DOCSLIB.ORG

The Structure of Small Clause Predication

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Structure of Small Clause Predication 173 Azusa Yokogoshi The Structure of Small Clause Predication The Textual Functions of Their Heads Azusa YOKOGOSHI 1. Introduction The structure of small clauses, which are exemplified in the italicized portions of (1), has been one of the most controversial topics in generative grammar. (1) a. We consider Mary honest. b. We want Mary happy. Various analyses have been proposed for the structure of small clauses. It is widely assumed that small clauses have the same categorial status and internal architecture regardless of the matrix verbs selecting them. However, as recently discussed by Contreras (1995), Baker (1997), and Basilico (2003) among others, there is good reason to argue that the structure of small clauses should not be treated uniformly. However, their analyses differ considerably as to the classification of small clauses. Apparently, the matrix verbs in (1) seem to select small clauses with the same structure. As will be shown, however, small clauses selected by consider and want differ in their syntactic and semantic properties and therefore should be treated as having different structures. The verbs which behave like consider and want are given in (2a,b), respectively. (2) a. believe, consider, find, imagine, judge, perceive, prove, regard, suspect, take, ... b. expect, fear, hate, like, love, need, want, ... (cf. Declerck (1991)) The selection of small clauses of the matrix verbs is textual in the sense that it is determined not only by syntactic but also semantic factors.1 It will be argued that the 1 The concept of “text” would not only include discourse but also some other factors. Readers refer to Halliday (1978) as to the notion of text, although I would not strictly follow the framework of Halliday’s systemic functional grammar here. HERSETEC, 1, 1 (2007), 173–189 174 Azusa Yokogoshi categories of the small clauses in (1) are both Pred[ication] Phrases (PredPs) along the lines of Bowers (1993), but they involve different types of predicates: the small clause in (1a) involves an individual-level predicate (henceforth, ILP), whereas the one in (1b) a stage-level predicate (henceforth, SLP). In other words, there are two types of PredPs in English small clauses. There seems to be a kind of texture between the selecting verb and the predicate in the selected small clauses. The purpose of this paper is to explain the properties of small clauses and explore the textual relationships between small clauses and the matrix verbs selecting them. Our concern is mainly on syntactic and semantic texts surrounding small clauses, which are necessary in determining the types of PredPs. We also focus on the textual properties of the functional category Pred as the introducer of a subject-predicate relationship within small clauses. The organization of this paper is as follows. Section 2 overviews some properties of small clauses and examines several previous analyses of the structure of small clauses. Section 3 proposes different structures for small clause complements of consider-type verbs and want-type verbs. Section 4 extends the analysis proposed in section 3 to small clause complements of perception verbs. Section 5 is a conclusion. 2. Properties of Small Clauses and Previous Studies 2.1. Some Properties Let us begin with reviewing some properties of small clauses in English. As shown in (3) and (4), verbs like consider and want take various categories as the predicative phrases in their small clause complements. (3) a. I consider Mary intelligent. (AP) b. I consider Mary John’s best friend. (NP) c. I consider your son grown up. (VP) d. * I consider John off my ship. (PP) (Stowell (1981:259)) (4) a. * I want Mary intelligent. (AP) b. * I want Mary my best friend. (NP) c. I want this issue solved immediately. (VP) d. I want this sailor off my ship. (PP) Stowell (1981) argues that the categories of predicative phrases within small clauses depend on their matrix verbs, and therefore small clauses are maximal projections of their predicative phrases. As Kitagawa (1985) points out, however, that the categories of predicative phrases within small clauses depend on their matrix verbs is not correct. The examples in (5) and (6) show that the categories of predicative phrases are not relevant for the grammaticality of small clauses. The Structure of Small Clause Predication 175 (5) a. I consider Mary {honest/intelligent/*happy/*angry}. b. Unfortunately, our pilot considers that island off the route. (Kitagawa (1985:212)) c. * I consider John off my ship. (Stowell (1981:259)) d. We consider Mary our best friend. (6) a. We want Mary {happy/angry/*honest/*intelligent}. b. * I expect that island off the route. (Kitagawa (1985:212)) c. I expect that sailor off my ship by midnight. (ibid.:211) d. * We want Mary our best friend. It is indeed the case that properties of small clauses are determined by the matrix verbs selecting them, but what is important for the grammaticality of small clauses is not the categories, but the semantic types of their predicative phrases. Kitagawa claims that consider-type verbs s-select small clauses which express ‘state of affairs,’ while want-type verbs s-select small clauses which express ‘change of state.’ This would correctly capture the restrictions on the predicate types of small clauses observed in (5) and (6). However, Kitagawa’s analysis cannot account for the ungrammaticality of (7), where the small clause clearly denotes ‘change of state.’ (7) * I expect you an attorney by the end of the year. (cf. Contreras (1987:230)) On the other hand, Svenonius (1994) and Basilico (1997) argue that consider-type verbs select small clauses which involve ILPs, whereas want-type verbs select small clauses which involve SLPs.2 Various properties have been observed with respect to the two types of predicates since Carlson (1977), but the most fundamental difference is that SLPs denote temporary states/transitory relations, whereas ILPs denote more permanent properties. The examples in (8) and (9) illustrate the SLP/ILP distinction between small clause complements of consider-type verbs and want-type verbs. (8) a. The republics consider Zhirinovsky a threat. (Svenonius (1994:91)) b. We find him unbearable. (ibid.) c. They proved the allegations false. (ibid.) (9) a. Zhirinovsky wants reformers out of the parliament. (ibid.) b. We fear the rescue party lost in the mountains. (ibid.) c. She likes her eggs over-easy. (ibid.) As is obvious, the grammaticality of (3) – (7) can also be accounted for in terms of the 2 As pointed out by Heycock (1995) and Diesing (1992), the predicative phrase sick can be interpreted either as an ILP or an SLP. (i)? We consider Mary sick. This sentence turns out to be grammatical if sick is interpreted as an ILP meaning ‘insane’ or ‘crazy.’ It is also observed by Basilico (1997) that SLPs can express properties and behave like ILPs. The following example shows that visible can behave both as an SLP and an ILP. (ii) The visible stars are not visible tonight because it is cloudy. (Basilico (1997:288)) It seems reasonable to assume that the SLP/ILP interpretation is not determined solely by the predicate itself. But I will not pursue this matter further here. 176 Azusa Yokogoshi SLP/ILP distinction; especially, (7), which is problematic for Kitagawa’s (1985) analysis, is ungrammatical, simply because NP can only be an ILP. In addition to this semantic difference between small clauses selected by consider-type verbs and want-type verbs, there are some syntactic differences between the two types of small clauses. First, there is a difference in Condition C effects as illustrated in (10): small clause subjects of consider-type verbs cannot be coreferential with R-expressions contained in the matrix clause, whereas those of want-type verbs can. Second, (11) show that small clause subjects of consider-type verbs can be passivized, whereas those of want-type verbs cannot. Third, as the contrast between (12a) and (12b) shows, consider-type verbs do not allow topicalization of their small clause complements, while want-type verbs do.3 (10) Condition C effect a. * I consider him honest more cordially than John’s mother does. b. I wanted him dead more cordially than John’s mother did. (11) passivization a. John was considered smart. b. * John was wanted happy. (12) topicalization a. * The allegations false, they proved. (Svenonius (1994:93)) b. Dogs in the house, they hate. (ibid.:92) 2.2. Previous Analyses and their Problems There are a number of proposals which attempt to analyze properties of small clauses in terms of the assumption that the structure of small clauses is uniform regardless of the matrix verbs selecting them. For example, Contreras (1987) analyze small clauses as projections of their predicative phrases. Another line of approach pursued by Bowers (1993), and Starke (1995) among others, assumes that small clauses are headed by some functional category. The two kinds of approaches are roughly illustrated in (13) and (14), respectively. 3 As shown in (i) and (ii), the same is true of other movement operations like focalization, which are allowed only for small clause complements of want-type verbs. (i) it-cleft a. *It was Leslie in complete control of the situation that we believed. (Park (1997: 259)) b. It was Leslie in complete control of the situation that we feared most. (ibid.) (ii) pseudocleft a. *What I really consider is Mary loyal to her friend. (Svenonius (1994:93)) b. What I really want is that man off my ship. (ibid.:92) The Structure of Small Clause Predication 177 (13) Lexical Approach (14) Functional Approach Although such unitary approaches to small clauses might be preferred on the ground of theory-restrictiveness, it was observed above that small clause complements of consider-type verbs and want-type verbs show different properties, which cannot be easily accounted for under the assumption that they have the same structure.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Against Predp
    AGAINST PREDP ORA MATUSHANSKY SFL (CNRS/Université Paris-8)/UiL OTS/Utrecht University 1xxIntroduction Whereas Stowell 1981, 1983 analyzes small clauses (minimal units of predication) as maximal projections of the head of the predicate (i.e., as APs, PPs, etc.), Bowers 1993, 2001 argues that this is not enough and predication must be mediated by a functional head (Pred°), which has both a semantic and a syntactic function: (1) VP V° PredP = small clause consider DP Pred Marie Pred° AP ø proud of her work Bowers' motivation for this proposal was mostly theoretical, but some empirical evidence was also provided. However, as I will argue below, this conclusion, although widely accepted by now, is not, on closer examination, supported by linguistic evidence that has been adduced in its favor and theory-internal arguments for it either have become obsolete or may be counted by an alternative explanation. 2xxTheoretical Evidence for PredP The first, most frequently cited argument for the existence of a functional head in small clauses comes from coordination. While it is generally impossible to coordinate maximal projections of different lexical heads (a constraint from Chomsky 1957 that Williams 1981 terms the Law of Coordination of Likes), coordination of small-clause predicates is possible (Sag et al. 1985): 83 84 Matushansky (2) a. I consider Fred crazy and a fool. b. I consider Mary both shrewd and in the know. Bowers proposes that the Law of Coordination of Likes can be explained by the impossibility of assigning a label to the constituent formed by the coordination of projections of X° and Y°.
    [Show full text]
  • Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: a Case Study from Koro
    Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: A Case Study from Koro By Jessica Cleary-Kemp A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Associate Professor Lev D. Michael, Chair Assistant Professor Peter S. Jenks Professor William F. Hanks Summer 2015 © Copyright by Jessica Cleary-Kemp All Rights Reserved Abstract Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: A Case Study from Koro by Jessica Cleary-Kemp Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Associate Professor Lev D. Michael, Chair In this dissertation a methodology for identifying and analyzing serial verb constructions (SVCs) is developed, and its application is exemplified through an analysis of SVCs in Koro, an Oceanic language of Papua New Guinea. SVCs involve two main verbs that form a single predicate and share at least one of their arguments. In addition, they have shared values for tense, aspect, and mood, and they denote a single event. The unique syntactic and semantic properties of SVCs present a number of theoretical challenges, and thus they have invited great interest from syntacticians and typologists alike. But characterizing the nature of SVCs and making generalizations about the typology of serializing languages has proven difficult. There is still debate about both the surface properties of SVCs and their underlying syntactic structure. The current work addresses some of these issues by approaching serialization from two angles: the typological and the language-specific. On the typological front, it refines the definition of ‘SVC’ and develops a principled set of cross-linguistically applicable diagnostics.
    [Show full text]
  • Dative Constructions in Romance and Beyond
    Dative constructions in Romance and beyond Edited by Anna Pineda Jaume Mateu language Open Generative Syntax 7 science press Open Generative Syntax Editors: Elena Anagnostopoulou, Mark Baker, Roberta D’Alessandro, David Pesetsky, Susi Wurmbrand In this series: 1. Bailey, Laura R. & Michelle Sheehan (eds.). Order and structure in syntax I: Word order and syntactic structure. 2. Sheehan, Michelle & Laura R. Bailey (eds.). Order and structure in syntax II: Subjecthood and argument structure. 3. Bacskai­Atkari, Julia. Deletion phenomena in comparative constructions: English comparatives in a cross­linguistic perspective. 4. Franco, Ludovico, Mihaela Marchis Moreno & Matthew Reeve (eds.). Agreement, case and locality in the nominal and verbal domains. 5. Bross, Fabian. The clausal syntax of German Sign Language: A cartographic approach. 6. Smith, Peter W., Johannes Mursell & Katharina Hartmann (eds.). Agree to Agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Programme. 7. Pineda, Anna & Jaume Mateu (eds.). Dative constructions in Romance and beyond. ISSN: 2568­7336 Dative constructions in Romance and beyond Edited by Anna Pineda Jaume Mateu language science press Pineda, Anna & Jaume Mateu (eds.). 2020. Dative constructions in Romance and beyond (Open Generative Syntax 7). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/258 © 2020, the authors Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN: 978-3-96110-249-5 (Digital) 978-3-96110-250-1
    [Show full text]
  • William Snyder the Compounding Parameter (TCP)
    To appear in Violeta Demonte and Louise McNally (eds.) Telicity, Change, and State . Oxford: OUP. 1 PARAMETER THEORY AND MOTION PREDICATES William Snyder The Compounding Parameter (TCP) of (Snyder 1995, 2001) has been linked to a number of the same points of cross-linguistic variation that Leonard Talmy (1985, 1991, 2000) addresses in his well-known verb-framed / satellite-framed typology. Talmy differentiates between languages in which path-of-motion is normally encoded in the main verb of a clause ("verb-framed" languages), and those in which path-of-motion is more commonly expressed outside the verb ("satellite-framed" languages). Both the English type of verb-particle construction (where the particle can be separated from the verb by a phrasal constituent, as in Mary pulled the lid off ) and the English adjectival resultative construction ( John wiped the table clean ) have been argued to depend on the positive setting of TCP (e.g. Snyder 2001, Sugisaki & Isobe 2000); and both are typical of Talmy's satellite-framed languages (e.g. Talmy 1985:68,104). Likewise, researchers have argued that a spatial PP (such as under the bridge ) can convert a pure manner-of-motion activity predicate (Sue swam for/*in 15 minutes ) into an accomplishment ( Sue swam under the bridge in 15 minutes ) only in [+ TCP] languages (Beck & Snyder 2001, Gehrke 2008), and only in satellite-framed languages (cf. Aske 1989:6-7). This chapter examines the precise role of TCP in the linguistic expression of motion events. One of my central claims will be that TCP should be understood as the availability, or unavailability, of a specific rule of semantic composition, which I term To appear in Violeta Demonte and Louise McNally (eds.) Telicity, Change, and State .
    [Show full text]
  • MR Harley Miyagawa Syntax of Ditransitives
    Syntax of Ditransitives Heidi Harley and Shigeru Miyagawa (in press, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics) July 2016 Summary Keywords 1. Structure for the Two Internal Arguments 2. Underlying Order 3. Meaning Differences 4. Case, Clitic 5. The Structure of Ditransitives 6. Nominalization Asymmetries 6.1. A Morphological Account of the Nominalization Asymmetry 6.2. –kata Nominalization in Japanese and Myer’s Generalization 6.3 Selectional Accounts of the Nominalization Asymmetry 6.4 Applicative vs Small Clause Approaches to the DOC. 7. Constraints on the Dative/DOC Alternation 7.1 Morphological Constraints 7.2 Lexical Semantic Constraints 7.3 Information-Structural and Sentential Prosody Constraints 8. Overview and Prospects Further Reading References Summary Ditransitive predicates select for two internal arguments, and hence minimally entail the participation of three entities in the event described by the verb. Canonical ditranstive verbs include give, show and teach; in each case, the verb requires an Agent (a giver, shower or teacher, respectively), a Theme (the thing given, shown or taught) and a Goal (the recipient, viewer, or student). The property of requiring two internal arguments makes ditransitive verbs syntactically unique. Selection in generative grammar is often modelled as syntactic sisterhood, so ditranstive verbs immediately raise the question of whether a verb might have two sisters, requiring a ternary-branching structure, or whether one of the two internal arguments is not in a sisterhood relation with the verb. Another important property of English ditransitive constructions is the two syntactic structures associated with them. In the so-called “Double Object Construction”, or DOC, the Goal and Theme both are simple NPs and appear following the verb in the order V-Goal-Theme.
    [Show full text]
  • Exceptional Case Marking in Japanese and Optional Feature Transmission*
    EXCEPTIONAL CASE MARKING IN JAPANESE AND OPTIONAL FEATURE TRANSMISSION* Hajime Takeuchi Nanzan University 1. Introduction In this paper, I present an analysis of exceptional Case marking (ECM) in Japanese. A typical example is shown in (1). (1) a. Taroo-wa [Yuki-ga baka da to] omot-teiru. T-TOP [Y-NOM stupid COP COMP think-PROG ‘Taro thinks that Yuki is stupid.’ b. Taroo-wa [Yuki-o baka da to] omot-teiru [[ T-TOP [Y-ACC stupid COP COMP think-PROG ‘Taro thinks that Yuki is stupid.’ A certain class of verbs in Japanese takes a clausal complement with an overt complementizer, to, and the subject in the embedded clause can be marked with either nominative or accusative Case without any semantic difference. There are two major analyses for the Japanese ECM in the literature. One is the obligatory raising analysis initially proposed in Kuno (1976) and examined in detail in Authier (1991), Tanaka (1992), and Ura (1994). The other is the optional raising analysis discussed in Bruening (2001), Hiraiwa (2001, 2005) and Tanaka (2002). In this latter analysis, the accusative Case on the embedded subject is licensed via Agree. The proposal herein pursues the latter and aims for making it more precise. Crucial for the analysis presented in this paper is the proposal by Chomsky (2008) that a phase head transmits its features to its complement. Thus, C transmits its phi-features and edge feature (EF) to T, and only then does T become capable of licensing nominative Case. I argue that feature transmission (FT) is optional in certain limited cases, and that this makes * An earlier version of the material of this paper was presented in the 8th Workshop of the International Research Project on the Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition, held at Nanzan University in March, 2010 and in Generative Lyceum, held at Kwansei Gakuin University in May, 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Against the Predp Theory of Small Clauses Ora Matushansky
    Against the PredP Theory of Small Clauses Ora Matushansky Since Bowers 1993, it has been accepted that nonverbal small clauses are headed by a functional head, Pred0, whose function is to obligato- rily mediate all nonverbal predication. I argue against this hypothesis by critically reanalyzing the original syntactic arguments for PredP, examining possible semantic support for mediated predication, and reviewing the putative crosslinguistic evidence for overt equivalence of Pred0. I first demonstrate that the facts originally taken as motivating a functional head in small clauses can now be accounted for by inde- pendently needed assumptions. I then show that standard Montagovian semantics treating NPs, APs, and PPs as unsaturated functions requires no mediating projection and that suggested alternative meanings for Pred0 either fail or cannot be used as motivation for its existence. Finally, I provide evidence that the syntax of copular particles and other “overt predicators” is different from that expected of Pred0 in such ways that they cannot be taken as prima facie evidence for it either. I sketch an alternative theory linking the use of predicative particles to nominal predication and provide evidence for it from cross- linguistic lexicalization patterns of copular particles. In sum, neither theoretical nor empirical considerations require a mediating functional head in small clauses, and therefore the PredP hypothesis should be abandoned. Keywords: small clause, PredP, copular particles, predication, copulas 1 The Structure of the Small Clause: An Introduction Since Williams 1975 and Stowell 1981, 1983, it has been assumed that predication is possible in the absence of a verb in examples like (1a–c), but also those like (2a–b).
    [Show full text]
  • A Look at Tesniere's E19 Elements Through the Lens of Modern
    A Look at Tesnière’s Éléments through the Lens of Modern Syntactic Theory Timothy Osborne 615 6th Street Apt. 110 Kirkland, WA 98033 USA [email protected] Abstract nent theoretician to have rejected the binary di- vision of the clause into a subject and predicate A recent project to produce a much belated and to have replaced this division with verb cen- English translation of Lucien Tesnière’s trality. The placement of the verb as the root of Éléments de syntaxe structurale has provided all syntactic structure was the all-important nov- the opportunity for an in depth look at elty (and the main act of genius) in his theory. Tesnière’s theory of syntax. This contribu- Given verb centrality, the theory of syntax that tion examines a few aspects of Tesnière’s Tesnière was proposing could not help but be work through the lens of modern syntactic theory. Tesnière’s understandings of constit- construed as a DG. uents and phrases, auxiliary verbs, preposi- Despite the fact that Tesnière is widely tions, gapping, right node raising, proposi- acknowledged as the father of an entire stream tional infinitives, and exocentric structures of syntactic theory, most syntacticians and are all briefly considered. Concerning some grammarians lack exposure to his work. Few of these areas, we see that Tesnière was vi- grammarians have actually read Tesnière’s Élé- sionary with his analysis, whereas in other ments de syntaxe structurale, largely because an areas, modern syntactic theory now rejects English translation of the Éléments is absent his account. Of particular interest is the fact from the world of linguistics.
    [Show full text]
  • Approaches to the Structure of English Small Clauses Vivien Tomacsek
    Approaches to the Structure of English Small Clauses Vivien Tomacsek 1 Introduction1 The topic of small clauses did not become a target of much research until the 1980s — before that, predicative [NP XP] sequences occurring after main verbs were not really tackled by linguists. Within the Government and Binding framework, two main opposing ideas were formulated concerning small clauses, but there is disagreement from many aspects even among those working in the same theoretical framework. Small Clause theorists claim that the [NP XP] string in [V NP XP] constructions should be considered a single constituent; however, there has been no conclusion on the categorial status of small clauses. Various proposals have been made to solve the issue and provide a synthesised resolution to this problematic issue; however, none of them has been accepted entirely yet. The general aim of this paper is to demonstrate the complexity of the small clause construction analysed in frameworks which rely mostly on the Government and Binding and earlier frameworks, before the rise of Minimalism. The thesis attempts to represent both the theory that supports the existence of small clauses and the one that rejects it in chapter 2. This part will also argue for the acceptability of the clausal interpretation of the postverbal [NP XP] strings where the NP and the XP are in a subject-predicate relationship, and then chapter 3 will review the major proposals for the categorial status of small clauses, providing counterarguments for each. Finally, chapter 4 will summarise the most important points of the paper. 1I would like to acknowledge the expert guidance of my former Syntax lecturer, Krisztina Szécsényi, who encouraged and supported me to deal with Syntax in greater depth.
    [Show full text]
  • Criterial Freezing in Small Clauses and the Cartography of Copular Constructions
    Ur Shlonsky and Luigi Rizzi Criterial Freezing in small clauses and the cartography of copular constructions Abstract: Criterial Freezing is a particular instance of freezing arising in criterial configurations, i.e., in configurations dedicated to the expression of scope- discourse properties. Recent proposals (e.g., Rizzi 2015a,b) try to deduce criterial freezing effects from more elementary ingredients of linguistic computations, most notably from the labeling algorithm proposed in Chomsky (2013). In this paper, we explore the consequences of this approach for the syntax of small clauses. This leads us to work out a cartography of small clauses, both in selected domains (as in English and Romance), and as main clauses (as in Hebrew, following Shlonsky 2000). The cartography involves distinct subject positions in the structure of the IP, which are associated with distinct interpretive properties at the interface. Special attention is devoted to the syntax of small clauses with a non-verbal, pronominal copula in Hebrew. Direct and inverse copular sentences are analyzed according to the proposed structural map, and various freezing effects are traced back to the theoretical ingredients introduced at the outset. Keywords: Criterial freezing, copula, Hebrew copular sentence, labeling, Subject Criterion, small clause, subject position(s), PRON, Inverse copular sentence, Focus, Smuggling 1 Introduction Among the various manifestations of freezing phenomena, a case that has attracted significant attention lately is the case of “criterial freezing”.
    [Show full text]
  • English for Practical Purposes 9
    ENGLISH FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES 9 CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction of English Grammar Chapter 2: Sentence Chapter 3: Noun Chapter 4: Verb Chapter 5: Pronoun Chapter 6: Adjective Chapter 7: Adverb Chapter 8: Preposition Chapter 9: Conjunction Chapter 10: Punctuation Chapter 11: Tenses Chapter 12: Voice Chapter 1 Introduction to English grammar English grammar is the body of rules that describe the structure of expressions in the English language. This includes the structure of words, phrases, clauses and sentences. There are historical, social, and regional variations of English. Divergences from the grammardescribed here occur in some dialects of English. This article describes a generalized present-dayStandard English, the form of speech found in types of public discourse including broadcasting,education, entertainment, government, and news reporting, including both formal and informal speech. There are certain differences in grammar between the standard forms of British English, American English and Australian English, although these are inconspicuous compared with the lexical andpronunciation differences. Word classes and phrases There are eight word classes, or parts of speech, that are distinguished in English: nouns, determiners, pronouns, verbs, adjectives,adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions. (Determiners, traditionally classified along with adjectives, have not always been regarded as a separate part of speech.) Interjections are another word class, but these are not described here as they do not form part of theclause and sentence structure of the language. Nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs form open classes – word classes that readily accept new members, such as the nouncelebutante (a celebrity who frequents the fashion circles), similar relatively new words. The others are regarded as closed classes.
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Infinitives
    13-15 February 2 •Overview of the different types of infinitives. •Tense inside infinitives…yes, really. •They’re not all CPs! (a look at English, Icelandic, Hindi-Urdu) •Exceptional Case Marking vs Raising to Object. Ling 216 ~ Winter 2019 ~ C. Ussery •Can PRO get Case? Another Look at Icelandic. 1. Most citizens understand the Constitution of the United States to enumerate certain fundamental rights. 2. What do most citizens understand the Constitution of the United States to enumerate? 3. *Most citizens understand what the Constitution of the United 3 States to enumerate. 4. Most citizens understand what the Constitution of the United States enumerates. 5. Many people told the founders what to enumerate in the Constitution of the United States. Ling 216 ~ Winter 2019 ~ C. Ussery Ø The semantics and morphology of infinitives interact with 4 some of the most fundamental aspects of syntactic theory – e.g, the Theta Criterion and the Case Filter. Ø The subject has not overtly realized in many infinitives and the verb does not show agreement morphology in many languages. Ling 216 ~ Winter 2019 ~ C. Ussery § Raising: Subject of the main clause is semantically related to the verb in the embedded clause, but not to the verb in the main clause. § Verb in the main clause does not have a theta role for a subject. § Control: Subject/object of the main clause is semantically related to the verbs in both the main clause and the embedded clause. § Both the main and embedded clause verbs have theta roles for subjects. § Exceptional Case Marking (ECM): DP that “looks” like the object of the main clause is actually semantically related to the verb of the embedded clause.
    [Show full text]