synt-progovac 27. 9. 02 CORRELATIVE CONJUNCTIONS AND EVENTS. A REPLY TO A REPLY Ljiljana Progovac Abstract. Tsohatzidis (2001) attempts to ‘‘dispute the central thesis’’ of Progovac 1999 that correlative both induces a multiple-event interpretation whereas noncorrelative counterparts are ambiguous or vague between single-event and multiple-event readings. As far as I can see, there can be three types of counterexamples to Progovac: (i) noncorrelative constructions necessarily involving multiple-event interpretations (with no independent factor excluding single-event interpretations); (ii) correlative coordination involving single-event interpretations; and (iii) pairs in which noncorrelative coordination permits multiple-event interpretation but the correlative counterparts only have single-event interpretation. The alleged counterexamples offered in Tsohatzidis are only of types (i) and (ii). On closer inspection, it turns out that the alleged type (i) counterexamples are not true counterexamples because they involve an independent factor, and that the alleged type (ii) counterexamples can be analyzed as involving multiple events. Tsohatzidis’s attempt to dispute the claim in Progovac thus fails. 1. Introduction Although Tsohatzidis (2001) (henceforth Tsohatzidis), by the author’s own claim, does not attempt to provide an alternative analysis of the data discussed in Progovac 1999 (henceforth Progovac), the paper does attempt to find counterexamples to the central claim in Progovac. The present reply demonstrates that the attempt to find counterexamples is unsuccessful, and in so doing, it sharpens and strengthens the proposal in Progovac. The central claim of Progovac is that the reinforcement of the conjunction and with the correlative both has a precise and consistent semantic effect on the event structure: assignment of two separate (h) roles to the conjuncts, hence giving rise to the interpretation of two grammatically encoded events/ states. Thus, (1) is ambiguous, vague, or unspecified between two interpretations: a group interpretation, on which Mary and Peter contributed one single bottle of wine together (one event); and a distributed interpretation, on which each person contributed a bottle of wine separately (two events). In contrast, the sentence in (2) only has the latter, two-event reading. (1) Maria and Peter will bring a bottle of wine. (2) Both Maria and Peter will bring a bottle of wine. Syntax 5:3, December 2002, 277–283 ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA * My sincere thanks go to the two anonymous reviewers and to the editors for most helpful suggestions.