+Andreas+%26+Holler%2C+Anke%2E+2022%2E+DP%2C+NP%2C+or+neither%3F+Contours+of+an+unresolved+debate%2E+Glossa+7%281%29%2E+153%2E)
5. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense volume 1: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263905.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263905.001.0001)
6. Bruening, Benjamin. 2020. The head of the nominal is N, not D: N-to-D movement, hybrid agreement, and conventionalized expressions. Glossa 5(1). 15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ gjgl.1031 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/)
7. Bruening, Benjamin & Dinh, Xuyen & Kim, Lan. 2018. Selection, idioms, and the structure of nominal phrases with and without classifiers. Glossa 3(1). 42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ gjgl.288 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/)
8. Champollion, Lucas & Krifka, Manfred. 2016. Mereology. In Dekker, Paul & Aloni, Maria (eds.), Cambridge handbook of semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139236157.014 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139236157.014)
9. Charnavel, Isabelle & Meadows, Tom & Sportiche, Dominique. 2024. Meaningful agreement features: Evidence from indexical binding. Presentation at the 55 th annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Charnavel%2C+Isabelle+%26+Meadows%2C+Tom+%26+Sportiche%2C+Dominique%2E+2024%2E+Meaningful+agreement+features%3A+Evidence+from+indexical+binding%2E+Presentation+at+the+55+th+annual+meeting+of+the+North+East+Linguistic+S)
10. Chomsky, Noam. 2019. The UCLA Lectures. [https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005485](https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005485) [↗](https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005485)
11. Citko, Barbara. 2018. Complementizer agreement with coordinated subjects in Polish. Glossa 3(1). 124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.588 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.588)
12. Conrod, Kirby. 2022. Abolishing gender on D. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 67(3). 216–241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2022.27 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2022.27)
13. Conrod, Kirby & Schultz, Ruth & Ahn, Byron. 2022. How many selves for them. In Bakay, Özge & Pratley, Breanna & Neu, Eva & Deal, Peyton (eds.), Proceedings of the 52 nd annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 177–186. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Conrod%2C+Kirby+%26+Schultz%2C+Ruth+%26+Ahn%2C+Byron%2E+2022%2E+How+many+selves+for+them%2E+In+Bakay%2C+%C3%96zge+%26+Pratley%2C+Breanna+%26+Neu%2C+Eva+%26+Deal%2C+Peyton+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+the+52+nd+annual+meeting+of+the+North+Eas)
14. Deal, Amy Rose. 2025. Current models of Agree. Berkeley Papers in Formal Linguistics 4(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5070/BF2.48662 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5070/bf2.48662)
15. Heycock, Caroline & Zamparelli, Roberto. 2005. Friends and colleagues: Plurality, coordination, and the structure of DP. Natural Language Semantics 13(3). 201–270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-004-2442-z Hoeksema, Jack. 1988. The semantics of non-Boolean “And”. Journal of Semantics 6. 19–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/6.1.19 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-004-2442-z)
16. Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001)
17. Ke, Alan Hezao. 2019. The syntax, semantics, and processing of agreement and binding grammatical illusions. University of Michigan dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ke%2C+Alan+Hezao%2E+2019%2E+The+syntax%2C+semantics%2C+and+processing+of+agreement+and+binding+grammatical+illusions%2E+University+of+Michigan+dissertation%2E)
18. Ke, Alan Hezao. 2022. Can Agree and Labeling be reduced to Minimal Search? Linguistic Inquiry 55(4). 849–870. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00481 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00481)
19. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5)
20. Krifka, Manfred & Modarresi, Fereshteh. 2024. Number agreement of coordinated subjects: Competing syntactic and semantic rules. In Zhang, Yao & Zhao, Fengyue Lisa & Cho, Youngdong & Wu, Yifan (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 34, 646–665. Lexington, KY: Linguistic Society of America. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/8r3erj03 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/8r3erj03)
21. Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Bäuerle, Rainer & Schwarze, Christoph & von Stechow, Arnim, (eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language, 302–323. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852820.302 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852820.302)
22. Murphy, Andrew & Puškar, Zorica. 2018. Closest conjunct agreement is an illusion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36(4). 1207–1261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9396-6 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9396-6)
23. Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Pollard%2C+Carl+%26+Sag%2C+Ivan+A%2E+1994%2E+Head%2Ddriven+phrase+structure+grammar%2E+Chicago%3A+University+of+Chicago+Press%2E)
24. Preminger, Omer. 2020. [Functional structure in the noun phrase: Revisiting Hebrew nominals](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/preminger-2020-functional-structure-noun-phrase-revisiting/). Glossa 5(1). 68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1244 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1244)
25. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1997. Slavic and the structure for coordination. In Lindseth, Martina & Franks, Steven (eds.), Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Indiana meeting 1996. 207–227. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Progovac%2C+Ljiljana%2E+1997%2E+Slavic+and+the+structure+for+coordination%2E+In+Lindseth%2C+Martina+%26+Franks%2C+Steven+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Annual+workshop+on+formal+approaches+to+Slavic+linguistics%3A+The+Indiana+meeting+1996%2E)
26. Queen, Robin & Kramer, Mathew & Cho, Jeonghwa & Boland, Julie E. 2024. Getting to know them: Effects of familiarity, identity, and modeling on the production of singular specific they. Language 100(4). 699–731. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2024.a947039 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2024.a947039)
27. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Rothstein, Susan D. (ed.), Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing, 37–62. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373198_004 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373198_004)
28. Salzmann, Martin. 2022. The NP vs. DP-debate and notions of headedness. In Freywald, Ulrike & Simon, Horst J. & Müller, Stefan (eds.), Headedness and/or grammatical anarchy?, 55–71. Berlin: Language Science Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Salzmann%2C+Martin%2E+2022%2E+The+NP+vs%2E+DP%2Ddebate+and+notions+of+headedness%2E+In+Freywald%2C+Ulrike+%26+Simon%2C+Horst+J%2E+%26+M%C3%BCller%2C+Stefan+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Headedness+and%2For+grammatical+anarchy%3F%2C+55%E2%80%9371%2E+Berlin%3A+Language+S)
29. Winter, Yoad. 1996. A unified semantic treatment of singular NP coordination. Linguistic and Philosophy 19(4). 337–391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630896 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00630896)
30. Zhang, Niina Ning. 2009. Coordination in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Zhang%2C+Niina+Ning%2E+2009%2E+Coordination+in+syntax%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)

*Updated 2 November 2026*