If noun phrases are coordinated by means of the disjunctive coordinator ofor and followed by a restrictive relative clause, ambiguity may arise between a coordinated and a non-coordinated antecedent reading. Whether ambiguity does indeed arise depends on the nature of the conjuncts: if the conjuncts share the same article, only the coordinated antecedent reading is available; if more articles are present, ambiguity may arise for some people. Of course, indefinite plurals are somewhat special in that they have articles that are phonetically empty.

When two elements are coordinated by ofor and followed by a non-restrictive relative clause, ambiguity may arise between a coordinated and a non-coordinated antecedent reading. As with restrictive relative clauses, the question of whether ambiguity actually arises depends on the nature of the two conjuncts: if the conjuncts share the same article, only the coordinated antecedent reading is available; if more articles are present, ambiguity arises. Indefinite plurals are somewhat special, since they have articles that are phonetically empty.

The availability of the inclusive (one-set) and exclusive (two-set) readings depends on the nature of the coordinated antecedent of the relative clause. First, consider example (479a), in which the antecedent is a definite coordinated noun phrase with a single article. In this example only the inclusive reading is possible, because we are dealing with a single DP and therefore there is only a single referent set. That exclusive óf cannot be used DP-internally is also clear from the fact, illustrated in (479b), that the use of the discontinuous disjunction óf ... óf ...either ... or ... leads to unacceptability.

Now compare example (479a) with example (480a), in which each conjunct is associated with its own article. The preferred reading for this (marked) construction is the exclusive reading, which is consistent with the fact, illustrated by (480b), that the disjunctive coordinator can be replaced by the discontinuous disjunction of ... ófeither ... or, which clearly shows that exclusive óf can be used to coordinate DPs. If these examples are indeed grammatical, they are plausibly derived by backward conjunction reduction. Recall from Subsection I that it is actually the non-coordinated antecedent reading that is best.

For the coordinated definite singulars in (481a), the exclusive reading is also clearly preferred to the inclusive reading, although again it is the non-coordinated antecedent reading that is actually best. Note that, for convenience, we will no longer indicate the elided relative clause in the first conjunct.

Although, for reasons to be discussed in Subsection III, the inclusive reading is highly preferred in the case of coordinated indefinites, as in (482), the exclusive reading also seems marginally possible. On the first reading, the sentence expresses that there is a single antecedent set whose members are either boys or girls, and it is predicated of the members of this set who are late that they will be punished. On the second reading, there are two sets of people who are late, consisting of boys and girls respectively, and the sentence expresses that only the members of one of these sets will be punished. The ambiguity arises from the fact that the word order is compatible both with the assumption that of coordinates some noun phrase internal projection and with the assumption that it coordinates DPs.

Coordinated singulars with two indefinite articles behave in an essentially similar way to their plural counterparts. The only difference is that the sets in question consist of only one member: (483a) illustrates the inclusive reading, and (483b) the exclusive reading. The two coordinated definite singulars in (483a) form a one-member set interpretation with a generic reading: any pupil or student who has registered will get a complimentary ticket. In (483b), on the other hand, two one-member sets are coordinated, with the relative clause restricting both elements separately. However, the predication in the main clause applies to only one of these sets: “either a pupil who has enrolled will get the free ticket, or a student who has enrolled”.

Coordinated singulars with one indefinite article allow only the inclusive reading, which is clear from the fact that the disjunctive coordinator cannot be replaced by the discontinuous disjunction of ... ófeither ... or. In this respect, they behave like the coordinated plurals with a single definite article in (479). Note that some speakers may prefer the generic example in (484a) to the one in (483a).

The discussion above suggests that the exclusive (two-set) and inclusive (one-set) readings may involve coordination at different levels. The exclusive reading arises from the structure in (485a), which involves coordination at the level of DP and some form of backward conjunction reduction, whereas the inclusive reading involves coordination of projections within the noun phrase (NP or NumP); cf. Section 16.3.2.4.2, sub II, for a discussion of these analyses.

Ambiguity between the inclusive (one-set) and exclusive (two-set) readings can also arise in non-restrictive relative clause constructions. As in the case of restrictive relative clauses, the availability of the two readings depends on the nature of the coordinated antecedent of the relative clause. In the case of coordinated plurals with a single definite article, only the inclusive reading is available. As in the case of restrictive relative clauses, this is not surprising given that we are dealing with a single DP and hence there is only a single referent set. This is consistent with our earlier conclusion that exclusive óf cannot be used DP-internally, since the use of the discontinuous disjunction óf ... óf ...either ... or ... leads to unacceptability. Note that some speakers may find example (486a) with inclusive ofor marked compared to the corresponding construction with enand, which is more or less semantically equivalent.

Example (486a) contrasts sharply with (472a), repeated here as (487a), in which each conjunct is associated with its own article. The preferred reading of this example is the exclusive reading, which is shown by the fact that the disjunctive coordinator of can easily be replaced by the discontinuous disjunction óf ... ófeither ... or, as illustrated by (487b). We are dealing with two DPs, each referring to its own referent set, and the sentence expresses that a discount is given to the members of only one of the two sets, i.e. either to the students or to the pupils. The constructions with two definite singular elements in (488) also seem to favor the exclusive reading.

In the case of the coordinated indefinite plurals in (489), the inclusive reading is preferred to the exclusive reading, which is at best marginally possible. Example (489a) expresses that we are with a single set of students and pupils, all of whom receive a discount: in this reading it is possible to express contrast between the single coordinated antecedent set and some other set. Again, some speakers may find example (489a) with inclusive ofor marked compared to the corresponding construction with enand, which is more or less semantically equivalent.

Coordinated singulars with one article allow only the inclusive reading: it is claimed that anyone who is a student or a pupil gets a discount. That the exclusive reading is not possible is also clear from the fact that the disjunctive coordinator cannot be replaced by the discontinuous disjunction of ... ófeither ... or. The examples in (490) therefore behave like the coordinated plurals with a single definite article in (486).

On the other hand, when there are more articles, both the inclusive and the exclusive seem to be available. The preferred reading of (491a) is the same (generic) inclusive reading that we find in (490a), which may be the preferred form for some speakers. However, the exclusive reading also seems possible, according to which two singleton sets are coordinated, with the predication in the main clause applying to only one of these sets.

Although it is somewhat difficult to obtain reliable judgments, it seems that in the case of the inclusive reading in (491a) the finite verb of the relative clause can be either singular or plural. This is unexpected: since we are dealing with disjunctive coordination of two singular elements, we would expect the finite verb of the relative clause to be singular, just like the finite verb of the main clause. Note in this context that the possibility of adding the adverbial elements allebeiboth in (492) suggests that the plural form must indeed be considered acceptable.

Example (493) provides cases of coordinated plurals with a single definite article that allow only a coordinated antecedent reading. The use of the present tense in (493a) seems to favor a generic reading, but (493b), in which the finite verb of the relative is in the past tense, shows that these coordinated plurals can also be found in non-generic contexts. In this respect, the examples in (493) do not differ from examples without a coordinated antecedent: De jongens die te laat komen/kwamen worden gestraft.

The same holds for coordinated plurals with two definite articles in their inclusive reading: although the examples may be marginal for some speakers, example (494a) clearly prefers a generic interpretation, while (494a') has a non-generic interpretation. In the exclusive two-set reading, on the other hand, the generic interpretation seems to be blocked: both (494b) and (494b') are interpreted non-generically. This seems to be a more general property of sentences with exclusive disjunction. Recall that, for convenience, we no longer indicate the elided relative clause in the first conjunct.

The (a)-examples in (495) show that disjunctively coordinated indefinite plurals cannot be used in non-generic contexts on their (preferred) inclusive reading, and again we see that there is no difference in this respect with examples without a coordinated antecedent: Jongens die te laat komen/*kwamen worden gestraft. The (b)-examples in (495) with the (disfavored) exclusive reading are marginal at best: this follows from our earlier observations that exclusive óf triggers a non-generic reading and that indefinite plural subjects in examples such as (495) must be interpreted generically. These two requirements cannot be met simultaneously.

Example (496) provides cases of coordinated plurals with a single definite article, which allow only a coordinated antecedent reading. The use of the present tense in (496a) seems to favor a generic reading, but (496b) shows that these coordinated plurals can also be found in non-generic contexts.

In the case of (497) and (498), it is a bit more difficult to give reliable judgments because the inclusive reading is marked in the (a)-examples anyway. However, it seems that the generic and non-generic readings give more or less the same result. The exclusive reading in the (b)-examples is preferred: these do not allow a generic reading, which may be due to the fact that exclusive óf is not compatible with it.

Like all indefinite plurals, the coordinated indefinite plurals in (499a) must normally be interpreted generically. The markedness of (499b) is therefore due to the fact that exclusive óf is not compatible with this generic reading.

Example (500a) with coordinated indefinite singulars is also preferably interpreted generically. Example (500b), on the other hand, seems incompatible with this reading; the noun phrases are more likely to be interpreted as specific.

Noun phrases that differ in gender cannot form a coordinated antecedent of a restrictive relative clause because there will always be a mismatch between the relative pronoun and one of the conjuncts. In (501a&b), for example, the non-neuter pronoun diewho/that does not match the gender of the neuter noun meisjegirl, and the neuter relative pronoun datwho/that does not match the gender of the non-neuter noun jongenboy. Note that this gender distinction cannot be neutralized by using the plural relative pronoun diewho/that since this would create a mismatch in number with the full coordinated noun phrase; disjunctive coordination of singular noun phrases results in singular DPs. As a result, only the non-coordinated antecedent readings in the primed examples of (501) are acceptable.

The gender distinction in the pronoun is neutralized when the conjuncts are plural. As a result, the examples in (502) do allow for the coordinated antecedent reading: the two (a)-examples with indefinite conjuncts are both faultless; the same seems to hold for the (b)-examples, although we have seen that examples such as (502b) are rejected by some speakers.

Examples (468) and (470) from Subsection I have shown that coordinated constructions with one article allow only a coordinated antecedent reading. Since this reading is not available for constructions in which the singular elements differ in gender, we expect these constructions to be unacceptable on any reading. Example (503a) shows that this is indeed the case; of course, example (503b) is also ruled out by the fact that the non-neuter article de does not agree in gender with the neuter noun meisjegirl.

The examples in (504a&b) show that the coordinated antecedent reading is not available for disjunctively coordinated singulars of different genders in the case of non-restrictive relative clauses. The plural counterparts of these examples in (505a&b) are again acceptable.

Examples (475) and (477) in Subsection I have shown that coordinated constructions with one article allow only a coordinated antecedent reading. Since this reading is not available for constructions with two singular elements that differ in gender, we expect these constructions to be unacceptable on any reading. As shown in example (506), this turns out to be the case.

This subsection discusses cases in which the two conjuncts differ in number. We start with restrictive relative clauses. Disjunctive coordination is not possible when the coordinated noun phrases act as the subject of the clause. This has nothing to do with the presence of the relative, but with the fact, illustrated in (507), that the finite verb of the main clause must agree with both conjuncts. This is true regardless of the order of the conjuncts, although only one order is given here.

When the coordinated noun phrases act as the object of the clause and the relative pronoun as the subject of the relative clause, as in (508), the coordinated antecedent reading is blocked by the fact that the finite verb of the relative clause must agree in number with both elements of the coordination, thus requiring that these elements to have the same number. The primed examples show that a non-coordinated antecedent reading is possible, in which case the finite verb of the relative clause need only to agree with the second conjunct of the coordination.

When neither the antecedent nor the relative pronoun functions as subject, the coordinated antecedent reading seems acceptable, although finding the intended interpretation may sometimes be somewhat difficult. This is shown in (509a&b). The non-coordinated antecedent readings, given in (509a'&b'), are also acceptable.

Disjunctive coordination of a plural and a singular element modified by a non-restrictive relative clause produces results comparable to the constructions with restrictive relative clauses discussed in examples (508)-(509), although the acceptable constructions tend to be more marked; this is shown in (510).

In terms of definiteness, restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses follow the same pattern. When two disjunctively coordinated elements differ in definiteness, only the non-coordinated antecedent reading is possible. The coordinated antecedent reading is never possible. The examples in (511) and (512) show that this is true regardless of the function of the antecedent in the main clause or the order of the two elements.

The coordinated antecedent reading is only available in limited cases when the conjuncts are quantified. The examples in (513) and the primeless examples in (514) show that this reading is fully acceptable only when the two elements share the quantifier, in which case only the one-set reading is available. The primed examples in (514) show that the non-coordinated reading is possible if the conjuncts are quantified independently.

When a quantified and a non-quantified element are coordinated, the two elements cannot form one antecedent, as can be seen in examples (515a&b); these cases allow the non-coordinated antecedent reading only in the primed examples.

In the case of non-restrictive relativization the coordinated antecedent reading is also possible, although the possibilities are even more restricted than in the case of restrictive relativization. As pointed out in Section 16.3.2.4.2, sub VD, non-restrictive relative clauses are always somewhat marginal with many quantified antecedents. In (516) we therefore only give examples that allow modification by a non-restrictive relative clause. Example (516a) shows that a coordinated antecedent reading is only fully acceptable if the two elements share the quantifier, in which case we get the one-set reading. Examples (516b&c) show that combinations with different quantifiers exclude the coordinated antecedent reading, but do allow the non-coordinated antecedent reading, in which case we have a two-set reading.