Abstract
In this chapter it will be argued that simple MP sentences, despite their varying surface structures, all have similar underlying structures. One of the main advantages of such a claim is that it will enable us to formulate the process of reduction in simple MP sentences in a simple and uniform way. I shall be primarily concerned with reduction in simple MP sentences which results in be + MP constructions. The other kind of reduction, resulting in omitting the unit word, as in Ze is 12 (‘She is 12’) will be considered in the next chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Dougherty’s own hypothesis, the ‘PSR’ hypothesis, is introduced briefly in Dougherty (1969), from which the rules II are quoted here on p. 61. Cf. also Dougherty (1968a, b).
See als1o Gleitman (1965), p. 280–283, Lakoff and Peters (1966), p. 78, Seuren (1969a), p. 236–237, and Dik (1969a), p. 259–260, for some discussion of the derivation ofeach other sentences.
Thinking of a proposal in Chomsky (1965), we might consider NP’s like 5 huizen in III as constituents whose function can be further defined in terms of strict subcategorization of verbs. Since middle verbs like kosten do not take manner adverbials and cannot undergo the passive transformation, Chomsky suggests “that the Manner Adverbial should have as one of its realizations a “dummy element” signifying that the passive transformation must obligatorily apply.” (op cit., p. 103). Thus we might have a rule of the form ‘Manner → by ⌢ Passive’. If by ⌢ Passive occurs in a deep structure, the passive transformation thus must apply. We might now try to explain in terms of a negative specification of semi-copulas for the strict subcategorization feature [—NP⌢Manner] that semicopulas do not take each other phrases. But this will not do, since there are verbs followed by NP which do not take manner adverbials but which can occur in passive sentences and each other sentences (for example, Zij hoorden elkaar (‘They heard each other’; see also p. 70). We might therefore, embracing the PSR hypothesis, introduce a strict subcategorization feature which in some way or other contains a representation of the context typical of deep structures underlying each other sentences, for which semicopulas would have to be negatively specified. But this solution would fail to explain why verbs followed by a VP-dominated NP do not take each other phrases if they belong to the class of verbs not occurring in nominalizations of the type Jans V-en van NP (‘John’s V-ing of NP’; see pp. 78–9), i.e., to the class of transitive verbs.
In Verkuyl (1970) the PSR hypothesis is rejected along with the transformational hypothesis. Instead, it is proposed to derive sentence conjunction transformationally from phrasal conjunction (in the cases where this is semantically possible). But within the framework of Verkuyl’s hypothesis analogous arguments can be given with respect to hebten.
See Lakoff (1966), passim, Kraak and Klooster (1968), p. 208–9, and Klooster, Verkuyl and Luif (1969), p. 30–31, on the properties of non-stative verbs (“handelingswerkwoorden”).
See, for a similar analysis of kill, McCawley (1968).
There is some reason to believe that constructions like een voorwerp van zilver, een zilveren voorwerp, are related to maken van (‘make of). Thus een voorwerp van steen (‘an object of stone’), in its most natural interpretation refers to an artifact, not an object occurring in nature as a thing not made by man. Similarly, scherven van glas (‘fragments of glass’), just as glazen scherven (‘glass fragments’), as a paraphrase of glasscherven (shivered glass), may be odd for the same reason as scherven gemaakt van glas (‘fragments made of glass’) is odd as a paraphrase of the latter word. See also Kraak and Klooster (1968), p. 161 ff.
See McCawley (1968) on the subject of prelexical transformations.
Cf., in connection with the relation between have and with, Chomsky (1965), note 28 to Chapter II (p. 218–19), where it is noted that “many of the Manner Adverbials, like many other Adverbials, are Sentence transforms with deleted Subjects. Thus underlying the sentence “John gave the lecture with great enthusiasm”, with the Adverbial “with great enthusiasm”, is the base string “John has great enthusiasm” (note that “with” is quite generally a transform of “have”), with the repeated NP “John” deleted, as is usual (…).” Bendix (1966), too, analyzes have as ‘be with’. It may be that underlying structures of the form NP1 BE WITH NP2 there are structures of the form NP2 BE TO NP1 (cf. c’est à moi, mihi est), or vice versa. Another possibility is that the relation between TO and WITH is expressed in a calculus of the kind envisaged in Gruber (1967a) (see pp. 4 and 303). TO corresponds to what in Fillmore’s terminology would be Dative, under which the Estonian adessive would have to be subsumed (see Fillmore (1968a)). As is remarked in Fillmore (1968b), “relations between verbs that are like the converse relations of the theory of predicates involve position-switching for subject and object (…)” (op. cit., p. 337). The same could then be said of such elements as WITH and TO. Perhaps these categories should be seen as V’s (see p. 220), which would be more or less in keeping with proposals in Lakoff (1965). If our analysis of adjectives like tall as prepositional phrases is essentially correct, Fillmore’s remark no longer holds from a linguistic point of view that a predicate with one argument has the simple predicate adjective or intransitive verb P a (where ‘P’ stands for ‘predicate’ and ‘a’ is the argument; Fillmore (1968b), p. 375–6), for tall should then be seen as a two-place predicate WITH N P, N P. The McCawley-type base structure representation of NP 1 is tall would then be [s[v WITH v] NP1 NP2 s]. It is worth noting that the surface preposition with occurs also in numerous types of sentences where it cannot be assumed to correspond to the category which I have labelled WITH. Nor, of course, is ‘have’ always to be analyzed as BE WITH. (Cf. She was with me, She had me.) See also, on ‘have’ and ‘be’, Bach (1967).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1972 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Klooster, W.G. (1972). The Structure Underlying Simple MP Sentences. In: The Structure Underlying Measure Phrase Sentences. Foundation of Language, vol 17. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2890-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2890-5_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-2892-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-2890-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive