Exceptive constructions. A Dependency-based Analysis

The goal of this paper is to provide a description of the syntax of exceptive constructions within a dependency framework. These constructions are introduced in English by the markers except, but, except for, apart from, other than, etc. Examining their syntactic properties across a variety of languages shows that they imply two main types of constructions: The paradigmatic - EC and the hypotactic - EC. The first type shares many properties with coordination, and it can be integrated into the paradigmatic lists/piles phenomena in which two segments of the utterance pile up on the same syntactic position and whose most famous case is coordination.


Introduction
The paper aims to discuss the syntax of the exceptive constructions (henceforth ECs) within a dependency framework and across a variety of languages. These constructions are introduced in English by the markers except, but, except for, apart from, other than, etc., as exemplified by (1): (1) a.
I want to clear all variables except one. (mathworks.com) b.
We talked about everything but mock trial. (nytimes.com) c.
Netflix operates pretty much everywhere in the world except for China. (shanghai.ist) d.
In many languages, exceptive markers are traditionally analyzed as a preposition in dictionaries and grammars. This is the case of but /except in English (Eastwood 1994(Eastwood /2002 and sauf /excepté in French (Grevisse & Goosse 2008). It is also the analysis that is used in the multilingual treebanks annotated corpus Universal Dependencies (hereafter UD): except (2a) and sauf (2b) are ADP and linked by the relation case 1 .
Indeed, the authors consider these analyses problematic. These markers, in their exceptive use, do not have the properties of prepositions but rather those of coordinating conjunctions, since they can be followed, in addition to NPs, by PPs (3a) or AdvPs (3b). Moreover, they commute with a coordinating conjunction like but (3c) or a paradigmatizing adverb (see Nølke, 1983) like even (3d).
These snakes are found everywhere in Florida except in the Keys. (news-press.com) b.
I'm here every day except when it's a holiday and they're closed. (katc.com) c.
These snakes are found everywhere in Florida but not in the Keys. d.
These snakes are found everywhere in Florida even in the Keys.
Based on a corpus of authentic examples collected from several sources (treebanks, corpora, web, etc.), the authors suggest a binary classification of exceptive constructions. While the first construction is called the paradigmatic-ECs 2 , which are syntactically related to coordination, the second is called the hypotactic-ECs, which are contrarily related to subordination. The authors tackle the exceptive markers in the paradigmatic use and analyze them as a particular case of paradigmatic lists/piles (Blanche-Benveniste 1990) in which two segments of the utterance pile up on the same syntactic position and whose most famous case is coordination.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the two common classes of ECs observed in English and in other languages, including French, Arabic, and Spanish, and exposes the criteria adopted for the classification of the data. Section 3 is dedicated to the analysis of the paradigmatic-ECs as a particular case of paradigmatic lists/piles; a generic notion that can subsume exception and coordination.

The two common types of exceptive constructions in English and other languages
In this section, the two common classes of ECs observed in English and other languages are presented. In the literature on exception, a binary classification of ECs in English has been identified since Hoeksema (1987Hoeksema ( , 1995: connected exceptives and free exceptives. This classification has been adopted in other languages, e.g. Spanish (Perez-Jimenéz & Mareno-Quibén, 2012) and Egyptian Arabic (Soltan, 2016). The two types are canonically illustrated in English in (4).
(4) a. Every day but/except Sunday it was raining.
b. Except for Sunday, it was raining every day. (Hoeksema, 1987, p. 100) The study adopts the term exceptive phrase (hereafter EP) to refer to the group consisting of an exceptive marker and a following XP such as except Sunday in the example (4a). Furthermore, the NP that an exception relates to every day is called antecedent, while the XP argument of the exceptive marker Sunday is be referred to as the excepted element.
Many authors, in the literature on exception, postulate that, on the one hand, the EP in the connected exceptives is associated with an NP that must contain a universal quantifier and that, on the other hand, the free exceptives are compatibles with non-universal quantifiers such as most, many and few, quasi-universal like the majority, as well as generic sentences. Note that, on the basis of attested data, this characterization is rejected in English (cf. García Álvarez, 2008) 3 , in French (cf. Galal & Kahane, 2018) 4 and in Arabic (cf. Galal, 2019) 5 . The universal quantifiers are not the only ones possible in the connected exceptives. Quantifiers such as most, many and few are also possible 6 .
Furthermore, the authors of this paper prefer to use the terms paradigmatic-ECs and hypotactic-ECs to connected exceptives and free exceptive because the term connected belong to English but-phrase that can only occur in contiguous position relative to the antecedent (García Álvarez, 2008, p. 113). On the contrary, the EP introduced by except in English, sauf/excepté in French and ʾillā in Arabic can occur in noncontiguous positions, as shown below.
2 Paradigmatic vs syntagmatic and hypotactic vs paratactic are generally opposed. As Blanche-Benveniste (1990) has pointed out, paradigmatic constructions are also syntagmatic, since the conjuncts maintain both a paradigmatic relationship (possibility of commuting with each other) and a syntagmatic relationship (they can combine with each other). Moreover, it is not a paratactic construction, since the construction has a clearly identifiable marker (except, sauf, ʾillā, etc.). 3 (i) a. Kate is an actress who has played many roles except that of a real woman.
b. Karadzic is a moderate man in most things but politics. (García Álvarez, 2008, p.13, 114)  The classification is based on strictly syntactic criteria: (i) The linear position of the exceptive phrase, (ii) the syntactic category of the excepted element and (iii) the possibility or not to coordinate the EP.
The paradigmatic-ECs are introduced in English by the items but and except; while the hypotactic-ECs are introduced by the lexical units except for, apart from, other than, etc.

The linear position of the exceptive phrase
The EP in the paradigmatic-ECs allows only two positions. While the first position is adjacent to the antecedent (5a), the second is at the right periphery either adjacent (5b) or nonadjacent to the antecedent (5c).
Everything was great, except the weather. (tripadvisor.com) The EP in the paradigmatic-ECs is not allow to be before the antecedent and particularly in the fronted position (6a). It does not also accept to be noncontiguous without being at the right periphery (6b).
*Except the weather, everything was great. b.
*Everything was, except the weather, great.
The hypotactic-ECs behave differently. These constructions allow the abovementioned two syntactical positions. They can be adjacent to the antecedent (7a), postposed in a position either contiguous (7b) or noncontiguous (7c). They also, unlike the paradigmatic-ECs, allow the fronted position (7d) and the insertion in the VP (7e). Extreme right is gaining ground in all of Europe, except for Wallonia. (brusselstimes.com) c.
Everything is right except for the Price. (seekingalpha.com) d.
No one was, except for the man who played him, Marion Morrison. An actor and man with true grit. (manchesterinklink.com)

The syntactic categories of the excepted element
In this section, the possibilities of the connection between the markers and the different syntactic categories of the excepted element are presented. The examination of naturally occurring data shows that the exceptive markers in the paradigmatic-EC can be combined with constituents of different parts of the speech. They can be combined with NPs, as shown in the example below, but more interestingly is that they can be followed by a PP (8a) or an AdvP (8b).
(8) a. The prison has closed-circuit cameras in every corner except in her cell. (The New York Times) b.
Lorraine Bower is just a regular graduate student, except when she's in her Army uniform. (The Daily Orange) 7 On the contrary, the exceptive markers in the hypotactic-ECs can only be combined with an NP (9a vs b).
(9) a. I agree with everybody except with John. b.
*I agree with everybody except for with John.

The possibility or not to coordinate the sequence introduced by the markers
In the corpus, the authors have not found occurrences introduced by but/except in English, by sauf/excepté in French and by 'illā in Arabic where the EP presents the possibility to coordinate, like in the constructed example (10a). On the contrary, the exceptive markers in the hypotactic-ECs allow the repetition before each coordinated phrase (10b).
(10) a. *I will be there every day but/except Monday and but/except Tuesday. b.
The incidence of cancer (except for cervical cancer, and except for the north-eastern state of Mizoram) is much lower than that in countries that can be said to be in a similar epidemiological transition as India […] (thelancet.com).

The analysis of the paradigmatic-ECs as a case of paradigmatic lists/piles constructions
The syntactic behavior of the paradigmatic-ECs testifies that these constructions behave very similarly as coordination.
The fact that exception is not coordination necessarily leads the authors to introduce a notion that subsumes exception and coordination. This notion is the paradigmatic lists/piles, constructions in which two segments of the utterance pile up on the same syntactic position and whose most famous case is coordination along with other phenomena like reformulation (Blanche- Benveniste, 1990;Gerdes & Kahane, 2009;Nølke, 1983). Exception can be, therefore, analyzed in the same way as coordination.
In the UD annotation scheme, the coordination is encoded by the relation conj between the two conjuncts and a relation cc from the second conjunct to the coordinating conjunction (CCONJ). The study uses the relation conj for all paradigmatic relations and indicates that it is a coordination or an exception by an extension to the label: conj:coord for coordination and conj:except for exception 8 .

(11)
In this construction, the EP forms a phrase with its antecedent because the EP must always be after the antecedent, but it is not necessarily contiguous to it. It must be noted that this also arises with coordination, such as the French example (12) in which the second conjunct is placed in a postponed position of the statement, without being adjacent to the first conjunct, even if it is much more common and grammaticalized with paradigmatic-ECs. This is a special case of extraposed complement (Botalla, 2019).
(12) Cela vient de l'école, ici, on est puni si on coupe la parole à un camarade. Et d'une tradition rurale encore très forte. ( When a coordination phrase is discontinuous, the second conjunct is systematically rejected at the right periphery, forming a new illocutionary unit. In other words, the discontinuity of ECs, as illustrated by (13), does not invalidate their analysis as paradigmatic constructions.

(13)
The ECs can occur without the explicit presence of the antecedent, especially in the case where the excepted element fulfills the function of an adverbial clause, such as in example (8) above. This property does not distinguish between paradigmatic-EC and coordination. The absence of a first conjunct also occurs with coordination. The coordination with and and but also may have no antecedent (Gerdes & Kahane, 2009): He speaks French and well. b.
He speaks English, but badly.
In these examples, there is a coordination with two illocutionary units (Gerdes & Kahane, 2015, p. 109). In (14a), the speaker makes two assertions: 'he speaks French' and 'he speaks French well'.
Note that the analysis of the exceptive markers as coordinating conjunctions in this paper is supported by argumentations similar to the ones made in English by Harris (1982), Reinhart (1991), andGarcía Álvarez (2008), in Spanish by Perez-Jimenéz & Mareno-Quibén (2012), and in Egyptian Arabic by Soltan (2016). Nevertheless, none of them introduce the concept of paradigmatic construction and properly explain the link between exception and coordination.
For the hypotactic-ECs, the EP has a much freer order and is not necessarily contiguous to the antecedent. Thus, it is no longer possible to consider that it forms a phrase with its antecedent. We consider that the EP is a PP modifying the main verb. The marker except for is analyzed as an idiomatic adposition (marked with the link fixed in UD, except and for keep their POS, the POS of the idiom does not appear, but the relation case indicates that it is analyzed as an adposition) 9 . (15)

The third type of exceptive constructions in Arabic: Paratactic-ECs
In Modern Standard Arabic, there is a problem concerning the analysis of the EC introduced by 'illā + ACC as a paradigmatic list construction. According to the grammatical system of Arabic, the NP that follows 'illā in affirmative ECs systematically takes the accusative case whatever the case of its antecedent. In negative ECs, either it takes the accusative case, or it takes the same case as the one assigned to its antecedent. This accusative case goes against the analysis of this construction as a paradigmatic construction and of 'illā as a coordinating conjunction, since in a coordinating construction the two conjuncts usually carry the same grammatical case. It also goes against the analysis of 'illā as a preposition because, in Arabic, prepositions are always followed by the genitive, while the accusative is used for direct objects of verbs.
In fact, the identification of the governor of this accusative case in the NP followed by 'illā in the affirmative construction has been the subject of vivid debates between Arabic grammarians since the eighth century. Eight different analyses have been suggested by the ancient Arab grammarians. One of them is proposed by the grammarians of the Koufa School in the ninth century (Al-Anbary, XII e [1961, p. 261]) considering that the particle 'illā itself which imposes the accusative case on its complement. According to this analysis, 'illā replaces an ellipsed verb meaning 'astaṯnī ‫أستثني(‬ 'I except/I make the exception') (16). This analysis, therefore, considers the EC as a binary construction formed of two juxtaposed clauses. The authors argue that the construction 'illā + ACC is a paratactic construction that is common in Arabic, where two clauses are juxtaposed and form a unique illocutionary unit (17).

(17)
‫على‬ ‫(رأي‬ ‫يلعبون)‬ َ ‫األوالد‬ raʾa ʿaliyy-u-n al-ʾawlād-a yalʿab-ūna see.PAST.3SG Ali-NOM-INDEF DEF.children.PL-ACC play.PRES.3PL Lit. Ali saw the children they play 'Ali saw the children playing' In the 'illā + ACC construction, the EP must be at the right periphery (which is the canonical position of paratactic clause). It does not allow either the fronted position (18) or the position contiguous to its antecedent but in fronted position relative to the verb (19a vs b).