English Grammar

ENGLISH GRAMMAR Volume I

ENGLISH GRAMMAR A FUNCTION-BASED INTRODUCTION Volume I

T. GIVÓN Linguistics Department University of Oregon

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA 1993

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Givón, Talmy, 1936English grammar : a function-based introduction / T. Givón. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. English language-Grammar. I. Title. PE1106.G57 1993 428.2--dc20 ISBN 1-55619-459-5 (set hb)/1-55619-466-8 (set pb) (US alk. paper) 1-55619-457-9 (hb vol. 1)/1-55619-464-1 (pb vol.1) (US alk. paper) 1-55619-458-7 (hb vol.2)/l-55619-465-X (pb vol.2) (US) alk. paper) ISBN 90 272 2100 6 (set hb)/90 272 2117 0 (set pb) (Eur alk. paper) 90 272 2098 0 (hb vol.1)/90 272 2115 4 (pb vol.1) (Eur alk. paper) 90 272 2099 9 (hb vol.2)/90 272 2116 2 (pb vol.2) (Eur alk. paper)

93-18295 CIP

© Copyright 1993 - T. Givón. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 75577 · 1070 AN Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · 821 Bethlehem Pike · Philadelphia, PA 19118 · USA

The author with Prof. Bolinger, Christmas 1987

IN MEMORIAM Dwight Bolinger, generous teacher, thoughtful friend, lover of language.

CONTENTS

Foreword

xix

1. INTRODUCTION

1

1.1. Grammar and communication 1.1.1. Structure vs. function 1.1.2. Arbitrary vs. motivated rules of grammar 1.1.3. Rules of grammar vs. communicative strategies 1.1.4. Cross-language diversity of grammatical strategies

1 1 2 3 4

1.2. 1.2.1. 1.2.2. 1.2.3. 1.2.4. 1.2.5. 1.2.6. 1.2.7. 1.2.8. 1.2.9. 1.2.10. 1.2.11.

Whose grammar? Prescriptive vs. descriptive grammars Historic time Age: The grammar of youth Spoken vs. written language Educated vs. uneducated grammar Formal vs. informal grammar Grammar and social status Grammar and ethnic minorities Geographical dialects Grammar and foreign talk Grammar and individual style

1.3. Grammar for communication 1.3.1. Major functions of language 1.3.2. Words, clauses, discourse 1.3.3. Grammar as a communicative code 1.3.3.1. Joint coding

5 5 8 9 13 15 17 17 18 19 19 20 21 21 21 25 25

1.3.3.2. Coding devices in syntax

26

1.4.

Theme and variation in syntactic description

27

1.5.

Parsing: tree diagrams

28

1.6.

Deep structure, surface structure and meaning

30

Notes

37

χ

CONTENTS

2. VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

41

2.1. Preliminaries 2.1.1. Recapitulation: Meaning, information and communication 2.1.2. The conceptual lexicon: Semantic features and semantic fields 2.1.3. Shared vocabulary: Meaning and cultural world-view 2.1.4. History of the English lexicon

41 41 43 44 45

2.2. 2.2.1. 2.2.2. 2.2.3.

Lexical vs. grammatical vocabulary Lexical words Grammatical morphemes Derivational morphemes

46 46 47 47

2.3.

The morphemic status of English vocabulary

50

2.4. Lexical word-classes 2.4.1. Membership criteria 2.4.2. Natural classes: Prototypicality and variability 2.4.3. Semantic overview 2.4.4. Nouns 2.4.4.1. Semantic characteristics 2.4.4.2. Syntactic behavior 2.4.4.3. Morphological characteristics 2.4.4.3.1. Grammatical morphology 2.4.4.3.2. Derivational morphology 2.4.5. Adjectives 2.4.5.1. Semantic characteristics 2.4.5.1.1. Prototypical adjectives 2.4.5.1.2. Less prototypical adjectives 2.4.5.1.3. Derived adjectives 2.4.5.1.4. Polarity of antonymic pairs 2.4.5.2. Syntactic behavior 2.4.5.3. Morphological characteristics 2.4.5.3.1. Grammatical morphology 2.4.5.3.2. Derivational morphology 2.4.6. Verbs 2.4.6.1. Semantic characterization 2.4.6.2. Syntactic characterization 2.4.6.3. Morphological characterization 2.4.6.3.1. Grammatical morphology 2.4.6.3.2. Derivational morphology

51 51 52 53 55 55 57 58 59 60 62 62 62 63 64 64 65 66 66 67 68 68 68 68 68 70

2.4.7.

Adverbs 2.4.7.1. 2.4.7.2. 2.4.7.3. 2.4.7.4. 2.4.7.5. 2.4.7.6. 2.4.7.7.

CONTENTS

xi

Preamble Manner adverbs Time, frequency or aspectuality adverbs Epistemic adverbs Evaluative adverbs Adverbs modifying adjectives Emphatic adverbs

71 71 71 73 74 75 76 77

2.5. 2.5.1. 2.5.2. 2.5.3.

Minor word classes Preamble Prepositions Inter-clausal connectives 2.5.3.1. Conjunctions 2.5.3.2. Subordinators 2.5.4. Pronouns 2.5.5. Determiners 2.5.5.1. Articles 2.5.5.2. Demonstratives 2.5.5.3. Possessor pronouns 2.5.6. Quantifiers 2.5.7. Numerals 2.5.8. Ordinals 2.5.9. Auxiliaries 2.5.10. Interjections

77 77 77 78 77 78 79 80 80 80 81 81 81 81 81 81

Notes

84

3. SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

89

3.1. 3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.4.

89 89 90 90 92 92 94 95 95 95 96

3.1.5.

Preliminaries Scope States, events, and actions Semantic roles Grammatical roles 3.1.4.1. Overview 3.1.4.2. The grammatical subject 3.1.4.3. The grammatical (direct) object 3.1.4.4. The indirect object 3.1.4.5. Nominal predicate Basic word-order of English

xii

CONTENTS

3.2.

Parsing and tree diagrams: Recapitulation

3.3. 3.3.1.

Classification of verbs and simple clauses Transitivity 3.3.1.1. Semantic definition 3.3.1.2. Syntactic definition Dummy-subject verbs Copular verbs 3.3.3.1. The stative copula 'be' 3.3.3.2. The process copula 'get' 3.3.3.3. The process copula 'become' 3.3.3.4. The stative copulas 'seem' and 'appear' 3.3.3.5. The process copula 'turn (into)' Simple intransitive verbs Transitive verbs 3.3.5.1. Prototypical transitive verbs 3.3.5.2. Less prototypical transitive verbs 3.3.5.2.1. Preamble 3.3.5.2.2. Dative subjects 3.3.5.2.3. Dative objects 3.3.5.2.4. Patient-subject as cause 3.3.5.2.5. Instrument as patient-subject 3.3.5.2.6. Locative direct-objects 3.3.5.2.7. Cognate objects 3.3.5.2.8. Incorporated patients 3.3.5.2.9. Associative direct objects 3.3.5.2.10. Transitive verbs of possession 3.3.5.3. Transitivity and unspecified objects Intransitive verbs with an indirect object 3.3.6.1. The prototype: Verbs with a locative indirect-object 3.3.6.2. Verbs with dative or patient indirect-object 3.3.6.3. Reciprocal verbs with an associative indirect-object Bi-transitive verbs 3.3.7.1. Preamble 3.3.7.2. The bi-transitive prototype: Locative indirect object 3.3.7.3. Dative-Benefactive indirect object 3.3.7.4. The instrumental-locative alternation 3.3.7.5. Three-object verbs

3.3.2. 3.3.3.

3.3.4. 3.3.5.

3.3.6.

3.3.7.

96 99 99 99 100 100 101 101 103 103 104 104 105 106 106 108 108 109 110 110 111 112 112 114 115 115 115 116 117 118 119 120 120 120 121 122 123

CONTENTS

xiii

3.3.7.6. Extending the verbal frame with optional indirect objects 3.3.7.7. Verbs with two direct objects Verbs with verbal complements 3.3.8.1. Preamble 3.3.8.2. Verbs with clausal subjects 3.3.8.3. Modality verbs 3.3.8.4. Manipulative verbs 3.3.8.5. Perception-cognition-utterance (PCU) verbs 3.3.8.6. Information verbs

124 125 127 127 127 129 132 133 136

3.4.

Multiple membership in verb classes

137

3.5.

Verbs that incorporate prepositions

138

3.6.

Summary of the structure of simple clauses

142

3.3.8.

Notes

144

4. VERBAL INFLECTIONS: TENSE, ASPECT, MODALITY AND NEGATION 4.1.

Introduction

4.2. Tense 4.2.1. Preliminaries 4.2.2. Past 4.2.3. Future 4.2.4. Present 4.2.5. Habitual 4.3. Aspect 4.3.1. Preliminaries 4.3.2. The progressive 4.3.2.1. Unboundedness (vs. compactness) 4.3.2.2. Proximity (vs. remoteness) 4.3.2.3. Simultaneity (vs. sequentiality) 4.3.2.4. The habitual progressive 4.3.3. Other progressive aspectuals 4.3.3.1. Continuous-repetitive aspectuals 4.3.3.2. Inceptive-progressive aspectuals 4.3.3.3. Terminative-progressive aspectuals

147 147 148 148 148 149 150 152 152 152 153 153 154 155 157 158 158 159 160

xiv

CONTENTS

4.3.4. 4.3.5.

The habitual past The perfect 4.3.5.1. Preliminaries 4.3.5.2. Anteriority 4.3.5.3. Perfectivity 4.3.5.4. Counter-sequentiality 4.3.5.5. Relevance 4.3.6. The immediate aspect

161 161 161 162 163 163 164 166

4.4. 4.4.1. 4.4.2. 4.4.3.

169 169 169 170 171 171 172 176 176

Modality Propositional modalities Epistemic modalities The grammatical distribution of modality 4.4.3.1. Tense-aspect 4.4.3.2. Irrealis-inducing adverbs 4.4.3.3. Modals and irrealis 4.4.3.4. Irrealis in verb complements 4.4.3.5. Irrealis and non-declarative speech-acts 4.4.3.6. Grammatical environments associated with presup­ position

Communicative and cognitive aspects of tense-aspect-modality 4.5.1. Markedness 4.5.2. Frequency distribution in text 4.5.3. Cognitive considerations 4.5.3.1. Modality 4.5.3.2. Perfectivity 4.5.3.3. Sequentiality 4.5.3.4. Relevance

177

4.5.

4.6. 4.6.1. 4.6.2.

The syntax of tense-aspect-modality Combinations and ordering rules Some recent developments in the grammar of tense-aspectmodality

4.7. Negation 4.7.1. Negation and logic 4.7.2. Negation and the strength of assertion 4.7.3. Negation and presupposition 4.7.4. Negation as a speech-act

178 178 179 180 180 180 181 181 182 182 185 187 187 188 188 190

CONTENTS

4.7.5.

4.7.6. 4.7.7. 4.7.8. 4.7.9.

Negation in discourse 4.7.5.1. Preamble: Change vs. stasis 4.7.5.2. The ontology of negative events Negation and social interaction Presupposition and the scope of negation The morpho-syntax of English negation Further topics in the syntax of negation 4.7.9.1. Negation in main vs. complement clauses 4.7.9.2. Syntactic, morphological and inherent negation 4.7.9.3. Negative polarity and levels of negation 4.7.9.4. Constituent negation and emphatic denial

xv 190 190 191 193 195 199 201 201 202 203 204

Notes

209

5. REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

213

5.1.

Introduction

213

5.2. 5.2.1. 5.2.2. 5.2.3. 5.2.4.

5.2.10.

Reference Existence vs. reference Referential intent Reference and propositional modalities The indefinite determiners 'any', 'no' and 'some' 5.2.4.1. The non-referring article 'any' 5.2.4.2. The non-referring article 'no' 5.2.4.3. The indefinite article 'some' 5.2.4.4. 'Any', 'no' and 'some' as pronouns Reference under the scope of negation Gradation of indefinite reference Plurality and reference Pragmatic effects on possible reference The non-referring use of anaphoric pronouns 5.2.9.1. Gender and non-referring and pronouns 5.2.9.2. Semantic reference vs. specific individuation 5.2.9.3. The pronoun 'one' in definite expressions Semantic reference vs. pragmatic importance

213 213 215 216 219 219 220 220 222 224 224 225 226 228 228 229 230 230

5.3. 5.3.1. 5.3.2. 5.3.3.

Definiteness Definite reference and the communicative contract Grounds for referential accessibility Situation-based ('deictic') definîtes

232 232 232 232

5.2.5. 5.2.6. 5.2.7. 5.2.8. 5.2.9.

xvi 5.3.4. 5.3.5.

CONTENTS

Culturally-based definites Text-based ('anaphoric') definites 5.3.5.1. Zero anaphora, anaphoric pronouns, and definite NPs 5.3.5.2. Stressed vs. unstressed pronouns 5.3.5.3. Demonstratives and text-based definite reference 5.3.5.4. Names and text-based definite reference

233 235 235 235 238 240

5.4.

Generic subjects, defíniteness and reference

242

5.5.

Defíniteness, reference and text processing: A cognitive overview

244

Notes

246

6. NOUN PHRASES

247

6.1.

247

Nouns and modifiers

6.2. Ordering of elements within the noun phrase 6.2.1. Preliminaries 6.2.2. Pre-nominal modifiers 6.2.2.1. Quantifiers 6.2.2.1.1. Partitive definite quantifiers 6.2.2.1.2. Indefinite quantifiers-determiners 6.2.2.1.3. Quantifier scope 6.2.2.1.3.1. Quantifier scope within the clause 6.2.2.1.3.2. Quantifier scope within the noun phrase 6.2.2.1.3.3. The scope of 'only' in the written register 6.2.2.2. Determiners 6.2.2.3. Adjectives 6.2.2.4. Compounding: Nouns as modifiers 6.2.2.5. Adverbs within the Adjectival Phrase 6.2.3. Post-nominal modifiers 6.2.3.1. Relative clauses 6.2.3.2. Noun complements 6.2.3.3. Possessive phrases 6.2.3.4. Pseudo-possessives: Complex locatives

248 248 249 249 249 250 251 251

6.3.

267

Restrictive vs. non-restrictive modifiers

254 254 255 256 258 261 262 263 263 264 264

CONTENTS

xvii

6.4.

Modifiers used as anaphoric pronouns

269

6.5.

Scattered noun phrases

270

6.6. 6.6.1. 6.6.2.

Complex noun phrases Modifying adjectives and their 'semantic source' Conjoined noun phrases 6.6.2.1. Joint participation in a single event 6.6.2.2. The relative order of conjoined NPs 6.6.2.3. The morphological unification of conjoined NPs 6.6.2.3.1. Case-role integration 6.6.2.3.2. Determiner integration 6.6.2.3.3. Number integration 6.6.2.3.4. Adjective integration 6.6.2.4. Multiple conjunction, disjunction and event integration 6.6.2.5. Plurality, verb agreement and group nouns 6.6.3. Complex NPs arising through nominalization 6.6.3.1. Preamble 6.6.3.2. The finite-clause prototype 6.6.3.3. From the finite toward the non-finite prototype 6.6.3.4. From verbal to nominal morphology 6.6.3.5. Subject and object case-marking 6.6.3.6. Indirect objects in nominalized clauses 6.6.3.7. Determiners in nominalized clauses 6.6.3.8. Adverbs as adjectives in nominalized clauses 6.6.4. Noun complements

271 272 273 273 275 277 277 279 282 283

Notes

300

Bibliography

303

Index

311

284 286 287 287 288 288 289 291 293 294 295 298

FOREWORD

"...All great music contains two ingredients — expression and form..." R. Goode concert pianist*

Grammar is everybody's business. It is the proverbial broth tended to by a plethora of jealous cooks, a foundling with hosts of would-be keepers. It is also the rock upon which generations of perfectly fluent, manifestly intelli­ gent native speakers have crashed, again and again. Of grammar's many self-appointed guardians, my own profession may claim special credit for our present predicament of profound grammatical illiteracy. It is the lin­ guists who came up with the myth of formal structure: Grammar as an arbi­ trary, autonomous mechanism whose prime function was to govern the con­ struction of well-formed sentences. Grammar that was about grammar. The logical consequence of this pernicious nonsense is, of course, that grammar is not about communication. Whether it exists or not, grammar can be safely ignored, bypassed, so that one may proceed directly to the heart of the matter — rhetoric, communication. As often as not, common sense rests somewhere in the middle. The middle grounds that inspired this book is that yes, grammar does exist; and yes, it does have rules; and perish the thought, those rules really matter and can be taught explicitly. But no, grammar is not about grammar; and no again, grammar is not arbitrary, it is there for a reason. Grammar is our path to concise, coherent expression. In grammar as in music, good expres­ sion rides on good form. Metaphorically and literally, grammar — as musi­ cal form — must make sense.

*) Cited by D. Blum, "Going to the Core", The New Yorker, 6-29-92, p. 54.

XX

FOREWORD

This book is intended for both students and teachers, at both the highschool and college level, for both native and non-native speakers. With the guidance of a teacher, it can serve as the student's introduction to the gram­ mar of (written) English. Put another way, it is an introduction to grammar as a means for producing coherent text. Like all introductions, it is selective and incomplete. The grammar of any language is a huge living organism, it cannot be exhaustively described in ten lifetimes. One has to tease apart the more systematic core from the still-evolving and sometime chaotic periphery. And one can only hope then that this introduction to the core will stimulate the reader to seek the outer reaches. Aiming this book at the teaching of English Grammar to both native and non-native speakers is a deliberate move. In spite of striking differ­ ences in prior linguistic background, the native and non-native speaker face a similar task in acquiring written, literate English: neither can claim writ­ ten English as their native language. To the native speaker it is his/her first second language, a language whose grammar is starkly different from that of the spoken language learned first at home. Much like the transition from spoken sounds to a written alphabet, the transition from spoken to written grammar is a profound transformation. It jars the mind's old habits and demands conscious reflection upon the nature of two conflicting sets of skills. The first, face-to-face oral communication, is a native skill supported by half a million years of bio-cultural evolution. The second, written expression, is an acquired skill of a relatively recent vintage. By acquiring a written language we become bilingual; and bilingualism demands careful discrimination between the two contexts that go with the two sets of skills. In the course of learning, the non-native speaker indeed produces "er­ rors". The native speaker, on the other hand, produces only "inappropriate contextual choices". Still, in the course of both types of learning, the goal of deliberate instruction is not to eradicate all vestiges of older linguistic habits. Wise grammar instruction teaches, in both instances, a new set of communicative skills, segregating them carefully from the older, native skills. The student is then left with two sets of linguistic behaviors. Both are useful, both are valid, but they apply in mutually exclusive contexts. The approach to descriptive grammar I have pursued here owes much to many illustrious antecedents, beginning with the late Otto Jespersen. It owes much to many who are still with us, such as Michael Halliday and Bob Longacre. And it owes even more to many of my own contemporaries and close associates, such as Wally Chafe, Bernard Comrie, Bob Dixon, John

PREFACE

xxi

Haiman, Paul Hopper, Ron Langacker, Gillian Sankoff, Dan Slobin and Sandy Thompson. The list of people I've been fortunate to learn from is much too long to recite here in its entirety; but special gratitude is due to John Haiman for reading doggedly through the entire manuscript and criticizing it unsparingly. Te absolvo, Janos. In all fairness, I must also acknowledge my great indebtedness to a man whose approach to grammar I have rejected long ago, Noam Chomsky. However far apart our paths may have meandered, his presence loomed large over my early awakening to the undeniable mental reality of grammar, and to the fact that in language — as in music — form really mat­ tered. My guardian angel in the study of grammar has always been Dwight Bolinger, to whose memory this book is dedicated. Dwight's great acuity, critical reflection, profound scholarship, penetrating insight, inimitable light touch, and above all his all-consuming love for language and grammar, have been an inspiration to me, a beacon whose shining light I only hope to dimly reflect. In his early, steadfast and often lonely insistence that form must be studied together with meaning, that grammar made sense, and that the forms of language were about the expression of thought, Dwight was the most generous teacher and thoughtful critic a young upstart could possi­ bly hope to find. The many faults that are still evident in this book would have perhaps been fewer if Dwight had been able, as was his original intent, to read through the manuscript. Like many of my generation, I have been orphaned. I hope some day to be worthy of Dwight's faith. Eugene, Oregon June, 1992

1

1.1.

INTRODUCTION

GRAMMAR AND COMMUNICATION "...Let them distinguish the proper sense by colons and commas, and let them see the points each one in its due place, and let not him who reads the words to them either read falsely or pause suddenly..." (attributed to the 8th Century English monk Alcuin, on behalf of Charlemagne)

1.1.1.

Structure vs. function

The perspective from which this book is written is unabashedly func­ tional. Perhaps the best way of saying what grammar is from a functional perspective is to say first what grammar is not. Grammar is not a set of rigid rules that must be followed in order to produce grammatical sentences. Rather, grammar is a set of strategies that one employs in order to produce coherent communication. Nothing in this formulation should be taken as a denial of the existence of rules of grammar. Rather, it simply suggests that rules of grammar — taken as a whole — are not arbitrary; they are not there just for the heck of it. The production of rule-governed grammatical sentences is the means by which one produces coherent communication. Grammarians use two extreme analogies to bring across their concep­ tion of rules of grammar. One common analogy is taken from, essentially, Newtonian Physics; it likens a grammar to an idealized logic machine that abides by exceptionless, law-like rules. The machine and its various parts operate in a way that is consistent and 100% rule-governed, regardless of what function the entire machine or its various parts perform. The function of the machine and its parts is another topic, to be investigated separately at some other time. The function has relatively little to do with the structure

2

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

of the machine, or how the structure came to be what it is. When one teaches grammar, therefore, one can safely ignore its function, and make reference only to parts of the grammar machine. One can indeed describe real machines in such a way, ones that have been constructed for a purpose, say a car. The fact that the power-train is designed to make the wheels spin, that the transmission modulates the tor­ que while transmitting power to the wheels, that the wheels spin to move the car, and that the whole car is designed for transportation, are irrelevant from such a perspective. An altogether different analogy for grammar is that of a biological organism. Within the organism, various anatomical structures perform dis­ tinct physiological functions. The structural design is adapted through pro­ tracted evolution to perform specific functions. In biology, the study of structure would be meaningless without the parallel study of function. This has been an implicit tenet of biological scholarship ever since Aristotle, the founder of biology, who first proposed to view the design of organisms by analogy with purposeful tools: "...If a piece of wood is to be split with an axe, the axe must of necessity be hard; and if hard, it must of necessity be made of iron or bronze. Now exactly in the same way the body, which like the axe is an instrument— for both the body as a whole and its several parts individually have definite operations for which they are made; just in the same way, I say, the body if it is to do its work, must of necessity be of such and such character..." ("De Partibus Animalium", in McKeon, ed., 1941:647)

The same perspective may be found in a recent standard text on human anatomy: "...Anatomy is the science that deals with the structure of the body...physiology is defined as the science of function. Anatomy and physiology have more meaning when studied together..." (Crouch, Functional Human Anatomy, 1978, pp. 9-10)

And it is the same perspective adopted in this book, one of assuming that human language is a purposeful instrument designed to code and communi­ cate information, and that like other instruments, its structure is not divorced from its function. 1.1.2.

Arbitrary vs. motivated rules of grammar

By saying that rules of grammar are not arbitrary, one need not ignore the fact that occasionally a rule — in a particular language at a particular

INTRODUCTION

3

time — indeed turns out to be arbitrary. That is, the rule seems com­ municatively opaque, non-functional; it does not make sense. Situations of this type are almost always due to the cumulative effect of historical change: An erstwhile communicatively transparent rule of grammar has, due to the conflation of several historical changes over time, become bizarre, fossilized, counter-communicative. Such cases indeed exist, but they constitute a minority of the bulk of the extant rules of a grammar at any given time. 1 Here again, a biological analogy is instructive. In the anatomy of every organism one finds a certain proportion of vestigial organs that have lost their function altogether. In other instances, organs undergo functional re­ assignment, over time losing their original function but gaining a new one. When this re-assignment is relatively recent, the structural design of an organ may reflect more naturally its original function than its current func­ tion. 2 In almost all cases, such a mismatch between structure and function is due to multi-step evolution. Evolutionary change in biological design is the analog of historical change in linguistic structure. A good example of communicatively opaque rules of grammar in Eng­ lish are nouns with irregular plurals and verbs with irregular past tense forms. Both reflect the tail end of massive re-analysis in the grammar of a Germanic language. In the course of this re-analysis, previously coherent rules have deteriorated over time and have become largely incoherent. They are being gradually eliminated from the grammar; and it is perhaps a matter of time before they have disappeared altogether. 3 1.1.3.

Rules of grammar vs. communicative strategies

The laws of Newtonian physics are considered exceptionless. Often, rules of grammar seem equally rigid, so much so that the unwary may be tempted to view them as the workings of a deterministic automaton. On closer analysis, many — perhaps the bulk of— the rules in a grammar turn out to be considerably more flexible. Their flexibility may be understood in several senses. First, the range of contexts to which a rule applies is not a rigidly defined population. Rather, the bulk of the cases — the run-of-themill typical instances — either clearly abide or clearly do not abide by the rule. But a significant if small minority of cases also exists, who fall some­ where in the middle. That is, the application or non-application of the rule in such cases is a matter of more subtle judgement and — most important — is often a matter of degree. In such cases, a more detailed examination

4

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

of the communicative context is required, before the applicability of a rule can be decided with any degree of certainty. As a unique, human-specific device for coding and communicating information, grammar may be viewed as the strategy that takes care, in a relatively fast and rule-governed fashion, of the bulk of cases. This rulebound strategy, however, leaves a significant minority of cases to be process­ ed by more deliberate, time-consuming, analytic means. There is, here again, a transparent biological analogy to the division between processing the bulk of more typical cases vs. processing a minority of more subtle borderline cases. In biological information processing, older, lower-level analysis of perceptual input is fully automated, it is per­ formed at high speed and low error-rate. It is also more likely to be geneti­ cally pre-wired, or what biologists call a closed behavioral program.4 In contrast, more complex, higher-order, more recently-developed skills are first performed in a slower, conscious, attended fashion. Through acquisi­ tion and habituation, these complex higher-order skills — such as playing musical instruments, singing, typing, dancing or riding a bicycle — can and do become automated over time. But their automation takes place during one's life-time, and is heavily dependent on practice. 5 In biological terms, the acquisition of such skills depends on an open behavioral program. While the learning of a human grammar clearly depends upon many pre-wired closed neural programs, the acquisition of the grammar of a particular language is clearly a skill of the second type. It is acquired postnatally, via repeated trial-and-error communicative interaction. Once acquired, it is indeed a highly automated, in-wired skill. But even then, grammar continues to display certain margins of context-dependent, con­ scious analysis. 1.1.4.

Cross-language diversity of grammatical strategies

By insisting that rules of grammar are not arbitrary, one does not wish to imply that there is only one human-universal way of grammatically cod­ ing any particular communicative function. The study of grammatical diver­ sity across languages certainly suggests otherwise. And this diversity is one of the reasons why we consider the acquisition of grammar to be, at least in part, an open behavioral program. Still, there are only a limited number of grammatical strategies that human languages actually use to code the same communicative functions. The observed cross-language diversity of gram­ mars is neither unlimited nor capricious; rather, it is highly constrained. A

INTRODUCTION

5

particular grammatical strategy adopted by a language in one functional domain is often due to the accidental conflation of various historical changes. But in part it is also due to the strategies used by the language in other — functionally related — domains. To illustrate the partially accidental nature of the historical connection, consider the use of the relative pronouns 'who', 'whom', 'which', 'where' and 'when' in the grammar of relative clauses in English. It is not indepen­ dent of their earlier use as interrogative pronouns in the grammar of WHquestions. Similarly, the use of the subordinator 'that' in both relative clauses and verb complements is not independent of its earlier use as a demonstrative pronoun. And the use of the adverbial subordinator 'since' to render the logical meaning 'because' is not independent of its earlier tem­ poral sense ('from the time'). The fact is then that some communicative functions seem to borrow grammatical coding-devices from neighboring (related) functions. This bor­ rowing phenomenon again has close analogs in biological evolution, where old organs are often adapted to new functions. The grammar of a language may thus itself be viewed as a biological organism. Within that organism, the various grammar-coded functions — organs — are inter-connected in many ways and to varying degrees. Some inter-connections are stronger and more direct; others are weaker or more circuitous. A rule of a grammar — like an organ of the body — cannot be fully understood unless its interaction with other rules is also understood. One may note, finally, that the biological analogy for language is not particularly new. The words of Franz Bopp, an early 19th century linguist, express the same attitude, albeit with a certain pre-Darwinian naivete: 6 "...Languages are to be considered organic natural bodies, which are formed according to fixed laws, develop as possessing an inner principle of life, and gradually die out because they do not understand themselves any longer, and therefore cast off or mutilate their members or forms..."

1.2.

WHOSE GRAMMAR?

1.2.1.

Prescriptive vs. descriptive grammars

The sense of 'grammar' most readers are likely to be familiar with is that of prescriptive grammar: This usage is right, that one is wrong. The teaching of "language arts" in our primary and secondary schools, as well as the popular press, have combined to reinforce this view. In this regard, it

6

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

seems, everybody with a sharp pen and strong opinions is a rightful, wrath­ ful expert. For example, a well-known columnist has been fulminating with equal venom against the following lapses of English grammar: 7 (1)

a. "...In order for your child to receive credit for this assign­ ment, they must turn in a signed copy..." b. "...Sally, he said, good grammar never made me no dol­ lars..." c. "...whom beats who in the Seattle Kingdome this weekend..." d. "...Twenty years of teaching taught my husband and I the value of field trips..." e. "...coverage of Monday night football has not been discussed between Dennis and /..." f. "...he's a lot older than her, but so what?..."

Example (la) is an entrenched creative innovation in the spoken language, adapting the third person plural 'they' to a new use as a gender-neutral pro­ noun. 8 Example (lb) is correct for the spoken, informal English of perhaps 75% of Americans. Example (1c) represents hyper-correction by speakers for whom the form 'whom' has ceased to exist, and 'who' is used to mark both subject and object (again probably the vast majority of American speakers). Examples (ld,e) represent the current fluctuation of the rule about subject vs. object pronoun form following the conjunction 'and'. And example (1f) represents the largely finished re-analysis of a similar case, in the speech of all but a recalcitrant minority of older speakers. The same columnist, in a saner mood, points out to where rules of grammar are really useful, namely in insuring coherent communication. The usages he pans this time are indeed disruptive:9 (2)

a. "...Lawyer accused of lying to fly..." b. "...He discovered the identity of an Evanston girl who killed herself before the newspapers regular reporter could..."  "...He is a former Mt. Vernon native..." d. "...more attention should be paid to hazing by university offi­ cials..." e. "...bar ministers who have committed sex offenses from the pulpit for a year..." f. "...He plans to teach a course this fall... on the mysterious civilization at Indian Community College..."

INTRODUCTION

7

And the very same columnist is positively permissive about the infamous split infinitive:10 (3)

''...The proper formation, she insists, was "to go quickly" or "quickly to go", but under no circumstances could one write "to quickly go". This is pure baloney, of course, but it is baloney with a remarkable shelf life..."

The sense of 'grammar' used in this book is unabashedly that of descriptive grammar. The grammar of current American English is described just like the grammar of any other language. Like all languages, however — especially those that serve large, complex societies — 'Ameri­ can English' is in a way a convenient fiction. Rather than consisting of a single speech community with a single grammar, American English is a complex multi-layered speech community with an immense array of gram­ mars. These grammars indeed partially overlap and are historically inter­ related. But their diversity is manifest to anybody with a discerning ear. It is then left to the descriptive grammarian to make choices within this diver­ sity, and then defend them, and hopefully convince the reader that they are well motivated. The dimensions along which grammars most commonly vary are: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)

History: Older/obsolete vs. newer/current usage Age: Older vs. younger speakers Medium: Written vs. spoken language Education: Educated vs. uneducated speakers Formality: Formal vs. informal style Social class: High-status vs. low-status speakers Ethnicity: Majority vs. minority sub-cultures Geography: Regional, urban vs. rural dialects Native skill: Native vs. non-native speakers Individual: This individual or family vs. that one

These dimensions are not totally independent of each other. Rather, they show predictable tendencies to co-vary. Thus, for example, written lan­ guage (c) tends to be associated more strongly with older usage (a), older speakers (b), educated speakers (d), formal usage (e), higher social status (f) and urban dialects (h). But these associations are not absolute. In the following sections we will survey each dimension briefly.

8

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

1.2.2.

Historic time

As noted above, 'The Grammar' of a language is probably a conve­ nient fiction, disguising a wide range of diversity. In the same way, the cur­ rent steady state of the grammar (or of 'The Language') is an equally con­ venient fiction. Much of the diversity that one encounters in 'The Gram­ mar' at its 'current steady state' is due to the fact that language and gram­ mar are forever on the move. Individual speakers constantly innovate and reshape their usage along three major dimensions: (a) (b) (c)

Simplification toward greater code-transparency Elaboration toward greater expressive power Truncation and chopping toward greater processing economy

As illustration of how profound this change could be, consider the fol­ lowing three versions of The Lord's Prayer, one from Old English (ca. 900 AD), the other from Middle English (ca. 1350 AD), the last from Modern English (ca. 1700):11 (4)

a. Old English (ca. 1000 AD) Faeder ure þu þe aert on heofonum, si þin nama gehalgod; to become þin rice, gewurþe ðin willa rþn swa swa on heofonum; urne gedaelighwamlican hlaf syle us to daeg; ond forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfa þurum gyltendum; ond ne gelaed þu us on constunge, acþalys us of yfele soþlice. Amen. b. Middle English (ca. 1395 AD) Oure fadir that art in heuenes, halwid be thi name; thi kyngdoom come to, be thi wille don in erthe as in heuen; gyue tu vs this dai oure breed ouer othir substaunce; and forgyue to vs oure dettis, as we forgyuen to oure dettouris; and lede vs not in to temptacioun, but deliuere vs fro yuel. Amen.

INTRODUCTION

9

. Modern English (ca. 1700) Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name; Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen. Since change — in pronunciation, word-meaning and grammar — is forever ongoing, older historical traits always coexist with newer innova­ tions at any point in the life of a language. True, the descriptive gramma­ rian is bound to describe the language as it is at a particular time. But it often makes more sense to interpret today's grammar as the cumulative product of historical change, and as the current incubator of future change. Put another way, in describing the synchronic grammar, one must remain mindful of its profoundly diachronic underpinnings. 1.2.3.

Age: The grammar of youth

Each new generation of mother-tongue learners display an intensive activity of linguistic innovation, as they re-interpret the grammar used by their parent generation. Quite often, tomorrow's grammar can be antici­ pated from the speech of today's young. The grammatical innovations of the young are not mere 'corruptions', 'errors' or 'failure to learn correctly'. More often than not, they are spontaneous attempts to make sense of a baffling complexity and numerous inconsistencies; to creatively extend adult grammar; to re-interpret the adult linguistic input as a more coherent communicative code. To illustrate briefly the unique nature of the gram­ matical inventiveness of children, consider the following examples of child grammar of English, produced roughly from the age of three years and onward. In this case, we deal with innovations that eventually fell by the wayside: (5)

Clause-initial negation:12 a. no the sun shining (The sun is not shining') b. no Fraser read it ('Fraser does not read it')

10

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(6)

Order of pronouns :13 Give me it ('Give it to me')

(7)

Nominal relative clauses:14 a. This is my did it (This is what I did') b. Look-a my made ('Look at what I made')

(8)

Simplified WH-questions:15 a. What do wheel? ('What does the wheel do?') b. Where went the wheel? ('Where did the wheel go?')  Where it is? ('Where is it?')

(9)

Deictic articles:16 a. in there wheels ('In the wheels there') b. go in there train ('Go in the train there')

(10) Unmarked causati ves: 17 a. I'm gonna sharp this pencil ( T m gonna sharpen the pencil') b. Go me to the bathroom {'Take me to the bathroom')  come it closer ('Bring it closer') d. Can you stay this open ('Can you leave it open?) e. Don't dead him ('Don't kill him') Often, innovations introduced by the young are castigated by older speakers as aberrations to be shunned, rank corruption, the ultimate demise of the real language. Jeremiads about the decline and fall of human language may go back all the way to antiquity. A relatively late example of the Decline and Fall school of thought can be found in Dr. Samuel Johnson's Preface to his Dictionary: 18

INTRODUCTION

11

"...Tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degenera­ tion..."

A similar if more parochial dismay has been expressed by the popular 19th century linguist Max Müller:19 "...on the whole, the history of all the Aryan languages is nothing but a gradual process of decay..."

The lamentations have been so persistent that one wonders how we have still wound up, rather mysteriously, with a functioning instrument of com­ munication. Here again the descriptive linguist must make choices and often second-guess — rightly or wrongly — the future drift of the population mean. Should one, for example, rant and rave about the corrupt usage in (11a) below, and insist on only (11b)? Or should one notice the prevalent — and communicatively useful — meaning distinction: (11) a. I feel good. (> mood-wise) b. I feel well. (> health-wise) Should one insist on the sanctioned (12a), or acknowledge the prevalent — and unimpeachably useful — alternative (12b): (12) a. If you see anybody there, tell him to... b. If you see anybody there, tell them to... Should one insist on the cumbersome (13a), rather than acknowledge the graceful and more current (13b): (13) a. The man to whom I showed this... b. The man I showed this to... Should one acknowledge or reject the perfectly interpretable relative clauses, all staples of the spoken register, such as: (14) a. b.  d.

...these faces that you don't know who they are... ...the woman that I told you about her brother... ...the woman that I know the man who loved her... ...that guy that I was dating his daughter...

Innovative usage by young native speakers is often acknowledged in genre-sensitive written fiction. The following passage, for example, comes from a short story in The New Yorker: 20

12

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(15) "...There's this policeman and his name is Bradley and every night there's this thief going around swiping one wheel from everybody's bicycle. Bradley's partner's name is Fred that this thief swipes one wheel from his bicycle. His daughter is Tracey. Fred has a police dog that he makes him sniff all the bicycles..." One should note, however, that we deal here not with absolutes — extreme resistance to change vs. total permissiveness — but rather with relative judgements, involving the delicate balance between two opposing forces. On the one hand, grammatical change is an unavoidable, spontane­ ously occurring phenomenon. Speakers, both young and old, will continue doing it as a matter of course. It is a subconscious part of being a live, intel­ ligent, communicating user of grammar. On the other hand, a community that allows excessive diversity in its communicative (and cultural) code will sooner or later reach the point of total disruption of both its communication and culture. Somewhere near that point, the sense of "being the same speech community" and "sharing the same cultural world-view" will have dissipated beyond residual utility. Therefore, the conservative forces that the adult power structure exercises against excessive linguistic diversity, via traditional social networks or through schools and literacy, indeed perform a legitimate, necessary social function. The delicate balance between uniformity and diversity in a speech community again finds it close analog in biology, in the balance between genetic uniformity and genetic diversity within populations. In this regard, Bonner (1988) makes the following, profoundly pragmatic, observation: "...There will be a constant selection pressure for increased variation, for it is only by producing variants that organisms can successfully perpetuate themselves. But too much variation will be selected against, because new, successful variants will be lost [to the gene pool, becoming incompatible with it] by excessive change....The significance of isolation... is that with­ out [it] the mechanism for producing a controlled amount of variation would be impossible; every gain in any competitive advantage [due to a new variant] would be lost by immediate hybridization if there were no isolating mechanism to prevent a mixing back of the genes which have suc­ cessfully come to differ [from the bulk of the population]..." (Bonner, 1988, pp. 231, 239; emphases and parentheses added)

The choice between permissive and innovative grammar need not always be made. Often, the descriptive linguist might serve his audience

INTRODUCTION

13

better by presenting several co-existing variant uses, and then explain their relatedness. Then the linguist may even venture a prediction about which way the grammar might be drifting. 1.2.4.

Spoken vs. written language

The grammar of a written language is profoundly different from that of the spoken language. The differences are often sharp and absolute, given the constant grammatical innovation that goes on in the spoken language. But even when not absolute, the differences between oral and written grammar can be striking in terms of frequency distribution. Complex, hierarchic syntactic constructions are systematically shunned in relaxed, informal, colloquial face-to-face communication. Short, conjoined, 'flat' structures are preferred. And the availability of the interlocutor, with eyecontact, instant feedback, corrections, assents and mutually-negotiated coherence, has a profound effect on the grammatical structure of the spo­ ken language.21 The two main registers controlled by educated speakers — the infor­ mal-colloquial and the formal-written — are equally useful and equally valid. The tradition of denigrating the child's native oral register as 'bad language', 'ungrammatical', 'uncouth' or 'careless' is indeed a destructive, misguided tradition. However, the two registers fit appropriately in mutu­ ally exclusive contexts: (a)

(b)

Oral language is the instrument of face-to-face communication, among familiars, in the relaxed, unhurried setting of home, fam­ ily, loved ones. It is appropriate for communicating within the society of intimates. Written language is for more formal, impersonal, abstract com­ munication elsewhere, in the more pressured setting of education and literacy-demanding jobs — within the society of strangers.

The profound bilingualism that this dichotomy entails, for the literate speaker, is as pervasive as it is necessary. Each register, oral and written, serves a unique function that cannot be performed by the other. As an example of typical spoken English, consider the following trans­ cript of a recorded personal narrative: 22

14

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(16) "...Well we, you could drill wells, we finally... got a good well, lots o' water and wonderful, good water...How deep? I think it was eighty-some feet deep, I believe...'course, that was οΓ slow cabletube drillin' then...But anyway, we'll get into that part later...But we moved there...and my, my politician brother over here and ah, and another one and my cousin, οΓ Buster...and some neighbors that moved out there too, some other people... It was 'bout four-five families moved out there from this...together, yeah, Brownfield area...Well, we didn't move together but they did bring the stock. My dad had 'bout fifty head o' cows, and 'bout forty head o' horses and mules, and they spent all summer drivin' 'em out...Let's see, it must'a been at least seven hundred miles from Brownfield to that oI' homestead..." In informal, intimate writing, nominally literate speakers 'write like they speak'. An example of such writing is:23 (17) "...Me i look for work i could do at home nothing yet. Babysitting I'll do once in a while as C. got sick for a month when i babysat boys that got sick after I started J. works all the time to make up for my pay loves staying at home when he's off. I walk 4 miles a week for exercising... ...Last weekend in July C. actually started to walk with out holding on to something. Talks a few words baby talks i under stand her. She'll say hi there to people she knows she's shy around strangers. Daddy's girl can't go (J.) anywhere with out C. when he's home. Her rooms cute since we J. painted it yellow the color she picked and bears paper thats a trim..." The new generation of a speech community, its young, are fluent native speakers of the spoken register by around 3 years of age. The scope and complexity of their native spoken grammar continues to expand up to school age and beyond. Once at school, they are introduced to the grammar

INTRODUCTION

15

of their first second language — the written register. This is often done rather abruptly and under the less-than-intimate conditions of public educa­ tion. Since the grammar of the written language is more extensive as well as more complex, and since to some extent the grammar of the oral register is a sub-set of written grammar, it is not an accident that descriptive gramma­ rians wind up describing primarily the grammar of the written register. But this understandable preference again must be tempered with recognizing the dynamic relationship between the two registers. The primacy, creative vigor and central role of the spoken language must be acknowledged. What also must be acknowledged is the fact that the more conservative grammar of the written register is constantly being replenished by innovations that arise mostly in the spoken register. 1.2.5.

Educated vs. uneducated grammar

In the main, the division between educated and uneducated grammar closely parallels the division of written vs. spoken language, respectively. Educated speakers, however, tend to control a wider range of spoken genres, some of which approximate — in their formality and complexity — the grammar of the written register. While the descriptive grammarian is often bound to describe the grammar of educated speakers as, at some level, 'the norm', what was noted above about the primacy of the spoken language remains applicable here. It is not uncommon for educated speakers or writers to abuse their 'upper' register. In their zeal for complexity and the right scholarly turn of phrase, such users often miss the point; namely that language, however complex or lofty its subject matter, is still an instrument of communication. As an illustration of extreme abuse of the scholarly jargon, consider:24 (18) "If the Roman government at the height of its power, and at the time when means of communication had been greatly improved, showed anxiety for the food supply of that Italy which was dominant in the Mediterranean world, it may be imagined that in the period preceding the great economic organization introduced by the Roman Principate the peoples of the Mediterranean region, peoples no one of which at the height of its power had controlled the visible food supply of the world so widely or so absolutely, had far graver cause for anxiety on the same

16

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

subject, an anxiety such as would be, under ordinary cir­ cumstances, the main factor, or, even under the most favorable circumstances possible in those ages, a main fac­ tor, in moulding the life of the individual and the policy of the state." The jargonization of written, educated-sounding language may on occasion take a decidedly comic turn, with grammatical complexity under some control, but lexical meaning scattered to the four winds. The follow­ ing passage is perhaps a good illustration of such would-be-educated lan­ guage:25 (19) "FROM THE PRESIDENT As it is with most things, time takes its toll and everything is affected by it. Some things appreciate over time...fine art, diamonds and gold, truth in expression. This is due in part to honest acceptance, love and appreciation of their mere existence. I believe this unadulterated attitude toward these material things can be transcended into hon­ orable organizations that colleagues are fundamentally attached to such as religion, political, fraternal and/or alumni. The major adhesive factor in the appreciation of that which you are fundamentally attached to and appreciate is what stands the test of time; that which you covenant amongst peers conjures lasting power and value; that which is viewed as significant to personal and fraternal identification is generally protected from blatant disfigure­ ment derived from negligence or irresponsible compla­ cency. And in being a major or minor adhered component the rewards therefrom are inevitably equal. Value is maintained, it is handed over to the fittest by recognized and accepted organizational process for con­ tinual maintenance and prosperity. The board actively invites enthusiastic alumni to provide assistance in the maintenance and prosperity of the University of Maryland Architecture Alumni Chapter..." The non-standard grammar of less-educated speakers is amply rep­ resented in written fiction, when speech is quoted directly by genre-sensi-

INTRODUCTION

17

tive writers. Thus, consider the following examples of subject relative clauses missing their relative pronoun: 26 (20) a. "...I been trying to get you, two days I been calling you. I figure you're shacked up with some broad filed for divorce. Needs a little sympathy, huh?..." (p. 12) b. "...I can't imagine the stockholder being too happy, splitting something he owns with a guy walks in off the street..." (p. 31)  "...Virgil asked him whatever happened to Wendell Haines and Bobby said Wendell had died. Virgil said he heard something like that, but who was it shot himl..:" (p. 95) 1.2.6. Formal vs. informal grammar In the main, more formal language tends to be strongly associated with the written register and educated speakers. In contrast, more informal lan­ guage tends to be associated with the spoken register and less-educated speakers. But the correlation is not absolute. First, even in a purely oral culture, some occasions call for a more formal speech-style, others for a more informal style. Second, within the written genre one can observe fine gradations of formality, with more intimate, personal writing often tilting toward the grammar of the informal spoken register. Formality of gram­ mar, in both registers, is a matter of degree; and then a matter of identify­ ing the socio-cultural context of the communication and making the appro­ priate choice of genre. 1.2.7. Grammar and social status Much of the prejudice against oral, uneducated, informal grammar boils down to old and recalcitrant social realities. By and large, political and economic power, status and prestige have always been vested in the more educated — often minority — segment of the population. This was true when writing and education were the jealously guarded preserve of a priestly class that served the hereditary power structure, as in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, early China, old Canaan or pre-Columbian Mayan Mesoamerica. And it remains true today, with some obvious exceptions: The proportion of educated, literate people within the population is perhaps higher. But the facts of universal public education tend to obscure

18

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

some persistent social realities. The vast majority of native speakers of English in either North America or Britain still spend the bulk of their life within a largely oral culture; that is, within the culture of people who make their living primarily by the use of their hands, rather than exclusively by the use of their brain. Among the educated elite, there is a tendency to look down on the lan­ guage of the less educated, the rural folks, the hicks in the sticks, the hardhats, the rednecks. This social prejudice is perhaps the true foundation of pejorative attitudes toward the grammar of spoken, informal, everyday lan­ guage. 1.2.8.

Grammar and ethnic minorities

Since ethnic minorities, in both North America and Britain, tend to occupy the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder, the extension of social prejudice to the grammatical usage of ethnic minorities is only natu­ ral. Self-appointed guardians of 'The Language' often single out the spoken grammar of minority speakers as the quintessential example of decline-andfall. Whether the association is made consciously or subconsciously is of course a matter of conjecture. As an example of this prejudice, consider the list of deadly sins of grammar touted by one guardian of our linguistic pur­ ity, Edward Koch, formerly mayor or New York City:27 (21) "...In a memo last week that dealt primarily with his con­ cerns that black history is being taught inadequately, Mayor Koch asked Schools Chancellor Richard R. Green what was being done about the city's slang-slinging youth? [sic] About his chief concerns: Why can't students say "ask" instead of "ax"? Koch has raised such concerns before. In a letter to Dr. Green in November, Koch and his staff and friends identified the six most mispronounced words or phrases as language usages that he believes are "objectionable" because they are "ungrammatical and lack syntax". Among them: =Dropping the letter 'g' from participles, as in "goin''' instead of "going". =Pronouncing "picture" as "pitcher". =Improper use of the verb "to be", as in "we be going".

INTRODUCTION

19

=Use of "ain't" instead of "isn't". =Improper use of personal pronouns, as in "she sent it to you and I"..." Almost every feature that riled Hizoner is characteristic of spoken, infor­ mal English spoken by less-educated whites in vast areas outside New York City. Nonetheless, the exclusive association of such offenses with the speech of (urban) blacks was taken for granted. 1.2.9.

Geographical dialects

Any speech community large enough and wide-spread enough is bound to show variation across geographic space. Such variation is again most apparent in the spoken register, where regionalisms are well documented across both North America and Britain. The educated register on both sides of the Atlantic, on the other hand, is much more uniform and rela­ tively non-regional. Regional dialects are therefore more likely to be associated with rural, working class, poorer, less-educated speech com­ munities. For members of such communities, as for the members of ethnic minorities, learning the non-regional literate register is an obvious step toward gaining access to economic power and social status. This is a cultural reality that no well-meaning ideological ranting and raving is likely to change soon. 1.2.10. Grammar and foreign talk English is spoken as a second language over a vast and rapidly expand­ ing swath of our planet. While our descriptions are rightly confined to native-like fluent grammar, one must acknowledge the existence of a large number of less-than-native varieties of English that are attested worldwide. The grammars and sound-patterns of such non-native varieties may indeed seem odd to the unaccustomed ear. Nevertheless, there is no ques­ tion but that the users of these forms of English are engaging in systematic, and on the whole successful and coherent, acts of communication. As an illustration of how far off-center non-native varieties may stray, consider the following notice to hotel guests:28

20

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(22) "CERTAINTY AND GUEST DISCIPLINE WHO STAY AT THE HOTEL/LODGING IN CIBERON REGION I.

Every guest who will stay at the hotel must report to the hotel's receptionist and give up the inhabitant card (KTP) for a while that can be used or other clear testimonial completely. II. For foreign guest citizen must fill "A" register and if they are in Indonesia must show sign letter self report (STMD) and other street letter that can be used and for other foreigners must show passport and document from Immigration Office. Based on P.P. number: 45 in 1954 act 5 and 6 about act regula­ tion foreigners problem. III. Every hotel guest/lodging must respect and take care of the Politeness (dress way and talking) also may not bring animal to room. IV. Every hotel guest/lodging may not do something who law invade such as: gambling, intoxicating and have sexual intercourse, save, bring also use forbid things at the hotel/lodging. V. Every hotel guest/lodging must take care of the things and room security and may not do the activity outside hotel function/lodging and if there are things destruction from the hotel/lodging every guest must change and the things owned by guest which are not saved to hotel tasker/lodging there are lost things/ broken the settler of the hotel or lodging not respon­ sible... X. ...Transgressions for these certainties become guest risk."

1.2.11. Grammar and individual style The locus of linguistic creativity and innovation is the individual speaker. Ultimately, no two speakers — even if they be members of the same family — use the very same grammar. And while variation among members of a small community or blood kins may be considered trivial or negligible, it is always there. Such subtle variation is a tribute to the

INTRODUCTION

21

indomitable spirit of human speakers, engaged even in the most mundane speech-acts, as they go about interpreting their daily experience and com­ municating it to others. And as they go about the business of communicat­ ing, they slowly and inexorably change the instrument of communication, trying to find better, faster, more transparent or more expressive ways of "saying the same thing". 29

1.3.

GRAMMAR FOR COMMUNICATION

1.3.1.

Major functions of language

Human language serves many functions, not all of them directly linked to the two major tasks of mental representation of experience or its com­ munication to others. Some of those meta-communicative other functions are: (a)

(b)

(c)

Socio-cultural cohesion functions: Language is often the main venue for both maintaining the socio-cultural cohesion of a group and signalling the identification of individuals with the group. Inter-personal affective functions: Language plays a major role in mediating the interaction between members of a group, in sig­ nalling affect, cooperation, obligation, dominance or competi­ tion. Aesthetic functions: Language is an important venue for signal­ ling aesthetic values, in oratory, fiction, poetry, song and thea­ ter.

Grammar indeed partakes, in one way or another, in the performance of all these meta-communicative functions. Nonetheless, the part contributed by grammar to the performance of these meta-communicative functions is in some way secondary. The bulk of our grammatical apparatus finds its prim­ ary use in the information-processing function of language, that is in the mental coding and verbal communication of information. 1.3.2.

Words, clauses, discourse

Language in its narrower core function, as an instrument of coding and communicating information, involves three well-coded, concentrically arrayed functional realms: (a) (b) (c)

Word (meaning) Clauses (information) Discourse (coherence)

22

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Words in our lexicon code our concepts of entities; words thus have meaning. The entities coded by words may 'exist' in several distinct senses. First, they may be part of our experience of the so-called external ('real') world, accessible in principle to all members of the human species. Second, they may be part of each person's internal mental world, accessible to that person only. Third, they may be part of our socially-negotiated cultural uni­ verse, within which we construe both external and internal entities as well as customs, institutions, interpretations, behavior patterns and so on. This universe is taken to be accessible to all members of the same culture. In most speech communities, the cultural universe is the most inclusive uni­ verse, subsuming the external universe. It also subsumes at least some por­ tions of the internal universe, presumably those that — via communication and repeated comparison — have come to be regarded as socially-shared.30 Clauses, also called sentences, code propositions. A proposition com­ bines concepts — i.e. words — into information. Information is about rela­ tions, qualities, states or events in which entities partake. And those rela­ tions, qualities, states or events may again reflect in some fashion our exter­ nal world, internal world, culturally-negotiated world, or various combina­ tions thereof. In discourse, lastly, individual propositions are combined together into coherent communication or coherent text. Discourse is thus predominantly multi-propositional, and its coherence is a property that transcends the bounds of isolated propositions. To illustrate the combinatorial relation of word-meaning, propositional information and discourse coherence, consider the utterances: (23) Words: a. drive b. insane  constant d. abuse e. maid f. kill g. butler h. knife i. hide j . fridge

INTRODUCTION

23

(24) Propositions: a. The maid was driven insane. b. The butler constantly abused the maid.  The maid killed the butler with a knife. d. The maid hid the knife in the fridge last night. (25) Multi-propositional discourse: Having been driven insane by constant abuse, the maid killed the butler with the knife that she had hidden in the fridge the night before. Taken by themselves, outside any propositional context, the words in (23a-j) can only have meaning, each one coding some concept. That is, you may only ask about them questions such as: (26) What d o e s - m e a n ? Uttered as part of propositions, as in (24a-d), the very same words now partake in the coding of propositional information. In addition to questions of meaning as in (26), the individual propositions in (24) may now give rise to many questions of information, such as: (27) a. b.  d. e. f. g. h.

Was the maid driven insane? Who abused the maid? Who killed the butler? Who did the maid kill? What did the maid kill the butler with? Did the maid kill the butler? Where did the maid hide the knife? When did the maid hide the knife in the fridge?

Finally, the multi-propositional text in (25), in which the isolated prop­ ositions of (24) are linked, has discourse coherence. In addition to ques­ tions of meaning as in (26), and of information as in (27), one may also ask questions that pertain to that coherence; such as: (28) a. b.  d.

Why did she kill him? How come she had a knife? Why had the maid hidden the knife in the fridge? Could she perhaps have talked to him first before taking such a drastic step? e. Was her action reasonable? Was it defensible in a court of law?

24

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

The questions in (28) may appear deceptively like those in (27). How­ ever, each question in (27) could be answered on the basis of knowing only one proposition in (24). In contrast, none of the questions in (28) could be answered on the basis of such atomic propositional knowledge. Rather, the knowledge of several propositions in the coherent discourse (25), or even of the entire coherent text, is required in order to answer the questions in (28). One may argue that on some occasions single words are used to carry information rather than merely convey conceptual meaning. As an illustra­ tion of such a case, consider the following exchange: (29) a. SPEAKER A: -Who killed the butler? b. SPEAKER : -The maid. Disregarding for the moment the definite article 'the', speaker B's response in (29b) includes only a single lexical word, 'maid'. 31 However, such a single-word response is in fact a truncated clause, standing in for the whole proposition: (30) The maid killed the butler. Only in the proper discourse context of (29a) could (29b) be a coherent communication, standing for the propositional information (30). Similarly, in other rigidly prescribed communicative contexts, singleword communications may stand for more expanded propositional informa­ tion. Some typical examples are: (31) a. Scalpel! (= 'Give me a scalpel!') ( > when uttered by a surgeon in the operating room) b. Water! (= 'Give me water!') ( > when uttered by a person crawling out of the desert)  Mommy! (= 'Mother, I need you!') (> when uttered by a child) d. Gravy? (= 'Would you like some gravy?') (> when uttered at the dinner table) e. Scram! (= 'Get out of here!') (>when uttered by a frustrated interlocutor) The considerable independence of conceptual meaning from proposi­ tional information is easy to demonstrate by constructing grammatically well-formed sentences that make no sense; that is, sentences whose words are perfectly meaningful each taken by itself, but still do not combine into a cogent proposition, as in:32

INTRODUCTION

25

(32) Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. The meaning-clashes that make proposition (32) bizarre — 'colorless green', 'green ideas', 'ideas sleep', 'sleep furiously' — are all due to the considerable semantic rigidity, or semantic specificity, of individual words. When one attempts to combine words whose meanings are incompatible, at least in particular configurations, their semantic rigidity is revealed. In the same vein, one could demonstrate that perfectly informative but wrongly-combined propositions yield an incoherent discourse. Re-order­ ing of the coherent paragraph in (25) will achieve just that: (33) Having killed the butler with the knife by constant abuse, the maid had been driven insane and had hidden it in the fridge the night before. 1.3.3.

Grammar as a communicative code

1.3.3.1. Joint coding Concepts are coded in language as words, a coding procedure that is achieved primarily via the use of sounds. Briefly and with inevitable over­ simplification, the sound code of English consists of strings of sounds — or letters in the written language — that code ('signal', 'stand for') particular words. The sound code is the most arbitrary part of the human linguistic code, a fact that is well attested by translation comparisons of how the same concept ('meaning') sounds in different languages.33 We will have relatively little to say in this book about the sound code of English, and will simply take it for granted. Grammar — also called syntax — is the coding instrument used to code, jointly, the two other functional realms: (a) (b)

The propositional information in the clause; and The discourse coherence of the clause placed in its discourse context

The grammatical code is both more complex and more abstract than the sound code. This complexity is due in large measure to the fact that gram­ mar codes two communicative realms jointly, and that each of the two involves considerable complexity on its own. And further, that the coding requirements of the two sometimes clash. The syntactic structure of each clause in coherent discourse is thus a mix. Some of its sub-components are used primarily to code the proposi-

26

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

tional information associated with the clause; this portion is probably a small fraction of syntax. Other sub-components of syntax — probably the bulk — are used primarily to code the discourse-pragmatics of the clause; that is, its communicative function, its coherence within the text, or its dis­ course context. The abstractness of grammar, particularly of the portions that code dis­ course-pragmatic function, is due to the fact that those functions are them­ selves abstract. They do not map directly onto either our experience of entities and concepts (words) or our experience of relations, states and events. Rather, discourse pragmatics involves the large variety of contex­ tual frames that surround our experience of relations, states or events. Put another way, if our world of experienced entities is a first-order phenome­ non; and if our world of experienced relations, states and events is a secondorder phenomenon; then our world of experienced discourse coherence is a third-order phenomenon. It is thus twice removed from our most immediate experience, and with each removal the abstraction grows. Why grammar is such a complicated code is of course a question of considerable interest. It may be resolved, ultimately, in the context of understanding how grammar arises, through evolution, history and lan­ guage learning. Be that as it may, the fact that syntax is used to code two distinct functional realms gives rise to a certain measure of friction or com­ petition. Some elements of grammatical structure tilt more toward the cod­ ing requirements of one realm, in the process messing up the coding of the other; and vice versa. We will survey a number of such cases throughout the book. In describing the grammar of any language, it is useful to follow a twostep progression: (a) (b)

the grammar of simple clauses the grammar of complex clauses

While this division is not absolute, it corresponds, up to a point, to our divi­ sion between the two major grammar-coded realms, propositional seman­ tics and discourse pragmatics. The motivation for this two-step approach is developed more fully in section 1.4. below. 1.3.3.2. Coding devices in syntax Syntactic structure, at its most concrete, is made out of three main cod­ ing devices:

INTRODUCTION

(a) (b) (c)

27

grammatical morphology word-order intonation patterns

Another, more abstract, element may also be noted: (d)

constraints

In describing the various syntactic structures of English, and the way in which they code their respective communicative functions, we will attempt to describe structure in terms of, at least, these four components.

1.4.

THEME AND VARIATION IN SYNTACTIC DESCRIPTION

The procedure we use for describing the grammar of a language is as follows: We first describe the grammar of simple clauses; we then describe the grammar of complex clauses. The grammar of a complex clause is described as a function of two factors: (a) (b)

the grammar of the corresponding simple clause; the clauses discourse context or discourse-pragmatic function

This common-sensical descriptive progression, implicit in most traditional grammatical descriptions, is due to some more explicit insights articulated by the early Transformational grammarians.34 Within our common-sensical approach to grammatical description, the structure of a simple clause may be likened to the theme, while the struc­ ture of the various complex clauses that correspond to it may be likened to variations on the theme. A simple clause can be understood in terms of the theme alone. Each complex clause-type — or variation — must be under­ stood in the combined terms: (a) (b)

its 'underlying' theme; and the specific nature of the variation.

To illustrate this approach briefly, consider the following simple clause containing a subject, a verb and an object: (34) Theme: Mary kicked the ball The theme clause in (34) is a main, declarative, affirmative, active clause. Each one of these four characterizations of the theme may be contrasted with a possible variation — or variations — in complex clauses. In the vari­ ous complex clauses below, we highlight the portion that corresponds to the

28

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

simple-clause theme in (34). The complex clauses in (35) below contrast with the theme (34) in that they are dependent ('subordinate', 'embedded') rather than main clauses: (35) Dependent clauses: a. Mary wanted to kick the ball. b. The woman who kicked the ball was penalized. c. Having kicked the ball, Mary left. The complex clauses in (36) below contrast with the theme (34) in that they are either interrogative or imperative rather than declarative clauses: (36) Non-declarative clauses: a. Did Mary kick the ball? b. What did Mary kick?  Go kick the ball! d. Would you please kick the ball? The complex clause in (37) below contrasts with the theme (34) in that it is a negative rather than affirmative clause: (37) Negative clause: Mary didn't kick the ball. Finally, the complex clause in (38) below contrasts with the theme (34) in that is it a passive rather than an active clause: (38) Passive clause: The ball was kicked by Mary. Within bounds, it is indeed true that both functionally (or conceptu­ ally) and structurally, complex clauses are indeed just that — more complex than the simple theme clauses that underlie them. The notion of 'underlie' here should be taken to mean, roughly, 'share the same propositionalsemantic theme, but lack the discourse-pragmatic context that motivated the variation'. 35

1.5.

PARSING: TREE DIAGRAMS

The formal instrument we will be using to describe the syntactic struc­ ture of English clauses is called Tree Diagrams. It is a full equivalent of the traditional descriptive instrument known as parsing. Parsing diagrams tra­ ditionally handle three main aspects of clausal structure:

INTRODUCTION

(a) (b) (c)

29

linear order; constituency; and category labels.

By linear order we mean the temporal order of the various constituents of the clause, both words and their sub-components. By constituency we mean which elements are parts of larger elements. By category labels we mean what is the structural or functional category to which a particular con­ stituent is assigned. To illustrate these elements of parsing briefly, consider the syntactic structure of our theme clause in (34), given now as:

The constituency relations in this simple sentence are indicated by keeping the symbol for the whole sentence [S] at the very top — 'root' — of the tree. The sentence [S] has two constituents, the subject [SUBJ] and the verb phrase [VP] — in that order. The subject of this sentence has only a single constituent, a name [NAME]. Next, the verb phrase [VP] has two constituents, the verb [V] and the object [OBJ] — in that order. Finally, the object [OBJ] has two constituents, the determiner [DET] and the noun [N] — in that order. The diagram as a whole thus takes care of labeling each constituent with the appropriate category label, indicating whole-part rela­ tions between constituents, and placing them in the right temporal order. One element of our description requires further elaboration. As one may have noticed, we have assigned a double label to both the subject [SUBJ] and object [OBJ] of the sentence, placing in brackets the label of noun phrase [NP] underneath each. The reason for this has to do with the fact that there are at least two levels of grammatical description running in parallel. Labels such as [SUBJ] and [OBJ] refer to grammatical-syntactic

30

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

function or relation, a notion to be dealt with more fully in chapter 3. Labels such [S], as [NP], [VP] and others, in contrast, refer more exclu­ sively to syntactic structure. There have been various attempts in contem­ porary grammatical description to deal with this dichotomy without using double labels; most of these attempts have been rather unsuccessful. Their claimed virtues have to do with their formal purity and theoretical reductionism, in employing only a single principle to label syntactic structures. In writing this book, I have opted for coherence and common sense over for­ mal purity and reductionism.

1.6. DEEP STRUCTURE, SURFACE STRUCTURE AND MEANING Closely related to the framework of theme-and-variations in syntactic description is the distinction between deep and surface syntactic structure. 36 In simple, 'theme' (main, declarative, affirmative, active) clauses, the deep structure and a surface structure roughly coincide, they are to all intent and purpose one and the same. 37 A clause's deep structure corresponds most closely to its semantic structure, that is to its propositional meaning. The surface structure of a simple clause, being roughly the same as its deep structure, is thus semantically transparent. It reveals the underlying mean­ ing relations with minimal distortion. In most complex ('variant') clauses, on the other hand, the surface structure is somewhat at odds with the deep structure, so much so that the two must be described independently. Given the considerable difference between the two, the surface structure of complex clauses does not reveal their underlying propositional meaning, and may thus be considered semantically opaque. The syntactic complexity of non-theme clauses is thus the source of the semantic opacity of their surface structure. That is, in producing a syntacti­ cally-complex clause, one endows it with a surface structure that is not semantically transparent, a surface structure that does not correspond to its deep structure. The distortion in form-meaning relation introduced by syntactic com­ plexity is not done for the heck of it. Rather, it is the consequence of the fact that the syntactic structure of complex clauses is tipped heavily toward coding their discourse-pragmatic function. But discourse-pragmatics and propositional semantics are here in direct competition for coding resources. In the process of tilting grammatical coding machinery more heavily toward

INTRODUCTION

31

discourse pragmatics, some of the semantic transparency that is so charac­ teristic of simple clauses is sacrificed. The structure of complex clauses is thus a communicative compromise between two partially-conflicting goals. Each one is served, but not fully, since the other must also be accommodated. This imperfect state of affairs is due to the fact that syntax (or grammar) is used to code two distinct func­ tional realms. The best illustration of the difference between deep and surface syntac­ tic structure involves clauses that are syntactically — and thus semantically — ambiguous. Consider first (40) below, where the seemingly-identical sur­ face clause has two distinct interpretations, (40a) and (40b):38 (40) Flying planes can be dangerous. a. Planes that fly can be dangerous (to people). b. For one to fly planes can be dangerous (to one). The surface structure of (40) may be given by two near-identical tree dia­ grams, (41a,b) below. These structures are substantially the same, except for some details of their category labels. Diagrams (41a) and (41b) thus corre­ spond to the two interpretations of (40), (40a) and (40b) respectively. (41) a.

32

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

In spite of their slight difference, neither of the surface structure dia­ grams (41a,b) tells us much about the meaning difference between the two interpretations (40a) and (40b). In order to accomplish that, we must now describe separately the deep structure corresponding to each interpreta­ tion. The one corresponding to (40a)/(41a) is: (42) (42)

S

The one corresponding to (40b)/(41b) is:

INTRODUCTION

33

(43)

The meaning difference between (40a) and (40b) is now revealed to be the function of the deep structure 'source' of the surface noun phrase 'flying planes'. In the case of (40a), we are dealing with the intransitive (objectless) verb 'fly' whose subject is 'planes'. In the case of (40b), we are dealing with the transitive verb 'fly' whose object is 'planes'. Consider next the case of the two clauses (44a) and (44b) below, whose meaning difference is clearly coded by the use of two different adjectives, 'easy' and 'eager': 39 (44) a. Sally is easy to please. b. Sally is eager to please. Clauses (44a) and (44b) share the very same surface structure, (45) below:

34

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

However, some rather trivial paraphrase manipulations of the two struc­ tures in (44) reveal that their 'deeper' structures must be radically different. Compare, for example, the paired paraphrases in (46) below, where the symbol [*] marks an ill-formed ('ungrammatical') expression: (46) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

(For one) to please Sally is easy. *(For one) to please Sally is eager.  found it easy to please Sally. *He found it eager to please Sally. Sally is eager to please everybody. *Sally is easy to please everybody. Sally is easily pleased (by anybody). *Sally is eagerly pleased (by anybody).

In the syntactic analysis of two clauses with a similar surface structure, dis­ covering grammatical contexts where one fits and the other does not is taken to be strong evidence that under their deceptively similar surface structures lurk two different deep structures. The two deep structures cor­ responding to (44a) and (44b) are, respectively, (47) and (48) below: (47)

INTRODUCTION

35

The deep structure descriptions (47) and (48) reveal that the adjective 'easy' in the surface structure (44a)/(45) is derived from the adverb 'easily' in the deep-structure (47). One sees now that in (44a) 'Sally' is the object of the verb 'please'. In contrast, the adjective 'eager' in the surface structure (44b)/(45) remains an adjective in the deep-structure (48). One also sees now that 'Sally' in (44b), in addition to being the subject of 'eager', is also the subject of the verb 'please'. A similar case of syntactic-semantic ambiguity involves the complex clause: (49) I am looking for someone to teach. Its ambiguity may be pointed out by the expansions: (50) a. I am looking for someone to teach French. (> ...someone so that they teach (someone) French.) b. I am looking for someone to teach French to. (> ...someone so that I teach them French.) The deep-structure description of the two potential senses of (49) — (50a,b) — must reveal the crucial difference concerning whether the subject of 'look-for' is either the subject or the object of 'teach'. The more expanded (50a,b), while still considerably mutilated as compared to their full-fledged deep structure, are already revealing enough to differentiate between the two interpretations of (49).

36

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Many types of complex clauses in English are sufficiently mutilated, truncated or chopped-up so as to obscure, at least in some contexts, their deep structures — thus also their propositional meanings. However, the seeming semantic opacity and potential ambiguity of such surface structures is not necessarily a major block to communication. This is so because the dis­ course context within which such complex clauses are embedded often allows the listener to resolve their potential ambiguity one way or another. For example, if (49) above were uttered by a short-staffed highschool prin­ cipal at the beginning of the school year, interpretation (50a) would have been more likely. On the other hand, if (49) were uttered by an unemployed French teacher, interpretation (50b) would have been more likely. The toleration of potential ambiguity in using complex syntax often involves subtle judgement calls. Speakers and writers make successful com­ municative choices by being well tuned to the discourse context of indi­ vidual clauses. Good communicators are particularly successful at guessing what the hearer or reader is likely to know or believe, what is easy for them to infer, what they are likely to figure out from context. In striving to be a successful user of grammar, one must remember that grammar is not about grammar, nor is it about following rules. Rather, grammar is about success­ ful communication. In other words, grammar is about producing coherent discourse.

INTRODUCTION

37

NOTES 1) Proponents of the arbitrariness of grammar are fond of asserting that if not 100% of the rules of grammar are functionally transparent, or if a single rule is not 100% transparent, a functionalist approach is untenable. This all-or-nothing approach is again consonant with the logic-machine view of grammar, rather than with a more realistic biologically-based approach. 2) In the structural design of biological organisms, one also finds many instances of excess structure (Gould, 1980), whereby neither the current nor any older function seems to be per­ formed. Most often, this turns out to reflect higher and more abstract levels of biological design. Within those levels, structures do not correspond in a simple one-to-one fashion to more obvi­ ous, concrete, lower-level functions. Rather, they tend to reflect higher-level meta-functional requirements, ones that arise from combining multi-level structures — and their corresponding functions — into a single complex design. At that level of complexity, the whole is not always the mere sum of its parts. 3) See Berko (1961). Children acquiring English as their first language are prone to rebel against such counter-communicative rules, and often insist on regularizing them, commonly pluralizing 'foot' as 'foots' and 'fish' as 'fishes', or deriving the past tense of 'see' first as 'seed' and later as 'sawed'. 4) See Mayr (1974). 5) For the distinction between automated and attended-analytic processing, see Posner and Snyder (1974) or Schneider and Shiffrin (1977). For grammar as an automated processing device, see Givón (1989, ch. 7). 6) Cited from Jespersen (1921/1964, p. 65). 7) James Kilpatrick, in the Eugene, OR, Register-Guard, 11-11-90. 8) Brown (1986, pp. 191-202) tracks this usage back at least 200 years. 9) James Kilpatrick, in the Eugene, OR, Register-Guard, sometime in 1989. 10) Ibid., approx. one year later. 11) Courtesy of Robert Stockwell (in personal communication). 12) McNeil (1970). 13) This is widespread among American children into their teens. Dwight Bolinger (in per­ sonal communication) notes that in his own speech the frozen form 'gimme it' is acceptable, while 'He gave her it', 'they gave us it', 'she gave him them' etc. are not. 14) Hamburger and Crain (1982). 15) Gruber (1967a). 16) Gruber (1967a). 17) Bowerman (1983). 18) Quoted from Jespersen (1921/1964, p. 320). 19) Ibid., p. 322. 20) "At whom the dog barks" by Lore Segal; The New Yorker, Dec. 3, 1990 (p. 45).

38

ENGLISH G R A M M A R

21) For a comparative view of spoken vs. written language, see Ochs (1979); Givón (1979a, ch. 5). For an overview of the structure of conversation, see Goodwin (1981). 22) From the life-story of a retired New Mexico rancher in his early fifties, tape-recorded in Bloomfield, NM in the winter of 1980. Oral conversation tends to differ even more from the written register. 23) From a personal letter by a California woman in her mid thirties. 24) The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th Edition, in an article on ancient Greece; as cited in an issue of The New Yorker ca. 1988. 25) A letter from Alumni Chapter President, Joe Quarterman, in Maryland Architecture, newsletter of the University of Maryland Architecture Alumni Chapter; as cited in an issue of The New Yorker, sometime in 1990. 26) From Elmore Leonard, Unknown Man # 89 (NY: Avon Books, 1977). This particular trait of spoken American English is discussed in chapter 9. 27) From a New York Times article, reprinted in the San Francisco Chronicle, date unre­ corded. 28) Posted at the Grand Hotel, Ciberon, Indonesia; quoted from The New Yorker from sometime in 1987. 29) The theoretical and methodological problems that leaps to mind here are not easy to solve. Does one continue to 'say the same thing' when one has found another way of saying it? The gist of the problem is, of course, how to define it independently of 'the way of saying if. 30) The philosophical mine-field which we will deliberately sidestep here has been a matter of stormy debate over 2500-odd years of Western civilization. The debate concerns what both mind and language 'represent'. Implicitly, I pursue here a middle-ground Pragmatist approach, close in spirit to Kant, Peirce and Wittgenstein. Within this pragmatic framework, language stands for mental entities, be those concepts, mental propositions or mental text. Those mental entities in turn may stand for a rather heterogenous universe, part of which may reflect 'The External World', other parts a purely 'Internal Universe', other parts yet the culturally-shared universe. The reader interested in pursuing these issues further may wish to consult my Mind, Code and Context (1989). 31) We will ignore for the moment the fact that it also includes the grammatical operator 'the'. This operator, the English definite article, is used here to code the discourse coherence of 'maid' across the two clauses — A's question and B's response. 32) This celebrated example is due to N. Chomsky. 33) The notion 'same concept' is of course a relative matter. No concept in one language is exactly the same as its equivalent — even close equivalent — in another. For an extensive discus­ sion of this, see again my Mind, Code and Context (1989, ch. 9). 34) Harris (1956); Chomsky (1957, 1965). 35) This sense of underlie used here is more akin to Harris' (1956) than to Chomsky's (1965) revised framework. In the latter, one derives complex clauses from their underlying simple clauses through transformations. The motivation for Chomsky's approach was, as far as one can judge, purely formal, having to do with considerations of descriptive simplicity and economy. From the perspective adopted here, the usefulness of viewing the relationship between a simple and a complex clause as a transformational derivation is an issue for cognitive or neurological, and certainly empirical, investigation.

INTRODUCTION

39

36) Due to Chomsky's (1965) revision of his and Harris' earlier transformational framework. 37) Some formal syntacticians insist on differences here too, but for our purpose such differ­ ences may be safely ignored. 38) After Chomsky (1957). 39) Again due to Chomsky (1957).

2

I

VOCABULARY: WORDS A N D MORPHEMES

2.1.

PRELIMINARIES

2.1.1.

Recapitulation: Meaning, information and communication

This chapter covers what has been called traditionally parts of speech. In studying grammar, we deal with clauses or sentences from two distinct perspectives: (a) (b)

Internal: How they are constructed from a vocabulary External: How they are combined together into discourse.

As noted in chapter 1, the three main components of the human communi­ cative code — words, clauses, discourse — are related to each other in a concentric fashion. That is:

Words code concepts that have meaning. Grammar-clad clauses code propositions that convey information. But clauses may also be strung together into multi-propositional discourse, which then has coherence. The relationship between these three levels may be summarized as follows: (1)

code level word clause discourse

message level lexical meaning propositional information textual coherence

42

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Given the inclusion relation between the three major components of the communicative code, understanding the meaning of words is one pre­ requisite — necessary but not sufficient — for understanding the informa­ tion in the clause. And understanding the propositional information in clauses is one prerequisite — necessary but not sufficient — for understand­ ing the coherence of the discourse. The study of grammar must thus begin with the study of the smaller building-blocks of communication — the vari­ ous types of words that make up clauses. The difference between 'meaning', a property of words, and 'informa­ tion1, a property of propositions, can be illustrated by a simple-minded test involving the logical notion of truth. Consider the sentences: (2)

a. The cow jumped over the fence. b. The cow didn't jump over the fence.

Either sentence (2a) or (2b) may be false without the meanings of the words 'cow', 'jump', 'over' or 'fence1 being affected in the least. Now, does a single word have 'truth 1 ? Consider a one-word utterance such as: (3)

cow

Truth seems irrelevant here, unless 'cow1 in (3) is merely an abbreviated version of an answer to question (4a) below, i.e. a stand-in for the proposi­ tion (4b): (4)

a. Who jumped over the fence? b. The cow jumped over the fence.

The difference between 'information1, a property of propositions, and 'coherence', a property of discourse, may be illustrated by contrasting two alternative sequences of the same two, equally-true, propositions: (5)

a. The cow jumped over the fence and broke her four legs b. ?The cow broke her four legs and jumped over the fence

Of the two sequences above, (5a) is coherent but (5b) is not, or at least visibly less so. The truth of individual propositions thus cannot, in and of itself, guarantee the coherence of their sequences in multi-propositional discourse. Something in the information packaged into the two clauses in (5) is indeed responsible for their yielding a coherent discourse in one order (5a) but an incoherent one in the other (5b). That 'something' has to do with our culturally-shared knowledge of likely vs. unlikely sequential combinations of events. And it can only become manifest when propositions are combined together into a text.

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

43

As further illustration of coherence relations that are independent of truth, compare the relatively coherent (6a,b) below with the relatively incoherent (6c,d): (6)

My mechanic loves nachos... (a) but hates brie. (b) but I don't. (c) ?but Charles Darwin didn't. (d) ?but the sky is blue.

There is nothing logically contradictory about sequencing either (6c) or (6d) to the first proposition in (6). In each case, both propositions in the sequence may be equally true. Nonetheless, the combined discourse is less than coherent, this time due to failure of relevance between the first and second proposition. As a final illustration, consider: (7)

a. She jumped into the river and drowned. b. ?She jumped into the river. And drowned.  ?Mary jumped into the river and Mary drowned.

Again, without going here into much detail, the two individual clauses in (7a,b,c) may be equally true; they indeed come in the same sequential order; what is more, 'she' refers to 'Mary' in all cases. Still, these facts by themselves do not guarantee that the combination would yield a coherent discourse. In this case, the grammar of clause-combining is at issue: It is used correctly in (7a) but incorrectly in (7b,c). In sum, while lexical meaning affects propositional information, and while propositional information affects discourse coherence, the three levels of language-coded communication are distinct. 2.1.2. The conceptual lexicon: Semantic features and semantic fields The lexical meaning of words has both internal and external aspects. Internally, while words (or 'morphemes') are the smallest code units in lan­ guage, they are not the smallest units of meaning. Rather, the meanings of words are structured clusters of semantic features. Externally, the semantic features of words also determine their classifi­ cation — or storage location — in the mind-stored conceptual lexicon. The semantic features of words thus define the structure of the lexicon, the way it is organized according to semantic fields. Consider for example the noun 'elephant'. Its semantic features make

44

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

it a member of many semantic fields, such as: mammal, herbivore, large, tusks, ivory, trunk, hunting, poaching, circus, Africa/India, etc. But all these semantic features may partake in the lexical meaning of other words/concepts in addition to 'elephant'. The semantic fields of 'elephant', corresponding to the semantic features listed above, are respectively: bio-classification, food, size, teeth, tooth-material, nose, human predation, criminal predation, entertainment, geography, etc. All these semantic fields have other members in addition to 'elephant'. The mind-stored lexicon may thus be viewed as a network of semantic fields, where individual words occupy the intersections of various fields. "Semantic feature" and "semantic field" are thus fundamentally one and the same notion, but viewed from two different perspectives: (a) (b)

2.1.3.

The individual word perspective: A concept "contains" many semantic features. The total lexicon perspective: The lexicon is a "network" of many semantic fields. Shared vocabulary: Meaning and cultural world-view "...To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life..." L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (1953, p. 8) "...The limits of my language mean the limits of my world..." L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus (1918, p. 115)

Both as a collection of words and as a complex network of semantic fields, the mind-stored lexicon codes the stable, culturally-shared knowl­ edge about our universe, with 'culturally shared' subsuming both the 'exter­ nal' and 'internal' universe. By "stable" we mean, roughly, that the rate of change within this mentally-represented universe is relatively slow. So that from one day to the next words retain much of their meaning. "Culturally shared" means that being a member of the same culture — or speech com­ munity — entails, among other things, sharing a common lexicon. That is,

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

45

it entails sharing a large treasury of mind-stored words that have roughly the same — or substantially similar — meaning from one speaker to the next.1 And in turn, sharing a common mind-stored repository of concepts means sharing the same cultural world-view, thus sharing the same universe. The objectivity of our universe is a matter of degree. Some of its fea­ tures may seem more physical and 'objective', and thus tend to be shared by all humans regardless of culture. Others may be progressively less phys­ ical, thus more dependent on one's culture-specific point of view, or even — at the very extreme — on one's subjective perspective. 2 2.1.4.

History of the English lexicon

The vocabulary of English is not homogenous in its source, but rather comes from two main sources. Old English, or Anglo-Saxon, was a cluster of Germanic dialects related to Frisian. These dialects were transplanted to the British Isles through conquest sometime after AD 400, with a written tradition attested since about AD 700.3 Anglo-Saxon shared the general stock of its initial vocabulary with other Germanic dialects. The Germanic vocabulary of English also includes early borrowings into Anglo-Saxon from neighboring continental Germanic dialects, as well as later borrowings in the British Isles from Scandinavian settlers and raiders prior to the Nor­ man conquest. The bulk of the non-Germanic vocabulary of English has come into the language through four channels of borrowing from Romance languages: (a)

(b)

(c) (d)

Latin vocabulary borrowed into Germanic dialect during the Roman occupation of German lands, but before the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain. Latin vocabulary borrowed into the Celtic languages of Britain during the Roman conquest, then later transmitted into Anglo-Saxon after AD 400; French vocabulary borrowed into English gradually fol­ lowing the Norman conquest (AD 1066). Latin learned vocabulary acquired through conscious intellectual efforts by late scholars (such as the lexicog­ rapher Samuel Johnson and the various scientific disci­ plines) as the medium of scholarly communication shifted from Latin to English.4

The first two layers of Latin borrowing are well-integrated into the native Germanic lexicon of English, both in terms of cultural-semantic

46

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

fields and the sound system. Only an expert — an etymologist — could tell the foreign origin of such early-borrowed words. The same is not true of either the Norman-French or later learned Latin borrowings. These are dis­ tinguishable to this day from the Germanic vocabulary of English, by the following cluster of criteria: criterion

Germanic

Romance

semantic fields: acquisition: word-size: function: phonology5 stress:6 derivation:7

everyday life early small includes grammar Germanic rules word-initial mostly Germanic

learned, abstract late large only lexical Romance rules non-initial mostly Romance

2.2.

LEXICAL VS. GRAMMATICAL VOCABULARY

When we referred to 'words' earlier, we deliberately left a certain mea­ sure of imprecision in the discussion. This imprecision must be now removed. The vocabulary of any language can be divided into two major groups, one of which is further split into two: (a) (b)

lexical ('content') words non-lexical ('function') words: (i) grammatical morphemes (ii) derivational morphemes

The three resulting classes — lexical, grammatical and derivational — differ substantially as to their function within the communicative code, and these differences are surveyed briefly below. 2.2.1.

Lexical words

What was said earlier about 'words' in fact applies more precisely to lexical vocabulary. Lexical words code the stable, culturally-shared con­ cepts. Individually and as a network, this lexical vocabulary represents our shared physical and cultural universe. 8 One can indeed communicate in any language by using only lexical words, a mode of communication called pidgin. But pidgin communication is limited, slow, error-prone and con­ text-bound; it is used primarily during the early stages of language acquisi­ tion, both first and second.

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

47

"Now! ... That should clear up a few things around here!" 2.2.2.

Grammatical morphemes

Grammatical morphemes partake in making up the grammatical struc­ ture of clauses. They thus partake in the coding of both propositional mean­ ing and discourse pragmatics. Most grammatical constructions in English involve at least some grammatical morphology. 2.2.3.

Derivational morphemes

The function of derivational morphemes is to create — 'derive' — new lexical words from existing ones. We will have relatively little to say about derivational morphology after this chapter, since strictly speaking it lies in the province of lexicography rather than grammar. In addition to their divergent functions, other criteria may be used to distinguish lexical words from grammatical and derivational morphemes. In

48

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

English, these criteria are: criterion

lexical words

morphemic status: word size: stress: meaning: class size: membership: function:

free large stressed complex, specific large open code shared knowledge

non-lexical morphemes bound small unstressed simple, general small closed grammar, word-derivation

We will survey these criteria in order. a.

Morphemic status: Lexical words tend to come as free, independent words. Grammatical and derivational morphemes tend to appear as bound morphemes or affixes. They are attached to lexical words as either prefixes or suffixes. b.

Word size: Lexical words tend to be large (long). Grammatical and derivational morphemes tend to be small (short). 

Stress: A lexical word in English carries one primary word-stress. Grammati­ cal and derivational morphemes tend to be unstressed. d.

Meaning: Lexical words tend to be semantically complex; that is, they are clus­ ters of many, highly specific semantic features. Each lexical word is thus a member of many semantic fields. Grammatical and derivational mor­ phemes, on the other hand, tend to be semantically simple; they often code a single feature, one that is likely to be very general ('classificatory'). e.

Class size: Lexical words come in few large classes. Grammatical and derivational morphemes come in many small classes. f.

Membership: The membership of a lexical class is relatively open; new members join regularly and old members drop out, as new words are coined or the mean­ ing of old words is extended. Cultural change is the prime cause of addition

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

49

or subtraction of lexical vocabulary. The membership of a grammatical or derivational class, on the other hand, is relatively closed, and grammatical change is usually involved when members are added or subtracted. Most commonly, grammatical change involves changes in the communicative instrument itself, rather than in the cultural world-view. Such changes tend to occur under three distinct functional pressures: (a) Creative elaboration of the code (b) Truncation of code elements for faster processing (c) Simplification of the code:message relation g.

Historical origin: The lexical words of English, as noted earlier above, are both native Germanic and borrowed. This is also true of English derivational mor­ phemes, which were borrowed together with lexical words. In contrast, English grammatical morphemes are all native Germanic. To illustrate the difference between lexical and grammatical vocabu­ lary, consider the following three renditions of a short text passage. Version (8a) retains only the grammatical vocabulary; version (8b) retains only the lexical vocabulary; version (8c) is the original text:9 (8)

a. -s after -ed I -ed to the. Of I had -en over of it a -s, but it had -en -s then, and not mine. b. One afternoon about ten day Dad die decide ought look ranch. course be over every inch hundred time, be Dad ranch.  One afternoon about ten days after Dad died I decided I ought to look over the ranch. Of course I had been over every inch of it a hundred times, but it had been Dad's ranch then, and not mine.

Version (8b), with only lexical words, in fact approximates a pidgin rendi­ tion of the text. While cumbersome, at least the skeleton of the intended communication of (8c) is discernible. In contrast, version (8a) conveys none of the message. Its various elements are indeed extremely helpful in elucidating the precise message when combined with the lexical vocabulary, as in (8c). But on its own, the grammatical morphology in (8a) communi­ cates nothing. The following cartoon pokes fun at this.10

50

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

DOONESBURY

2.3.

by Garry Trudeau

THE MORPHEMIC STATUS OF ENGLISH VOCABULARY

As can be seen from example (8), the morphemic status of grammati­ cal morphemes in written English varies. Some grammatical morphemes in English are bound morphemes or affixes that must be attached to the stems

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

51

of lexical words. In English, such bound morphemes may be either suffixes (following the stem), as in 'walked', 'singing', 'heartless', 'immunize' etc.; or they may be prefixes (preceding the stem), as in 'ungrateful', 'rearrange', 'impossible', 'deconstruct' or 'enmesh'. In addition to those that are written as bound morphemes (prefixes, suffixes), many grammatical morphemes in English are written as if they were independent word-stems, i.e. free morphemes. Such cases are, for example, 'the horse', 'a woman', 'of wine', 'my house', 'should leave', 'had left' or 'didn't want'. This variation in the written morphemic status of Eng­ lish grammatical vocabulary is due primarily to the historical process that gives rise to bound morphology. Briefly, short, unstressed grammatical (or derivational) morphemes naturally tend to become bound to long, stressed lexical words. However, both grammatical and derivational morphemes arise historically from lexical words. During their protracted functional evolution, and given the conservative nature of writing systems, erstwhile words that already function as grammatical (or derivational) morphemes retain their older written status as independent words, at least for a while. In the spoken language, their behavior — contraction, loss of stress, merg­ ing with neighboring lexical words — matches much more closely their new functional status as grammatical (or derivational) morphemes.

2.4.

LEXICAL WORD-CLASSES

2.4.1.

Membership criteria

In this section we will deal with the four major classes of lexical words in English: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Nouns Verbs Adjectives Adverbs

We will characterize each class by three types of criteria: (a) Semantic criteria: The kind of meanings (or 'semantic fea­ tures') that tend to be coded by words of a particular class. (b) Morphological criteria: The kind of bound morphemes — both grammatical and derivational — that tend to be bound to words of a particular class. (c) Syntactic criteria: The typical position(s) in the clause that words of a particular class tend to occupy.

52

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

In using a cluster of criteria rather than rigid definitions, one tacitly acknowledges the problem of classification of grammatical phenomena. It is perhaps worth our while to raise here, however briefly, the general issue of classification (or 'categorization'). The issue is not only relevant to the clas­ sification of words, but also to the classification of grammatical phenomena. Indeed, it goes to the heart of our understanding of the notion rules of grammar. 2.4.2.

Natural classes: Prototypicality and variability "...Most of the definitions given in even recent books are little better than sham definitions in which it is extremely easy to pick holes...Not a single one of these definitions is either exhaustive or cogent..." O. Jespersen, Philosophy of Grammar (1924, pp. 58-59)

A natural classification — i.e. one created by the perceptions and cog­ nition of living organisms — is never squeaky clean and free of problems. Natural classes are seldom as neat as logical classes. Rather, they are most commonly a somewhat messy affair. First, not all members of a natural class abide by rigid membership criteria to the same degree. Second, mem­ bership is most commonly determined by a cluster of criteria. Some of these criteria are more important ('central') than others, but none is absolutely inviolable by itself. Consequently, natural classes do not resemble pure log­ ical classes; their definitions, and thus their boundaries, are a bit fuzzy, they allow some slop, ambiguity and overlap. Otto Jespersen, quoted above, identified this problem rather suc­ cinctly, and his theoretical prescription in fact alludes to the need for a clus­ ter approach, whereby each criterion is neither absolutely necessary nor by itself sufficient:11 "...the trained grammarian knows whether a given word is an adjec­ tive or a verb not by referring to such definitions, but in practically the same way in which we all on seeing an animal know whether it is a cow or a cat, and children can learn it much as they learn to distinguish familiar animals, by practice, being shown a sufficient number of specimens and having their attention drawn successively now to this and now to that distin­ guishing feature..." (1924, p. 62; emphases added; TG).

While natural classes are far from clean, neither are they totally chao­ tic or permissive. Rather, they span the middle ground between absolute rigidity and total flux. Some members — most commonly a substantial majority — are in fact fairly typical; they resemble the prototype of the

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

53

class in many features. But other members — typically a minority — resem­ ble the prototypes less, in either this or that feature. The population of a natural class is often best characterized by its fre­ quency distribution curve, where — with respect to any criterial feature or cluster of features — the most prototypical members are closest to the population mean. Around that mean clusters a substantial majority of the membership. Such a distribution may be illustrated as:

% of members in each segment of the category space

A natural population thus tolerates a certain proportion of deviant — less typical — members, as long as that proportion is not too high. The dis­ tribution curve of a natural population accommodates weak, less-typical or even ambiguous members, but only at the margins. When discussing the semantic characteristics — and membership — of various lexical classes, one must bear in mind that some members are more typical, while others are less so. And that some semantic features are more central to the definition of the prototype, while others are less central. And that, fundamentally, natural classification is not one hundred percent air­ tight. Edward Sapir, a noted American linguist, has put it perhaps most succinctly when talking about the limits of grammatical regularity: "...Were a language ever completely "grammatical", it would be a perfect engine of conceptual expression. Unfortunately, or luckily, no language is tyrannically consistent. All grammars leak..." (E. Sapir, Language, 1921, p. 38)12

2.4.3.

Semantic overview

Of the four major lexical word-classes we will survey here, three — nouns, adjectives, verbs — can be set apart initially by four semantic

54

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

criteria. These criteria may be considered the top of the hierarchy of seman­ tic features by which humans classify verbally-coded experience. They are: 13 (a) (b) (c) (d)

temporal stability (rate of change over time) concreteness (physicality) compactness (degree of spatial scatter) complexity (number of defining features)

The way these criteria define the three lexical classes also serves to high­ light the relevance of the notion prototype for our classification. We will illustrate the application of these criteria by considering some simple propo­ sitions that code states or events: (10) a. b.  d. e. f. g. (i)

The tree is green. The woman was angry. The situation was becoming chaotic. The weather there is unpredictable. The tall man then shot the deer. The girl then listened to his story. The value of her house was slowly depreciating.

Nouns The cluster of experiential features that are typically coded as nouns tend to be relatively complex (multi-featured), concrete (physical), com­ pact (packed together in space). Above all, they are time-stable (slowchanging). That is, from one minute to the next one of their attributes may change, but the majority of their more important attributes remain rela­ tively the same. Thus, if a 'tree' in (10a) shed its green leaves in the fall, its shape, structure, stationary orientation, bio-ecological position etc. would remain stable enough to insure its still being a tree. Similarly, 'woman' in (10b) may stop being angry, may be taller or shorter, darker or fairer, smar­ ter or duller etc.; but her major attributes — human, female, adult, etc. — remain intact. Other equally prototypical nouns in (10) are 'man', 'deer', 'girl' or 'house'. On the other hand, 'situation' (10c), 'weather' (10d), 'story' (10f) or 'value' (10g) are non-prototypical, being either more abstract, diffuse, or temporally unstable.

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

55

(ii) Adjectives The experiential phenomena typically coded as adjectives tend to be relatively simple (single-featured) attributes of prototypical nouns; that is, inherent, concrete, time-stable qualities such as color, shape, size, consis­ tency, texture, weight etc. Thus, 'green' in (10a) and 'tall' in (10e) are such prototypical adjectives. On the other hand, 'angry1 (10b), 'chaotic' (10c) and 'unpredictable' (lOd) all code states that are both more temporary and more abstract. (iii) Verbs The experiential phenomena typically coded as verbs tend to be of intermediate complexity, involving concrete (perceptually accessible) events, either of physical motion or physical action, and above all fast changing events. Thus 'shoot' (10e) is a fairly prototypical verb, being con­ crete, an action and a fast change. 'Listen1 ( 1 Of), on the other hand, is less prototypical. It is an invisible event, mental rather than physical, involving no discernible action. It may also be temporally drawn-out rather than com­ pact. And 'depreciate 1 (10g) is even less prototypical, involving a relatively slow change of highly abstract properties. 2.4.4.

Nouns

2.4.4.1. Semantic characteristics The old school-grammar definition "a noun is a name of a person, a place or a thing11, while suggestive, refers primarily to prototypical nouns. The semantic classification of nouns is vast, and the subject of lifetime work for semanticists and lexicographers. The classification discussed below touches only on the most general features of nouns, the ones that tend to: (a) (b) (c) a.

yield large classes; be attested in many languages; and be relevant to grammatical behavior.

Concreteness Concrete nouns code entities that exist in both space and time. Tem­ poral nouns code entities that exist only in time. Abstract nouns code entities whose existence cannot be defined in terms of either time or space. Typical nouns in these classes are:

56

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(11) a. Concrete: rock, tree, horse, woman, house, knife, chair, hill, sun b. Temporal: Sunday, year, morning, minute, July, event, anniversary  Abstract: freedom, love, independence, size, policy, refusal b.

Animacy Concrete nouns may be further divided into either animate or inani­ mate. Animate nouns code the fauna — living, sentient beings. Inanimate nouns code either the flora or inorganic entities. Typical nouns in these classes are: (12) a. Animate: horse, woman, boy, fly, pigeon, snake b. Inanimate: grass, tree, house, knife, hill, river, meat, star, rock c.

Artifactness Inanimate nouns can be further divided into either natural nouns or artifacts. Thus, in (12b) above, 'grass, 'tree', 'hill', 'river', 'star', 'rock' and 'meat' 14 are natural entities. On the other hand, 'house' and 'knife' are human-made artifacts. d.

Humanity Animate nouns may be further divided into human and non-human ones: (13) a. Human: woman, man, child, mother, teacher, speaker b. Non-human: horse, fly, pigeon, cow, bat, dinosaur, snake e.

Countability (individuation') Both concrete and abstract nouns may be either count nouns — ones that code individuated entities, or mass nouns — ones that code either groups or unindividuated entities:

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

57

(14) a. Count: Concrete: man, stone, horse, grain, drop, tree, house Abstract: right, love, appearance, control b. Mass: Concrete: sand, water, blood, air Abstract: right, love, appearance, control, empathy, freedom As is apparent in (14), a number of nouns — particularly abstract ones — may have either a count or a mass sense:15 (15) a. Count: This is one right you cannot take away. She was an old love of his. He made an appearance. We instituted a number of controls. b. Mass: He's here by right. She's full of love. For the sake of appearance We lost control over the situation. f.

Generality and reference In general, nouns ('common nouns') connote entities. That is, they do not refer to them as individuals, but rather connote their sense or refer to their type. In contrast, names ('proper nouns') denote entities. That is, they refer to individual tokens:16 (16) a. Nouns: man, state, month, holiday, sword, horse, theory b. Names: John, Oregon, July, Halloween, Excalibur, Rosinante, The University of Oregon, The Theory of Relativity 2.4.4.2. Syntactic behavior By syntactic behavior of nouns one means both the characteristic syn­ tactic positions that nouns can occupy in the clause or in the phrase, and their grammatical role in the clause.

58

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

The typical grammatical roles that nouns play in the clause are subject, direct object, indirect object, or predicate. Some examples of these roles— which also entail placing the noun in typical syntactic positions — are: (17) a. Subject, direct object: The woman broke the knife b. Subject, indirect object: The ball rolled into the river  Predicate (non-referring): This is a desk d. Predicate (referring): This is my desk In addition, a noun typically occupies, within the noun phrase, the position of head of the noun phrase, as in:17 ( 18) Head of Noun Phrase : a. Modified by an adjective: the big sleep b. Modified by a REL-clause: the man I met yesterday  Modified by a numeral: three women d. Modified by a possessor: Joe's wife Finally, a noun could also be the modifier within the noun phrase, rather than the head, as in: (19) Modifier noun: a. the delivery truck b. a dog-house  trout-fishing 2.4.4.3. Morphological characteristics By morphological characteristics of a word we mean the types of bound morphemes — prefixes or suffixes — that typically attach to it. These morphemes may be either grammatical or derivational. As noted

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

59

earlier, in English some of these morphemes are written as separate words, but we still consider them morphemes. 2.4.4.3.1. Grammatical morphology (a) Plural marker The plural marker of English is a noun suffix, as in: (20)

girl-5 book-5

church-es A few nouns have irregular plurals, as in: (21) foot > feet man > men woman > women ox > ox-en child > child-ren hoof > hoov-es And some group nouns have zero plural marker, as in: (22) deer fish sheep (b) Prepositions Prepositions, which in English mark the role of the indirect object in the clause, are written as separate words, but may be considered prefixes to the first element of the noun phrase. English prepositions mark a variety of semantic roles of indirect objects. Some examples are: 18 (23) in the house to the store at school under one roof near the next corner for Mary for a while on Tuesday during the night with a hammer

(location) (location) (location) (location) (location) (beneficiary) (duration) (time) (time) (instrument)

60

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

with patience with her brother by mistake like a lion by the FBI

(manner) (associate) (manner) (manner) (agent)

(c) Possessor pronouns Possessor pronouns in English are written as separate words, but may be considered prefixes to the noun or to the noun phrase. They are part of a larger class called determiners (see chapter 6). Typical examples are: (24) my book her suggestion our last encounter (d) Articles Articles, which in English are written as separate words, may be con­ sidered prefixes to the noun or to the noun phrase. Like possessor pro­ nouns, they are a sub-class of determiners. Typical examples are: (25) the roof a chair this case that woman any good idea no excuse 2.4.4.3.2. Derivational morphology As noted above, derivational morphemes are used to derive new words from existing ones. Most commonly, such a derivation changes the semantic class of the word. One may thus characterize derivational morphemes on nouns as semantic classifiers of various kinds, and then define each by the input and output of the derivation: (a)

Input:

(b)

Output:

the class of the underived word to which the morpheme applies; the class of the derived word resulting from the derivation.

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

61

English has a rich array of derivational morphemes marking nouns. Some of those specialize in changing verbs into nouns, others in changing adjectives into nouns, while others yet in changing one type of noun into another. The applicability of particular derivations to particular classes or sub-classes of input words is governed in part by semantic rules, in part by the history of the vocabulary, and in part by many idiosyncratic, wordspecific considerations. Our treatment here is illustrative rather than exhaustive.19 (26) Verb-to-noun: input derive drive govern write remove know interfere deliver conform

output deriv-ation driv-er govern-or writ-ing remov-al know-ledge interfer-ence deliver-y conform-ity

(27) Adjective-to-noun : input kind wide serene

output kind-ness wid-th seren-ity

(28) Noun-to-noun: input king governor president child *foli20 anarchy

output king-dom governor-ship presiden-cy child-hood foli-age anarch-ist

62

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

An intermediate case of derivation in English is compounding, where one noun modifies another to form a derived meaning. Typical examples are: (29) Compounding noun-to-noun: mail-man delivery-truck garbage-collector bird-house ski-lift 2.4.5.

Adjectives

2.4.5.1. Semantic characteristics One may divide adjectives somewhat roughly according to those that are more prototypical, and thus code inherent, concrete, relatively stable qualities of entities; and those that are less prototypical, and thus code more temporary, less concrete states.21 2.4.5.1.1. Prototypical adjectives (a) Size Size adjectives, most commonly coming as antonym pairs, may cover a variety of dimensions, as in: (30) a. b.  d. e. f.

General size: big/small Horizontal extension: wide/narrow Thickness: thick/thin, fat/skinny Vertical extension: tall/short Vertical elevation: high/low Length: long/short

(b) Color Color adjectives are either antonym pairs for brightness, or cover the rainbow and beyond, as in: (31) a. Brightness: dark/light, dark/bright, black/white b. Color: violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, red, brown, beige, etc. (c) Auditory qualities Auditory adjectives, often coming in antonym pairs, cover several auditory properties, such as:

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

(32) a. b. c. d. e.

63

Loudness: loud/soft, noisy/quiet Absolute pitch: high/low Relative pitch: sharp/flat Harmony: mellow/harsh Melody: melodious/cacophonous

(d) Shape Shape adjectives describe the shape of an object in one-, two- or threedimensional space, as in: (33) a. One-dimensional: b. Two-dimensional:

straight, crooked, bent, curve round, square, oval, triangular, rectangular, trapezoid c. Three-dimensional: spherical, cubic, conical, cylindrical, pyramidal

(e) Taste Taste adjectives code the various tastes, such as: (34) sweet, sour, salty, acid, bitter (f)

Tactile Tactile adjectives code various tactile dimensions, such as: (35) a. Texture: rough/smooth b. Resistance: hard/soft c. Pointedness: sharp/dull

2.4.5.1.2. Less prototypical adjectives Less prototypical adjectives signal either less concrete properties or more transitory states. (a) Evaluative Evaluative adjectives, often in antonymic pairs, signal the subjective preference of the speaker toward an entity, as in:22 (36) good/bad, pretty/ugly, nice/lousy, desirable/undesirable (b) Transitory states Adjectives of this heterogenous group describe external, internal, social or mental temporary states, such as:

64

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(37) a. Mental-internal: angry, tired, happy, sad, content, disgusted, alert, etc. b. External activity: busy/idle  External condition: dirty/clean d. Speed of motion: fast/slow e. Temperature: hot/warm/tepid/lukewarm/cold (c) States of living Adjectives in this group describe various states of animate beings, such as: (38) a. Age: young/old, new/old b. Life: alive/dead c. Health: healthy, sick, ill, well 2.4.5.1.3. Derived adjectives The vast majority of adjectives in the English dictionary are derived from either nouns or verbs. Their meaning thus owes some to the meaning of the original ('input') noun or verb, and some to the type of derivation involved. We will not cover the range of their meanings systematically here, but many of the morphological patterns will be noted further below.23 2.4.5.1.4. Polarity of antonymic pairs As noted above, many adjectives in various meaning classes come as antonymic pairs. That is, each connotes the opposite of the other. This opposition is, however, asymmetrical. Of the two members of the pair, one usually acts as the positive member, connoting the presence (or greater extent) of the quality; the other acts as the negative member, connoting the absence (or smaller extent) of the quality. Typical antonym pairs of adjec­ tives are:

VOCABULARY: W O R D S A N D M O R P H E M E S (39) Antonym pairs of adjectives quality positive size length width thickness height (position) height (size) speed loudness roughness weight brightness

big long wide thick high tall fast loud rough heavy bright

65

negative small short narrow thin low short slow quiet smooth light dark

The asymmetry in the behavior of the positive vs. negative member of these antonymic adjective-pairs can be observed in a number of ways. First, there is a strong tendency for the positive member of an antonymic pair to also give the name of the general quality. That is, one finds 'length' but not 'shortness', 'width' but not 'narrowness', 'thickness' but not 'thinness', 'height' but not 'lowness', 'loudness' but not 'quietness', 'roughness' but not 'smoothness', 'brightness' but not 'darkness'. The asymmetry is further evident in the way we form questions about the extent of the quality: (40) a. Positive question: b. Possible answer:

How tall is she? -Very tall. -Very short.  Negative question: How short is she? d. Possible answers: -Very short. -*Very tall.

The positive member, it seems, is used to question the entire range of qual­ ity or dimension. The negative member, on the other hand, is used to ques­ tion only the negative portion of the range. 2.4.5.2. Syntactic behavior Adjectives tend to appear in two main syntactic positions in clauses: (a) (b)

as predicates in non-verbal clauses as modifiers within the Noun Phrase

66

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Thus consider: (41) a. Predicate adjective: Mary is tall b. Modifying adjective: The tall woman In English, adjectives may also appear in some less characteristic positions that involve complex sentence patterns, in particular in association with verbal complements, as in: (42) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

You were wrong to say that It's so good of you to come It was hard to forget her It's incredible that she showed up She was anxious to leave He is easy to please but hard to forget I am aware of your predicament Don't be afraid to jump

Such syntactic positions are more characteristic of verbs.24 2.4.5.3. Morphological characteristics 2.4.5.3.1. Grammatical morphology English adjectives are characterized by few grammatical morphemes, most conspicuously the comparative and superlative markers, as in: (43) short cold far good

short-er cold-er far-ther bett-er

short-est cold-est far-thest b-est

But this limited morphology applies only to a small number of short, Ger­ manic adjectives.25 When an adjective occupies the initial (modifier) position in the noun phrase, it may be preceded by various grammatical morphemes — prefixes — that are characteristic of nouns (see section 2.4.4.3.1., above). The bulk of the morphological features of English adjectives, however, pertains to their derivational morphology.

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

67

2.4.5.3.2. Derivational morphology Some derivational morphemes specialize in deriving adjectives from nouns, as in: (44) Noun-derived adjectives: input output circle fate cycle sphere republic rigor disaster law pain

circul-ar fat-al cycl-ic(-al) spher-ic-al republic-an rig-id disastr-ous law-ful pain-less

Others are involved in the derivation of adjectives from verbs, as in: (45) Verb-derived adjectives input abuse pretend read break burn twist spin

output abus-ive pretent-ious read-able brok-n burn-t twist-ed spinn-ing26

Finally, several derivational morphemes derive negative adjectives from their affirmative counterparts, and thus generate more antonym pairs, as in: (46) Negative-derived adjectives input willing able wise possible tolerable agreeable colored *gusted

output un-willing -able un-wise im-possible in-tolerable dis-agreeable dis-colored dis-gusted27

68 2.4.6. 2.4.6.1.

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Verbs Semantic characterization

The discussion of the semantics of verbs will be deferred until chapter 3. This is so because verbs constitute the core of the semantic frame of propositions. Thus, when one classifies the propositional-semantics struc­ ture of simple clauses, one also winds up classifying the main semantic types of verbs. 2.4.6.2. Syntactic characterization For the same reasons, the syntactic behavior of verbs will be described in detail in chapter 3. We will see there how the semantic type of the verb dictates, to quite an extent, its syntactic behavior; that is, the clause-type whose core is most typically occupied by that verb. 2.4.6.3. Morphological characterization 2.4.6.3.1. Grammatical morphology Although English is not a highly inflected language, verbs certainly come with an array of grammatical morphemes that cluster around them in the verb phrase. But again, one must remember that many of those gram­ matical morphemes are written in English as separate words. Further, some grammatical morphemes that are rightly considered verbal, such as those that mark tense-aspect-modality, do not attach themselves to the verb in spoken English. While they indeed precede the verb, they attach them­ selves as suffixes to whatever word that precedes them, often to the clause's subject. (a) Tense, aspect, modality Some tense-aspect-modality markers in English appear as pre-verbal auxiliaries, written as independent words. These have developed more recently from verbs. Others are much older and appear as either verb suf­ fixes or as idiosyncratic internal changes in the verb-stem itself. Several tense-aspects in English require the combination of both types. The follow­ ing examples illustrate some of these combinations.

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

(47) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Past: Future: Present: Perfect: Past-perfect: Modal:

69

The woman drown-ed The man will drown The child is drown-ing She has spok-en to her mother She had spok-en to her mother I can/may/must leave

(b) Negation Negation markers in English have complex patterns, ones that are best understood in terms of their history. Most commonly, the negative mor­ pheme not (or its contracted form -n't) is suffixed to the first ('left-most') auxiliary before the verb. But when no auxiliary is present, the auxiliary verb 'do' carries the negative suffix. Thus consider: (48) a. b.  d. e. f.

She is-n't there You can-'t do that We have-n't finished yet I'm not running He did-n't quit I do-n't know

(c) Subject agreement Subject agreement is a rather negligible grammatical phenomenon in English, confined to only two grammatical contexts: (a) third person singular agreement (b) agreement of the verb 'be' (49) Third Person singular agreement: a. He/she/it fall-s b. I/you/we/they fall (50) Agreement of 'be': a. I am b. You are  She/he/it is d. We/y'all/they are (d) Passive morphology The passive verb in English is marked by the auxiliary verb 'be' before the verb, together with the perfect or past suffix following the verb, as in:

70

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(51) a. He was see-n by three reliable witnesses (> Three reliable witnesses saw him) b. She was- forgott-en ( > Someone did not forget her)  The door was immediately open-ed (> Someone immediately opened the door) 2.4.6.3.2. Derivational morphology English verbs can be derived from either nouns, adjectives or other verbs. In each case, characteristic derivational morphology is involved. We will survey briefly some of the more common patterns. (52) From adjective to verb input

output

large hard solid little active clean

enlarge harden solid-ify be-little activ-ate cleanse

(53) From noun to verb input

output

can dust blackball tomb circle mesh theory energy stable circle fang bug claw

can dust blackball en-tomb en-circle en-mesh theor-ize energ-ize stabil-ize circul-ate de-fang de-bug de-claw

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

71

(54) From verb to verb pattern a. Negative: b. Causative:

2.4.7.

input stabilize do rise sit move turn burn

output de-stabilize un-do raise set/seat move turn burn

Adverbs

2.4.7.1. Preamble Of the four major lexical word-classes, adverb is the least homogenous class and the hardest to define. This heterogeneity of adverbs is evident across the board — in their semantics, syntax and morphology. Further, many semantic sub-classes of adverbs are coded by either one-word adverbs or by more complex syntactic constructions. As a grammatical category, adverbs thus span the range between the lexical and the syntactic. In a later chapter, we will indeed deal with one large class of syntactic adverbial con­ structions — subordinate adverbial clauses.28 The classification given below is primarily a semantic classification of adverbs, i.e. in terms of meaning or function. Within each class, we will illustrate the range of morpho-syntactic diversity that adverbs tolerate. 2.4.7.2. Mariner adverbs Manner adverbs typically modify, or add to, the meaning of the verb. The semantic range of such modification is wide and heterogeneous, and depends on the specific meaning of the verb. Typical one-word manner adverbs in English are: (55) a. b.  d. e. f. g.

He ran fast. They fought hard. She whistled softly. She easily defeated him. They deal with her rather harshly. He did it intentionally. She dismissed him thoughtlessly.

72

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Many manner adverbs are constructed syntactically, often as preposi­ tional phrases,29 as in: (56) a. b. c. d.

She fought like a tiger. They did it on purpose.  came there by accident. They deal with adversaries without mercy.

Manner adverbs may also be constructed from full verbal clauses, often as participial adverb clauses.30 The semantic core of the manner adverb is in such case the verb of the participial clause. As illustrations, consider: (57) a. She went on without thinking about it. (> 'not thinking') b. Disregarding what she told him, he went on. (> 'disregarding X') c. Probing around the bush cautiously, she stumbled upon the decomposed body. (> 'probing around X') The syntactic heterogeneity of manner adverbs is also evident in the flexibility of their position in the clause: Often they may be placed either after the verb, in front of the verb, or at the beginning of the clause, as in: (58) a. Quickly she opened the door. b. She quickly opened the door.  She opened the door quickly. A large group of adverbs display a consistent derivational marking, those derived from adjectives with the suffix -ly, as in: (59)

input brave purposeful deliberate sudden manual verbal

output brave-ly purposeful-ly deliberate-ly sudden-ly manual-ly verbal-ly

However, the class of -/y-marked adverbs is semantically heterogeneous, so that their morphological unity is not matched by unified function or mean­ ing.

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

73

Some adverbs of manner may shade in their meaning ever closer to instruments, augmenting the meaning of the verb with information about the instrument used in performing the action. One may in fact argue that "manner" is an abstract metaphor for "instrument". To illustrate this, com­ pare the use of with-marked prepositional phrases below: (60) a. b.  d. e. f.

Instrument: Manner: Instrument: Manner: Instrument: Manner:

She killed him with a knife. She killed him with kindness. They treated him with antibiotics. They treated him with respect. He fought with a broad sword. He fought with rare skill.

Most instrument-like adverbs are constructed as prepositional phrases, with a variety of prepositions. 31 Further, some may have two alternative forms, one with a preposition, the other with the derivational suffix -ly. As illustra­ tions, consider: (61) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.

She made it by hand. You do this manually. She learned about it by accident. She learned about it accidentally. They attacked him with words. They attacked him verbally. She proceeded with caution. She proceeded cautiously. She got there through hard work. They came on foot.

2.4.7.3. Time, frequency or aspectuality adverbs Adverbs in this sub-group supply information about the time, fre­ quency, or other temporal aspects of the event. Their semantic scope is thus not the verb alone, but rather the entire event-clause, i.e. the whole propo­ sition. Both the morphology and syntactic position of such adverbs are heterogeneous. Some of them are single-word adverbs, as in: (62) Frequency: a. She comes here often. b. They seldom miss the game.  She is always late. d. Sometimes she felt funny.

74

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(63) Temporal point: a. Yesterday it rained. b. He's coming tomorrow.  She left Wednesday. d. Soon it'll be Spring. (64) Aspectuality: a. They did it again. b. He repeatedly refused to comply.  They continuously disrupted her presentation. d. We argued on and on. Some temporal adverbs are structurally noun phrases and may incor­ porate modifiers, as noun phrases often do. 32 As illustrations, consider: (65) a. b. c. d.

The election is next Tuesday. We see them the following week. She'll see you some other time. Every day I see her walking to work.

Many temporal adverbs have the structure of prepositional phrases,33 as in: (66) a. b.  d. e.

In two months we'll let you know. At that point I said 'no'. She doesn't come in on Tuesday. They'll be back in a minute. In the months that followed, they heard nothing from him.

Finally, some time adverbs are constructed as subordinate adverbial clauses, and will be treated in some detail later on.34 Examples of such time adverbs are: (67) a. When my brother comes back, we'll see what we can do. b. Upon her return from the city, she rented a house. 2.4.7.4. Epistemic adverbs The semantic scope of epistemic adverbs ranges over the entire propo­ sition (clause). Most typically, they convey the speaker's attitude toward the truth, certainty or probability of the proposition. They are heterogene­ ous in form, appearing most commonly as either one-word expressions, one-word expressions derived with -ly, or prepositional phrases. As illustra­ tions, consider:

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

(68) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

75

He is most certainly wrong. Perhaps she'll come. Maybe you're right. This is possibly his greatest invention. She finished supposedly two weeks ago. Probably nothing will happen. Without doubt they'll be here. She had told him, presumably.

One must note that there are other constructions that perform the very same range of epistemic functions. A typical one is modal auxiliaries, as in:35 (69) a. b.  d.

She may have left already. He might be at the bar. This can't be right. She could come even later.

Some verbs that belong to the sub-group of perception-cognition-utterance verbs are also used for epistemic elaboration of clauses falling under their scope:36 (70) a. b.  d. e. f.

They say he's back in town. I guess she's not in. I think you're wrong. This is absurd, you know. It's OK, I suppose. She isn't done yet, I see.

2.4.7.5. Evaluative adverbs The semantic scope of evaluative adverbs again ranges over the entire preposition, and again conveys the speaker's attitude. This time, however, that attitude concerns the desirability of the state or event. Many evaluative adverbs are derived with -ly from adjectives; other are constructed syntacti­ cally in various ways. For example: (71) a. b. c. d. e.

Hopefully she's alive. Unfortunately, it turned out the other way. Luckily they finished on time. Fortunately nobody saw them. With luck, she'll finish before dark.

76

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

As in the case of epistemic adverbs, a similar evaluative meaning can be imparted by other verbal constructions. One group of such constructions involves again modal auxiliaries, this time denoting obligation, as in:37 (72) a. She should have done it. b. It need not have turned out this way.  They (had) better be on time. Similarly, evaluative modality may be imparted by some perception-cogni­ tion-utterance verbs, as in:38 (73) a. b.  d. e.

I'm afraid we ran out of luck. I'd rather you don't do this. Nothing wrong, I hope? I wish that she hadn't done that. They prefer that you quit now.

Other constructions may also be used to impart evaluative attitudes and preference, as in: (74) a. b. c. d. e.

God willing, he'll live. If all goes well, she'll pass with honors. God forbid they quit now! It's good that you were there. How awful she didn't make it.

2.4.7.6. Adverbs modifying adjectives A distinct class of adverbs are used to modify, quantify or intensify the meaning of adjectives. They may apply to both predicate adjectives and noun-modifying adjectives. Some of the adverbs used in this function are morphologically marked with -ly, but others come from diverse sources. Some examples are: (75) With predicate adjectives: a. She is very lucky. b. That was rather stupid.  It was quite impressive. d. This is a considerably stronger proposal. (76) With modifying adjectives: a. a very tall man b. an incredibly naive suggestion  an altogether thorough review d. an unbelievably bad move

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

77

2.4.7.7. Emphatic adverbs Several grammatical operators ('function words') in English are used in emphatic, contrastive capacity, a function that is not easy to classify in a precise way. For lack of a better slot, one may consider them a sub-class of adverbs. Some examples of these are: (77) a. b.  d. e.

I just know she's right. We really don't understand. They absolutely abhor violence. She did exactly that. Technically, you are right.

2.5.

MINOR W O R D CLASSES

2.5.1.

Preamble

A number of word-classes in English may be considered 'minor' in one of two senses. Most of them are grammatical words that are still written as separate words. A few are small classes of content words but with simple meanings and limited membership. In this way, they resemble grammatical vocabulary. We will list the various groups here without much detail, since most of them will be discussed in relevant chapters later on. 2.5.2.

Prepositions

English prepositions mark various types of indirect object roles39 but sometime also adverbial constructions (see earlier above). Typical simple prepositions are: (78) to, from, for, on, off, at, in, out, with, by, before, behind, after, under, above, upon, between Some prepositions are complex, and are derived mostly from nouns via a possessive construction, 40 as in: (79) on top of, in front of, in the middle of, at the bottom of, in the back of, at the center of, outside (of), inside (of) Syntactically, English prepositions precede the noun phrase, and are thus prefixed to the first word in the noun phrase, be it the head noun or a preceding modifier. As illustrations, consider:

78

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(80) a. b. c. d. 2.5.3.

at home to the store on top of the house in her beautiful new downtown office

Inter-clausal connectives

Inter-clausal connectives in English often appear between clauses, and are considered the initial element in the clause they precede, as in: (81) a. He came in and sat down. b. She left because he asked her to.  While he was waiting, she left. Inter-clausal connectives are divided into two main classes — conjunctions and subordinators. The use of these connectors will be discussed in consid­ erable detail in a separate chapter. 41 We will discuss the two sub-classes briefly here. 2.5.3.1. Conjunctions Some English conjunctions are simple, i.e. single words, while others are complex. Others yet are historically complex but have become con­ tracted and are now written as single words. Some examples are: (82) a. Simple conjunctions: and, but, or, so, then b. Complex conjunctions: and so, so then, later on, and then, so later on  Historically complex conjunctions: however, moreover, furthermore, nevertheless 2.5.3.2. Subordinators Subordinators may also be either simple, complex or historically com­ plex, as in: (83) a. Simple subordinators: when, if, though, till, after, while, since b. Complex subordinators: in spite of, beginning with, because of, in order to, instead of  Historically complex subordinators: because, until, although, despite

79

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

Like conjunctions, subordinators appear typically at the beginning of the clause they classify, as in: (84) a. b.  d. e. f.

When Lena came back from work,... If she's right,... Although she disliked him,... In order to finish on time,... After arriving in Rio,... In spite of having had no prior experience,...

Several subordinators require that the clause that follows them is nominalized, i.e. structured as a noun phrase. 42 Some examples of those are: (85) a. b. c. d.

Beginning with John's passing his exams,... In spite of her apologies Because of Mary's resignation,... During the search for the new Director,...

In one sense, one could suggest that these subordinators function as prepo­ sitions, since they precede a noun phrase. 2.5.4.

Pronouns

One may classify English pronouns semantically according to person, number, gender and grammatical role. The most common set, used primar­ ily for definite reference, are: 43 (86) Definite referring pronouns: possessor person/number/gender 1st SG 2nd SG 3rd SG Fem 3rd SG Masc 3rd SG Neut 1st PL 2nd PL 3rd PL

subject

object

modifier

pronoun44

I you she he it we you they

me you her him it us you them

my your her his its our your their

mine yours hers his its ours yours theirs

80

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Other pronouns are indefinite or non-referring, as in:45 (87) Indefinite or non-referring pronouns: one, some, few, many, several, none, any Other pronouns involve specific grammatical constructions, such as inter­ rogatives or relative clauses. Some of these pronouns are: 46 (88) Relative and interrogative pronouns: grammatical role subject object who 2.5.5.

location

whom

where

time reason when

why

manner how

Determiners

The syntactic class of determiners includes a number of sub-groups, each one with its specific grammatical functions.47 English determiners pre­ cede the noun within the noun phrase. 48 We will discuss each sub-class briefly below. 2.5.5.1. Articles English articles are either definite, indefinite or non-referring: (89) Definite: the Indefinite: a(n), 49 some Non-referring: any, no 2.5.5.2. Demonstratives English demonstratives are divided according to two features — dis­ tance from the speaker, and number. (90) Demonstratives: distance near: away:

singular

plural

this that

these those

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

81

2.5.5.3. Possessor pronouns The modifier possessor pronouns given in table (86) above in fact belong to the syntactic class of determiners. 50 2.5.6.

Quantifiers

Quantifiers are noun-modifiers that connote quantity or extent, such as: (91) some, all, many, few, much, little, only, even 2.5.7.

Numerals

Numerals are a sub-class of more exact quantifiers. They are nounmodifiers that connote number, as in: (92) one, two, three,...ten,... one million,... 2.5.8.

Ordinals

Ordinals are a special sub-class of adjectives that connote serial order; that is, the position of an item in some linear ranking, as in: (93) first, second, third,...tenth,... one millionth,... Except for the first three which have special forms, ordinals are coined from their corresponding numerals by adding the suffix -th. 2.5.9.

Auxiliaries

Auxiliaries — or auxiliary verbs — are part of the grammar of tenseaspect-modality in English. They will be discussed in great detail in the appropriate chapter below.51 The most common auxiliaries in English are: (94) be, have, do, will, would, can, could, may, might, shall, should, must 2.5.10. Interjections Interjections are a heterogeneous class with a broad range of functions, most commonly involving expressive and social-interactive functions. The function of some interjections is primarily epistemic, signalling either assent or disagreement with the information or belief of the interlocutor. Others are deontic, expressing assent to or dissent from the interlocutor's action.

82

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Others are evaluative, signalling approval, preference or disapproval of either actions or states of affairs. Others yet may signal surprise, incom­ prehension, question, uncertainty, social insecurity, and many more. Interjections tend to be a transition area of the grammar, connecting it to the various cultural conventions that govern social and inter-personal behavior, such as interaction, public conduct, status and power, politeness and deference, the flow of conversation, and more. Some of the more com­ mon interjections in English are: (95) yes, no, oh, oh?, huh, huh?, uh-huh, uh-uh, wow, really? right, y'know, I see, okay, okay? well, now, no way! Given the vast functional domains covered by interjections, and their bridging position between communicative and inter-personal behavior, the class of interjections is not rigidly constrained, neither semantically, nor syntactically, nor morphologically. It thus includes more complex construc­ tions, such as: (96) a. b.  d. e. f. g. h. i. j.

wait-a-minute! now hold it! now let's see... if you don't mind,... if you really think so... take it easy now... no way José! beg your pardon? I'm sorry. Excuse me.

The use of interjections in English thus spans the considerable space between three partially-overlapping aspects of human interactions that depend on verbal signals: (a) (b)

(c)

Informative: The use of lexicon and grammar to communi­ cate information. Interactive: The use of grammar, gesture, facial expres­ sion, intonation and mimicry to code non-informational, aspects of the communicative transaction. Socio-personal: The use of the communicative process itself — both its informative and interactive aspects — for non-communicative social ends.

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

83

While the bulk of grammatical structure indeed can be understood in terms of the communicative function of language, the communicative use of language is seldom wholely detached from its interactive and socio-personal contexts. As we shall note repeatedly throughout this survey, the communi­ cative transaction is on the one hand embedded in the interactive and sociopersonal contexts, and on the other is exploited, often massively, in carrying out the non-informative aspects of human social behavior. 52

84

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

NOTES 1) 'Sharing a common vocabulary' and 'membership in the same culture' are obviously a matter of degree. Cultures, or speech communities, provide for an organized diversity, so that— as in the case of biological populations — membership and uniformity are to some extent rela­ tive and flexible. The term 'organized diversity' follows the anthropologist A.F.C. Wallace (1961): "...Culture...is characterized internally not by uniformity, but by diversity of both indi­ viduals and groups, many of whom are in continuous overt conflict in one sub-system and in active cooperation in another..." (Culture and Personality, 1961, p. 28). 2) See my Mind, Code and Context (1989, Chapters 3, 9). 3) For details see Jespersen (1938). 4) Under this late infusion of learned Latin vocabulary one must also subsume the infusion of Greek scientific vocabulary. 5) For a discussion of how the largely-segregated Germanic and Romance phonological pat­ terns of present-day English define two main corpora of English vocabulary, see Chomsky and Halle (1968). 6) These stress-placement tendencies are not absolute, and non-Germanic words vary in their degree of 'nativization' into the Germanic stress-pattern of English. A socio-cultural dimension is predictably involved here, as in the courtroom usage of deFENCE vs. the ball-field use of DEfence. 7) For more discussion of the largely-segregated derivational patterns of present-day Eng­ lish, see Marchand (1965). 8) We will again disregard here the philosophical issue of 'objective' vs. 'subjective' knowl­ edge. 9) From L. McMurtry, Leaving Cheyenne (1962, p. 109). 10) It is well known that children acquire lexical vocabulary ('content words'), and communi­ cate in some sort of pidgin, long before they acquire grammar and grammatical morphology (or 'function words'). 11) Jespersen presages here both the semantic relativism of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosoph­ ical Investigations (1953) and the later cognitive psychology work on natural classes and pro­ totypes; see my Mind, Code and Context (1989, ch. 2). 12) One could take issue with Sapir's suggestion that a "perfectly grammatical" language would be a "perfect engine of conceptual expression". There are grounds for believing that such a language would in fact be unprocessable by the brain of a biological organism. This has to do with the interaction between communication in real-time, on the one hand, and memory (stor­ age or retrieval) and attention limitations. When taken together, these factors have yielded a cognitive and communicative system that retains a certain measure of context sensitivity and flex­ ibility, in both the definition of meanings and the application of rules of grammar. 13) For further discussion of the prototypes of lexical classes, see Hopper and Thompson (1984). 14) The status of 'meat' is somewhat mixed. While being part of a natural entity (animals), the word most commonly refers to meat that has been removed from its natural configuration by human intervention.

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

85

15) We categorize here word senses, not of word forms. Most words involve several senses coded the same form. Often, those senses are either closely related, or at the very least histori­ cally related. 16) The distinction between 'sense' ('connotation') vs. 'reference' ('denotation') in modern philosophy is commonly attributed to Frege (Philosophical Writings, 1952). But the distinction goes all the way back to (at least) Aristotle's De Sophisticis Elenchis (see McKeon, ed., 1941), where the referring sense of predicate nouns is called sensus divisus and their attributive sense sensus compositus. 17) The structure of noun phrases is discussed in chapter 6. 18) A more extensive discussion of the various indirect-object roles can be found in chapter 3. Some linguists restrict the term 'indirect object' to only a narrow range of semantic roles, such as 'dative-recipient' and 'locative'. For those people, our use of 'indirect object' here can be translated to 'prepositional object', i.e. an object marked by a preposition. 19) For an extensive treatment of English derivational morphology, see Marchand (1965). 20) The noun foli-um, from Latin, is the original input for foli-age. Many other examples of this type exist in English: The input word is not in the language, or not any more; but the derived output remains. A later version of folium, folio, still exits in learned English. Its deriva­ tive portfolio also exists. 21) For an extensive discussion of prototypical and less prototypical adjectives, see Dixon (1982). 22) At least adjectives of the first pair, good/bad, are so prevalent as subjective reflections on inherent, stable qualities of entities, that in some sense they can be considered part of the pro­ totypical subgroup, in spite of the fact that they do not connote concrete features. 23) Here the reader is again referred to Marchand (1965) for a near-exhaustive discussion of derivation patterns, their associate morphology, and their meaning correlates. 24) For verb complements, see chapter 7. 25) For comparative constructions, see chapter 13. 26) The suffix -ing also derives nouns from verbs (see chapters 6 and 13). It also functions as a grammatical aspect-marking morpheme (see chapter 4). 27) Here again, the original underived Latin verb, related to the still-extant gusto, does not exist in English. 28) See chapter 13. 29) Prepositional phrases involve a noun or noun phrase preceded by a preposition. At this level of detail in our description, we do not distinguish between 'prepositional object' and 'indi­ rect object'. For further detail see chapter 3. 30) See chapter 13. 31) In chapter 3, below, we treat instruments marked by the preposition 'with' as one of the optional indirect-object roles in the clause.

86

ENGLISH G R A M M A R

32) For noun phrases and modifiers, see chapter 6. One may also argue that 'yesterday', 'to­ morrow' and 'Wednesday' in (63) are noun phrases. They certainly can be made to look like noun phrases, when used as either the subject or object of the clause, as in: Yesterday was a bad day Tomorrow will be better I hate Wednesdays However, in such examples they are not used as adverbs. 33) See chapter 3. 34) See chapter 13. 35) For epistemic modalities and the use of English modals, see chapter 4. Some related material is also found in chapters 7 and 13. 36) For perception-cognition-utterance verbs and their connection with the grammar of epis­ temic modalities, see chapters 3, 4 and 7. 37) For obligative modalities and the use of modals, see again chapters 3 and 4. 38) For evaluative  preference modalities associated with this type of verbs, see again chap­ ters 3, 4 and 7. 39) See chapter 3. 40) See chapter 6. 41) See chapter 13. 42) For nominalized clauses see chapter 6. 43) Some of the core referential functions of pronouns are discussed in chapter 5. Other func­ tions of various pronouns, and their interaction with other grammatical sub-systems, are discus­ sed at relevant points throughout. 44) The pronouns in this last column may be considered double pronouns, since (a) they mark the possessor, but (b) they also stand for an absent head noun. This is evident when their use is compared with that of modifier possessor pronouns: My brother lives at home. Mine lives at home. The pronoun 'mine' could only be used in a context where 'brother' — the referent of the head noun — is understood. 45) See chapters 5, 6. 46) See chapters 9, 12. 47) See chapters 5,6. 48) See chapter 6. 49) The indefinite article a(n) may be used as either referring or non-referring. See chapter 5. 50) See chapter 6. 51) See chapter 4. 52) From an evolutionary perspective, it is most likely that the interactive aspects of social communication are probably much older than grammar-coded communication, and that their signal system evolved long before the advent of grammar, or even of verbal communication. The

VOCABULARY: WORDS AND MORPHEMES

87

same is certainly true of the developmental course of language, when first acquired by children (see survey in Givón, 1979a, ch. 5; see also Schnitzer, 1989). The grammatical code is thus a rela­ tively late adaptation, both ontogenetically and phylogenetically. The harnessing of some por­ tions of the grammatical code to perform expressive and social-interactional functions should be rightly viewed as a secondary adaptation, of a resource that was developed initially for another function (communication). Such secondary adaptations are common elsewhere in biological evolution.

3

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

3.1.

PRELIMINARIES

3.1.1.

Scope

In this chapter we survey the structure of simple verbal clauses (or 'simple sentences'). As noted earlier, the simple clause serves as reference point for the description of all other clause-types in grammar. It is the theme that undergoes different kinds of variations to yield complex clauses. Describing the various types of simple clauses is tantamount to describing the verb types of the language. This is so because verbs make up the seman­ tic core of clauses, their proposìtional frame. Therefore, the type of verb that occupies the semantic core of the clause defines the clause type. Because of the strong correlation between meaning and form, by describing the semantic types of verbs, one winds up also describing the syntactic types of simple clauses. Every verb, in its capacity as the core of a clause, is defined semantically in terms of the semantic roles of the participants ('arguments') in the state or event coded by the clause. Within the clause, these participants occupy the grammatical roles of, most commonly, subject, direct object, indirect object, adverb1 or predicate. These grammatical roles are marked in English by a combination of morphology and word-order. But they also have other, more subtle, grammatical-behavioral properties, such as vari­ ous constraints on their distribution in grammatical environments. 2 In describing the types of simple clauses and their structure, we will describe simultaneously:

90

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(a) (b) (c) (d)

3.1.2.

The semantic types of verbs The syntactic types of simple clauses The participants' semantic roles Grammatical roles and their marking, including: (i) Word-order (ii) Morphology (iii) Other properties. States, events, and actions

A proposition may stand for a state (or quality), i.e.' an existing condi­ tion that involves no change over time. Such a state may be either tempo­ rary, i.e. of limited duration, or permanent, i.e. of relatively long duration, or of some intermediate duration. A proposition may also stand for an event, which involves change of state over time. Such a change may be fast and bounded, i.e. construed as a change from a distinct initial state to a distinct terminal state. Or it may be slow and unbounded, i.e. construed as an ongoing process without firm boundaries. Some events are deliberately initiated by an active participant, an agent. Such events are called actions. Typical examples of states, events and actions are: (1)

3.1.3.

a. b.  d. e.

Temporary state: Permanent state: Unintended event: Bounded action: Unbounded action:

She was angry. He was tall. The ball rolled off the field. She kicked the ball off the field. They worked steadily.

Semantic roles

As noted above, clauses are divided into types according to the type of the verb that occupies their semantic (and syntactic) core. Verbs, in turn, are divided into semantic types according to the kind of involvement of the participants in the state or event coded by the clause. That is, the semantic type of the verb — and thus of the clause — is defined by the semantic roles of the participants in the state or event. The array of semantic roles typi­ cally associated with each verb defines the propositional frame of the verb — and thus the semantic type of the verbal clause. Before going on to characterize the major semantic roles, one must

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

91

entertain a few words of caution concerning the use and limits of definitions:3 (a)

(b)

(c)

The definitions given below are of the major semantic roles. But in principle, each type may have finer and finer sub-types, ad infinitum. The distinction between a 'major' type and a 'minor' sub­ type is not a principled one, but rather a matter of prag­ matic judgement. Most commonly, a major semantic type is one that has more extensive grammatical consequences. In defining each semantic role, we only define a pro­ totype. The majority of the members of a natural class tend to conform, more or less, to the class's prototype. But every natural population also has less prototypical members that fit the prototype definition less well. Fortu­ nately, such less prototypical members are — by definition — a minority.

In principle, if one probes deep enough, each verb defines its own unique propositional frame, thus its own idiosyncratic array of semantic roles. The major semantic roles in the clause are: a. b.

c. d. e. f.

g.

agent

= 'the participant, typically human, who acts delib­ erately to initiate the event' (AGT) patient = 'the participant, typically either human or nonhuman, that either is in a state, or registers a change-of-state as a result of the event' (PAT) dative = 'a conscious participant in the event, typically human, but not the deliberate initiator' (DAT) instrument = 'a participant, typically inanimate, used by the agent to perform the action' (INST) benefactive = 'the participant, typically human, for whose benefit the action is performed' (BEN) locative = 'the place, typically concrete and inanimate, where the state is, where the event occurs, or toward which or away from which some partici­ pant is moving' (LOC) associative = 'a participant that is an associate of the agent, patient or dative of the event, whose role in the event is similar, but who is not as central or important' (ASSOC)

92

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Typical examples of these semantic roles in simple clauses are: (2)

3.1.4.

a. b.  d. e. f. g.

Agent: Patient: Dative: Instrument: Benefactive: Locative: Associative:

Mary kicked John. Mary kicked John. John heard Mary. She chopped firewood with an axe. He fixed the roof for his mother. She went to the store. She worked with her father.

Grammatical roles

3.1.4.1. Overview The participants in states or events, in whatever semantic role, may occupy one of four distinct grammatical roles in the clause:4 a. b.  d.

subject (SUBJ) direct object (OBJ) indirect object (IO) nominal predicate (PRED)

Grammatical case-roles in English are defined by the following structural criteria: (a) (b) (c)

word-order morphology grammatical constraints

In addition, one discourse-pragmatic feature is also important for defining grammatical case-roles: (d)

topicality in discourse

As a brief illustration of the four major grammatical roles in simple clauses, consider: (3)

a. The woman gave a book to the child SUBJ

OBJ

IO

b. Mary is a teacher SUBJ

PRED

The semantic roles of participants in simple clauses do not distribute freely and equally in all the grammatical roles. Rather, strong restrictions

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

93

govern their distribution: (4)

Range of distribution of semantic roles in grammatical roles in simple clauses: a. An agent can only be the subject of a simple clause. b. A patient can be either the subject, direct object or indi­ rect object of a simple clause.  A dative can be either the subject, direct object or indi­ rect object in a simple clause. d. The others — benefactive, instrumental, associative and locative — are found mostly as indirect objects of simple clauses.

Further, the following rules of competition for subjecthood seem to apply in simple clauses with more than one participant: (5)

Competition for subjecthood in the simple clause: a. If a simple clause has an agent participant, it will occupy the subject position. b. If a simple clause has no agent but has a dative partici­ pant, that dative will occupy the subject position.  If a simple clause has neither a dative nor an agent but has a patient participant, that patient will occupy the subject position.

The facts of the competition to subjecthood given in (5) may be sum­ marized in the following hierarchy of access: (6)

Access to subjecthood in the simple clause: AGENT > DATIVE > PATIENT > OTHERS

Part of the observed rules-of-access in (5),(6) is due to the definition of what is a simple clause. To illustrate this briefly, consider the following two clauses: (7)

a. Active: The woman bought the book. b. Passive: The book was bought by the woman.

Both clauses (7a) and (7b) have the same participants occupying the same semantic roles — 'the woman' as agent, 'the book' as patient. In the active clause (7a), the agent is the subject. In the passive clause (7b), the patient is the subject. Passive clauses indeed allow patients to occupy the subject

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

94

grammatical role. But by definition, passives are complex rather than sim­ ple clauses. In the active-simple clause, as long as an agent is involved, it has a preemptive claim to the subject grammatical role. Similarly, consider: (8)

a. Active: Mary heard Joe's voice. b. Passive: Joe's voice was heard by Mary.

'

Mary' in (8a,b) is a conscious dative participant, exerting neither intent nor control nor action in the depicted event. No agent is involved in the event in (8a,b) in addition to the dative participant, only a patient— 'Joe's voice'. In the competition for subjecthood in the active — simple — clause (8a), the dative wins over the patient. Only in the passive — complex — clause (8b) can the patient displace the dative as subject. Finally, consider: (9)

The bread was in the oven.

The state depicted in clause (9) has neither an agent nor a dative partici­ pant, only a patient ('the bread') and a locative ('in the oven'). Under such conditions, the patient preempts the subject position, competing success­ fully with the locative.5 3.1.4.2. The grammatical subject The grammatical subject in English simple clauses precedes the verb, 6 is morphologically unmarked (i.e. appears without a preposition), and requires grammatical agreement with the verb, at least to the limited extent that exists in English, as in: (10) a. b.  d. e. f.

The woman is tall They are tall I am tall You are tall That man sings well Some men sing well

('is' = 3rd pers sg of 'be') ('are' = pl of 'be') ('am' = 1st pers sg of 'be') ('are' — 2nd pers sg of 'be') (s = 3rd pers sg verb agreement)

From a discourse-pragmatic perspective, the subject is the primary topic of the clause. It is the most important participant of the discourse at the point when the clause is processed. This role of the subject can be demonstrated independently of grammar, but also explains many of the grammatical properties of subjects.

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

95

3.1.4.3. The grammatical (direct) object The direct object in English simple clauses follows the verb, is mor­ phologically unmarked (i.e. appears without a preposition), and does not require grammatical agreement with the verb. In discourse pragmatic terms, the direct object tends to be the secondary topic of the clause. That is, it tends to be less important ('topical') in the discourse than the subject, but more important than the indirect object (if present). As noted earlier, the direct object position may be occupied by various semantic roles, as in: (11) a. b.  d.

They cut the meat He used the knife She insulted him He helped her

(DO (DO (DO (DO

= = = =

patient) instrument) dative) benefactive)

3.1.4.4. The indirect object Indirect objects in English simple clauses follow the verb, as well as the direct object (if present). They are morphologically marked by a preposi­ tion, one that most typically marks the semantic role of the participant occupying the indirect object grammatical role. Put another way, preposi­ tions in English have a strong semantic role. In discourse-pragmatic terms, the indirect object is non-topical.7 Typical indirect objects are: (12) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. i.

She went to the store They brought her from town He walked on the beach Mary lives in a big house John came home with his brother He told the story to his wife She did it for her father He cut the meat with a knife

(LOC, direction toward) (LOC, direction away) (LOC, location on) (LOC, location inside) (ASSOC) (DAT) (BEN) (INSTR)

3.1.4.5. Nominal predicate Nominal predicates in English follow copular verbs such as 'be', are morphologically unmarked (take no preposition), and are pragmatically non-topical. As illustrations, consider: (13) a. She is a teacher b. John is my brother

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

96 3.1.5.

Basic word-order of English

English is a subject-verb-object — S-V-O — language. That is, in Eng­ lish simple clauses the subject (S) precedes the verb (V) and the object (O) follows. Further, English is an S-V-O-IO language, where if both types of object are present, the direct object (O) precedes the indirect object (IO). For the purpose of defining the basic word-order in English, a nominal predicate (PRED) which follows the verb 'be' may be considered the 'ob­ ject' of that verb (V).

3.2.

PARSING AND TREE DIAGRAMS: RECAPITULATION

In this section we recapitulate briefly the discussion of our main formal tool for describing the syntactic structure of simple clauses (see Chapter 1, section 1.5.). A clause is not made out of a mere linear sequence of the verb and participants. It has a more complex, hierarchic constituent structure. That is, the clause is divided into major parts, which in turn are sub-divided into their own sub-parts. The depth of this hierarchic structure depends on the degree of complexity of the clause. It also depends on how many optional constituents each part has in addition to its obligatory con­ stituents.8 The difference between optional and obligatory constituents is roughly as follows: Obligatory constituents are absolutely indispensible for the semantic definition of the verb, thus the propositional frame of the clause. Optional constituents, on the other hand, are added for various semantic, grammatical or pragmatic reasons, but are not indispensable for defining the basic propositional frame. A few examples will illustrate this; they will also illustrate our technique of parsing the clause into its constituent parts, and the use of tree diagrams. Consider the simple clause with only two constituents, a subject (here a proper name) and a verbal predicate (here a verb): (14) Mary slept We may parse clause (14) initially as the tree-diagram in (15):

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

97

(15)

In example (14/15) both the subject and the verbal predicate are single words. But both may also be larger phrases, each with its own optionallyadded sub-constituents, as in: (16) The tall woman SUBJ NOUN-PHRASE

was sleeping peacefully VERB PHRASE

The subject of clause (16) now contains an article ('the'), a modifying adjective ('tall') and the head noun ('woman'), combined together into a noun phrase. The verbal predicate of clause (16) now contains an auxiliary ('be'), the verb itself ('sleeping'), and a manner adverb ('peacefully'), com­ bined together into the verb phrase. Clause (16) may be now diagrammed as: (17)

And in turn, clause (14) must be now rendered more precisely as:

98

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(18)

Our parsing conventions define all noun modifiers as parts of the noun phrase. Auxiliaries, manner adverbs, direct objects and indirect objects are defined as parts of the verb phrase. The core of the noun phrase is its head noun, which may stand alone without any modifiers. But the entire noun phrase may also consist of either a name or a pronoun. The core of the verb phrase is the verb. To illustrate the expansion of the verb phrase to include direct and indirect objects, consider (19a,b,c) below: (19) a. Mary read the book b. Mary talked to John c. Mary gave the book to John

(OBJ) (IO) (OBJ, IO)

The tree diagrams corresponding to (19a,b,c) are given in (20), (21) and (22) below; respectively: (20)

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

3.3.

CLASSIFICATION OF VERBS AND SIMPLE CLAUSES

3.3.1.

Transitivity

99

3.3.1.1. Semantic definition Simple clauses — and verbs — are either transitive or intransitive. Transitivity is a complex phenomenon involving semantic, pragmatic and syntactic components. One may define it first in terms of its three main semantic features. Each one of these features focuses on the semantic prop­ erties of either the subject, the object or the verb in the clause. Taken together, the three defined the prototype of the semantically transitive clause:9

100

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(23) Semantic definition of the prototype transitive clause: a. Agentivity:

The subject of a prototypical transitive clause is a deliberately acting agent. b. Affectedness: The direct object of a prototypical transitive clause is a concrete, visibly affected patient. c. Perfectivity: The prototypical transitive verb codes a bounded, terminated, fast-changing event that took place in real time. As one can see, several of these features are a matter of degree, so that semantic transitivity is at least in principle scalar. 3.3.1.2. Syntactic definition The semantic definition of the prototype transitive clause will figure prominently in subsequent discussion. The syntactic definition of transitive clauses — and thus transitive verbs — is much more simple in English: (24) Syntactic definition of the transitive clause: Verbs (and clauses) that have a direct object will be con­ sidered transitive; verbs (and clauses) that don't have a direct object will be considered intransitive. While the two definitions of transitive clause — semantic in (23), syntactic in (24) — seem independent of each other, in fact there is a considerable statistical overlap between the populations of clauses they define. That is, the majority of clauses in English text that abide by the semantic definition (23) turn out to also abide by the syntactic definition (24), and vice versa. But however large, the overlap is far from absolute. 10 3.3.2.

Dummy-subject verbs

Verbs in this class code states or events involving natural conditions or weather phenomena. They are intransitive and take no object. Most com­ monly, their subject is the pronoun i t ' . However, unlike other uses of this pronoun, in clauses with dummy-subject verbs 'it' does not refer to any par­ ticular entity. It is thus a dummy subject of the clause, filling a syntactic slot but having little or no semantic consequences. 11

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

101

Syntactically, the verb phrase in dummy-subject clauses may be either adjectival (coding a state) or verbal (coding an event). As illustrations, con­ sider: (25) Dummy-subject adjectives: a. It's hot (in here) b. It was cold (last summer)  It's so nice (here) d. It was terrible (there) (26) Dummy-subject verbs: a. It rained (all over the county) b. It froze (last week) c. It was hailing (real hard) A tree diagram illustrating the dummy-subject clause (26c) above, exclud­ ing the optional time adverb, is given in (27) below: (27)

3.3.3.

Copular verbs

3.3.3.1. The stative copula 'be' The prototype copular verb — or copula — in English is 'be'. It is semantically a rather impoverished verb, carrying little if any meaning. The bulk of the information in copular verb phrases with 'be' is furnished by the predicate that follows the copula. The copular clause as a whole codes a state, and the subject of the clause is either a patient or a dative, but not an agent. The predicate following the copula may be adjectival, containing an adjective that conveys either an inherent quality or a temporary state. As illustrations, consider:

102

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(28) Inherent quality: a. He is tall/Irish/smart b. The tree is tall/green/bushy  She is clever

(SUBJ = PAT) (SUBJ = PAT) (SUBJ = PAT)

(29) Temporary state: a. She is angry/sad/busy b. The door is broken c. They were lost

(SUBJ = DAT) (SUBJ = PAT) (SUBJ = PAT)

The syntactic structure of the copular-verb clauses such as (28) and (29) may be given by the tree diagram in (30) below, representing (29a): (30)

The predicate of copular clauses may also be nominal, i.e. consist of a noun phrase. In such cases, the subject can only be a patient. A nominal predicate may further be either a referring (REF) or a non-referring (NONREF) noun phrase. 12 As illustrations, consider: (31) Nominal predicates of inherent quality (non-referring): a. He is a teacher b. She is an American  These are houses (32) Nominal predicates of identity (referring) : a. He is my teacher b. She is an American I met last week  This is the house we live in The syntactic structure of nominal copular clauses such as those in (31) and (32) may be given by the tree diagram (33) below, representing clause (31b):

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

103

(33)

3.3.3.2. The process copula 'get' The copula 'get' differs from 'be' in a number of respects. First, clauses with 'get' typically code a process, i.e. a change of state, but not an inherent quality. Second, the predicate of 'get' could only code temporary states, but neither inherent qualities nor identity (reference). Third, the predicate of 'get' can only be adjectival, not nominal. This is predictable from the fact that nominal predicates code either inherent quality or inherent identity, both of which are incompatible with 'get', which codes changes. Like 'be', the subject of the copula 'get' may be either a patient or dative, but not an agent. As illustrations of typical clauses with the copular 'get', consider: (34) a. b.  d. e. f. g.

He got angry/sad/busy She got tall/skinny/lost The room got (real) hot *She got a teacher *It got a real house *She got my teacher *He got Irish

(*nominal, non-referring) (*nominal, non-referring) (*nominal, referring) (*adjectival, inherent quality)

The syntactic structure of clauses with the copula 'get' is identical to the one given for the copular 'be' in (30) above, with the exception that the verb itself is 'get' rather than 'be'. 3.3.3.3. The process copula 'become' Like 'get', the copular verb 'become 1 codes a change of state. In all other respects, however, 'become' shares the properties of 'be'. That is, the

104

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

subject of 'become' can not be an agent; the event coded by it can not be an action; and the predicate that follows it can be either adjectival — inherent or temporary, or nominal — referring or non-referring. As illustration con­ sider: (35) a. b. c. d.

She became a teacher He became our teacher She became tall He became angry

(nominal, non-referring) (nominal, referring) (adjectival, inherent quality) (adjectival, temporary state)

3.3.3.4. The stative copulas 'seem' and 'appear' Like 'be', the copular verbs 'seem' and 'appear' may code either tem­ porary states or inherent qualities, and their subject may be either dative or patient. Unlike 'be', they seem to reject nominal predicates. As illustra­ tions, consider: (36) a. b. c. d. e. g.

She seemed tall They seemed angry  appears rather subdued The house appeared deserted *She seems a teacher *He appears my friend

(inherent quality) (temporary state) (temporary state) (temporary state) (*nominal, non-referring) (*nominal, referring)

In some more expanded, complex constructions, with an explicit verbal complement involving the copula 'be', 13 the copulas 'seem' or 'appear' can take a nominal predicate. As illustrations, consider: (37) a. He appears to be my friend b. She seems to be a woman of substance Clauses such as (37) are syntactically more complex than (36); their nomi­ nal predicate is not a predicate of the main verb 'seem or 'appear', but rather of the copula 'be' in the complement. 3.3.3.5. The process copula 'turn (into)' The copular verb 'turn' codes a change of state. Its subject is typically a patient, and its predicates most typically an adjective connoting a tempo­ rary state. Further, the adjectival predicate of 'turn' seems to code typically perceptually accessible external physical conditions, but not internal mental states. This last observation further underscores the fact that the subject of 'turn' here is semantically a patient, rather than a dative. As illustrations, consider:

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

(38) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

105

He turned livid with rage The trees turned bright green in the summer All of a sudden the room turned cold Suddenly the water turned yellow *Then she turned angry/happy (*mental state) *She turned tall/good/smart (* inherent quality) *She turned a teacher (*nominal predicate) *He turned my friend (*nominal predicate)

The variant copula 'turn into', in contrast, cannot take adjectival pred­ icates, but only nominal ones. Further, its predicate seems to be restricted to, typically, non-referring nominals. As illustrations, consider: (39) a. He turned into a frog b. ?She turned into the wife of our next-door neighbor c. *They turned into red d. *He turned into angry 3.3.4.

(nominal, non-referring) (?nominal, referring) (*adjectival) (*adjectival)

Simple intransitive verbs

Verbs in this class may code either states, events or actions. Their sub­ ject may thus be either an agent, patient or dative. Typical examples are: (40) Agent subject, action verb: a. He worked (hard) b. She sang (for an hour)  They dance (well together) d. She paused (for a minute) e. He moved (about restlessly) f. They spoke (in a loud voice) g. He urinated (on the sand) h. She breathed (hard) (41) Dative subject, mental-state verb: a. She meditated (on the porch) b. He suffered (quietly)  They agonized (for a whole year) d. She dreamed (on and on) (42) Patient-of-state subject, state verb: a. He slept (for two hours) b. She (just) sat (there)

106

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(43) Patient-of-change subject, process verb: a. She fell/slipped b. It grew/broke/dried up c. She died (in her sleep) d. The water (finally) heated up e. The leaves rustled (gently) f. She coughed (in her sleep) The syntactic structure of simple intransitive clauses is given in the tree diagram (44) below, representing (43a): (44)

3.3.5. Transitive verbs As noted earlier above, we define transitive verbs syntactically as verbs that require a subject and a direct object. They may then be further sub­ divided according to semantic criteria, chiefly the semantic roles of the par­ ticipants that occupy the subject and direct object grammatical slot. 3.3.5.1. Prototypical transitive verbs The prototype transitive clause — thus also the prototype transitive verb — is characterized by three main features: (45) The transitive prototype: a. Subject: The subject of the prototype transitive verb is a voli­ tional, acting agent. b. Object: The object of the prototype transitive verb is a concrete patient that registers the physical effects of the agent's action.  Verb: The event coded by the transitive verb is a bounded, fast-changing action.

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

107

Some prototype transitive verbs involve the physical creation of an object where none had existed before, as in: (46) a. b. c. d.

He built a house She painted a picture He made a coffee table She drew a sketch of the bridge

Others involve the physical destruction of an existing object, as in: (47) a. b. c. d.

They demolished the house She smashed the glass He carefully evaporated the solvent She gobbled up her breakfast

Others involve a considerable change in the object's physical state, as in: (48) a. b.  d. e. f. g. h.

She cracked the pot He enlarged the living-room They chopped wood He baled the hay She cut her hair They bent the front bumper He twisted his ankle They killed two prisoners

Some transitive verbs may also involve a change in the object's physical location, as in: (49) a. They moved the barn b. She shifted her leg Others involve changes in the surface conditions of the object, as in: (50) a. b. c. d.

He washed his shirt She bleached her hair They painted the walls He sanded the floors

While others yet involve changes in some less visible internal properties of the objects, as in: (51) a. He heated up a cup of soup b. She chilled the gaspacho

108

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Some prototypical transitive verbs, in addition to the change that may affect the patient object, also involve the incorporation of a manner adverb or an instrument into their meaning, as in: (52) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

She murdered him He smashed the glass They shredded the documents He wolfed his dinner She knifed him They hooked a huge trout He elbowed the guy ahead

(kill deliberately) (break completely) (tear into small pieces) (eat ravenously) (stab with a knife) (catch with a hook) (hit with the elbow)

The syntactic structure of transitive verbs with a subject and direct object may be given as the tree diagram in (53), representing (48h): (53)

3.3.5.2. Less prototypical transitive verbs 3.3.5.2.1. Preamble Many transitive verbs in English, while conforming to the syntactic structure (53), are semantically less prototypical. That is, in various ways they deviate from the transitive prototype (45). Their deviation may be due to either one of the three clauses of the prototype's definition: (a) Their subject may not be a prototypical agent. (b) Their object may not be a pro­ totypical patient. Or (c) the event coded by the verb may not be a compact, bounded, fast changing event.

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

109

Quite often, downgrading the agent-related component of the transi­ tive prototype opens the door to concomitant downgrading of the patientrelated component, and vice versa. And lowering transitivity in terms of either the agent or patient prototype tends to lower transitivity in terms of the verb-coded event. The assignment of a transitive syntactic structure to verbs that are semantically non-prototypical may be viewed as a metaphoric extension of either the prototype 'agent' or the prototype 'patient'. This tendency is very striking in English, and is either an indication, a cause or a result of a con­ spicuous feature of English grammar: The notion 'transitive' is much more syntactic, much less semantic.14 In this section we survey some of the most common sub-types of nonprototypical transitive verbs. The discussion also serves to illustrate our notion of prototype as applied to grammar. 3.3.5.2.2. Dative subjects The agent-subject of the prototype transitive verb is both conscious (having volition) and active (initiating the event). Dative subjects, on the other hand, are typically conscious of the event, but neither intend it nor actively initiate it. By making a dative participant the subject of a syntacti­ cally-transitive verb, one makes it appear as if it is somehow "more active", "more involved" or "more responsible". In other words, it is made to resemble, metaphorically, an agent. Typical transitive verbs with a dative subject are: (54) a. b.  d. e. f.

He saw her She felt no remorse They heard the music She understood the problem They know the answer He wanted two oranges

The effect of such a seemingly innocent metaphoric extension can be shown in usages of such verbs, where the subject in fact seems to be responsible for initiating action. Thus, consider the following expressions, all couched in frames which suggest that the dative-subject somehow has control or choice, like a real agent:

110

ENGLISH GRAMMAR (55) a. b.  d. e. f.

You better see her first thing in the morning! Feel the energy radiating through you! She better hear what I have to say! You must understand this! You better know the answer before you get there! You have to want it real hard to really get it!

A concomitant of such dative-subject verbs as in (54)/(55) is that the object is also a less-than-prototypical patient. It is not physically affected; it is often abstract (cf. 'music', 'problem', 'answer', 'remorse'). Downgrading one aspect of the transitive prototype seems to invite — or at least coincide with — tampering with the others. 3.3.5.2.3. Dative objects The object of the transitive prototype, typically a concrete and visibly affected patient, may also be metaphorically extended. A common exten­ sion is toward a dative participant, whose prototypical involvement in events is internal, mental. Placing a dative in the direct-object syntactic position somehow makes it appear more strongly affected, and thus metaphorically more patient-like. As illustrations, consider: (56) a. They insulted her (> producing visible agitation) b. She spoils him rotten (with expensive gifts) (> his overt behavior shows it) c.  amused them (> and they roared in laughter) d. She entertained the crowd (> and got a round of applause) 3.3.5.2.4. Patient-subject as cause The very same verbs as in (56) above, with dative direct-objects, may be used to further extend the transitive-subject prototype. In (56), the sub­ ject is a human agent, a deliberate causer of the mental effect registered by the dative object. The human-causer subject may now be extended to a non-human cause. The non-human cause is now a patient subject. This is illustrated in:

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES (57) a. b. c. d. e.

The The The The The

111

idea amused him spectacle saddened her new regulations angered everybody joke entertained them for hours knowledge spoiled his appetite

The metaphoric extension, from agent-causer to patient-cause, may also occur with more prototypical transitive verbs, as in: (58) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

The epidemic attacked the whole village Curiosity killed the cat Hard work finally broke his back His bad luck broke his will to live The beer quenched her thirst Her faith saved her Deep foreboding took over him The idea struck him like a bolt Panic drove them away

Once again, the metaphoric extension of the transitive-subject prototype — from agent to patient — tends to be accompanied by relaxation of the tran­ sitive-object prototype. So that many of the objects in (58) are not prototyp­ ical patients. 3.3.5.2.5. Instrument as patient-subject A variant of the pattern seen directly above involves the placement of an instrument at the subject position of prototypical transitive verbs. The agent, user of the instrument, is not mentioned but may be implied. As illustrations, consider: (59) a. The hammer smashed the window ( > She smashed the window with the hammer) b. Her fist hit him full force ( > She hit him full force with her fist) . Penicillin finally cured them ( > They finally cured them with penicillin) d. The bomb killed seventeen civilians (> They killed seventeen civilians with the bomb) The effect, intended or inadvertent, of placing the instrument in the subject position is to remove responsibility from the unspecified agent. By virtue of a subtle inference, the instrument that is made subject of a prototypical

112

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

transitive verb acquires the semantic aura of the prototypical subject of such a verb. That is, it becomes more agent-like, thus somehow responsible for the event. 3.3.5.2.6. Locative direct-objects Some syntactically-transitive verbs display the extension of the patientobject prototype to a locative participant, one that ordinarily is coded as an indirect object. By subtle inference, the locative direct-object thus becomes patient-like, so that it appears more affected by the event. As illustrations consider: (60) a. She approached the house ( > She moved toward the house) b. She swam the channel (> She swam across the channel)  They entered the house (> They went into the house) d. He rode the horse (> He rode on the horse) e. They breached the perimeter (> They moved through the perimeter) f. They penetrated the fort (> They moved into the fort g. She escaped him (> She escaped from him) Examples (60d,e,f) are particularly striking. When one rides a horse, the horse is controlled, dominated, affected. When one rides on a horse, the horse is merely a location. Breaching a perimeter punctures it in the face of resistance. Merely moving through a perimeter carries no such inference. By penetrating a fort, one seemingly violates it against resistance. The mere movement into a fort as location carries no such inference. 3.3.5.2.7. Cognate objects In some verbs, the patient-object prototype is extended to an abstract product, activity or mental event. By inference, such an object is metaphor­ ically endowed with the properties of a physically-created patient. Objects of this general type are called cognate objects.15 As illustrations, consider first the following performance events:

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

113

(61) a. She sang a song (> She sang; her singing = a song) b. They danced the rumba ( > They danced; their dancing = the rumba) c. He gave a brief speech ( > He spoke; his speaking = his speech) d. She uttered a sharp cry (> She cried; her crying = a cry) e. They gave a great performance (> They performed; their performing = a performance) f. She gave a brilliant lecture (> She lectured; her lecturing = her lecture) By objectivizing the activity itself, one somehow endows it with patient-like properties, viewing it as product of the event. In the process, 'song', 'dance', 'speech', 'cry', 'performance', 'lecture' etc. may be captured on paper, tape or film, and then viewed as created patients. The activity that is objectivized may also involve a transitory spatial motion, as in: (62) a. They made a left turn ( > They turned; their turning = a turn) b. She took a leap (> She leaped; her leaping = a leap) c.  made a circle around them ( > He circled around them; his circling = a circle) In other cases, the event is largely mental, and the objectivized activity rather abstract, as in: (63) a. I made an error (I erred; my erring = an error) b. She made a suggestion that... (> She suggested that...; her suggesting = a suggestion)  I had an idea ( > I thought; my thinking = an idea) d. He made a last-ditch attempt (> He tried; his trying = an attempt) f. She took a calculated risk ( > She risked...; her risking = a risk)

114

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

g. They made me a promise (> They promised; their promising = a promise) h. She gave it a quick thought ( > She thought about it; her thinking = a thought) i. He tendered his resignation ( > He resigned; his resigning = his resignation) j . They took a break (> They broke; their breaking = a break) k. She never gave a hint (She never hinted; her hinting = a hint) What seems common in transitive clauses with cognate objects is that the verb itself is semantically vacuous. A small group of verbs — 'give', 'take', 'make', 'have' — seem to recur in such patterns. It is the object itself that carries the bulk of the verb-semantic information. This is consonant with the fact that the object in such clauses tends to be a nominalized verb itself. 3.3.5.2.8. Incorporated patients Some non-prototypical transitive verbs involve an implied patient whose sense is somehow 'incorporated' into the meaning of the verb. The overt direct object in such cases is often the location relative to which the implied patient moves. In the process, the non-prototypical object is some­ how endowed, metaphorically, with patient-like affectedness. As illustra­ tions, consider: (64) a. He fed the cows (> He gave food to the cows) b. She stoked the furnace ( > She put wood into the furnace)  They irrigated the orchard (> They brought water to the orchard) d. They harvested the field (> They removed the crop from the field) e. She dusted the table (> She removed the dust from table) f. He watered the geranium ( > He gave water to the geranium) g. They robbed her (> They took something from her)

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

115

h. He painted the wall (> He spread paint on the wall) 3.3.5.2.9. Associative direct objects Some non-prototypical transitive verbs involve the extension of transi­ tive-object prototype to an associative participant, i.e. to a co-agent of what is, strictly speaking, a reciprocal event. The semantic effect of such exten­ sion is to downgrade the object from being co-agent to being somehow more like an affected patient. In the process, the agent participant is upgraded too, from being a mere co-participant to being the sole responsi­ ble agent. As illustration, consider:16 (65) a. He met Sylvia (in the garden) (vs. He met with her, and she with him) b. She fought him (to a draw) (vs. She fought with him, and he with her) c.  joined her (for lunch) (vs. He joined with her, and she with him) 3.3.5.2.10. Transitive verbs of possession One conspicuous case of a less prototypical verb being coded syntacti­ cally as transitive involves English verbs of possession, such as 'have', 'have got' or the colloquial 'got'. These verbs code a state rather than an event. Their subject may be either a patient or a dative; and their patient-object is often abstract and most commonly unaffected. As illustrations, consider:17 (66) a. b.  d. e. f. g. h.

She has a big house I've got no money They had a beautiful relationship I got something (to tell you) He had a date (with Destiny) I got an idea The house's got three bedrooms This problem has no easy solution

3.3.5.3. Transitivity and unspecified objects As seen above, many verbs that have no patient semantically can nevertheless be coded syntactically as transitive. That is, they can take a

116

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

direct object that is semantically not a patient. English is indeed rather tolerant of metaphoric transitive expressions involving less-transitive verbs. But the converse process also occurs. That is, many semantically-transitive verbs that typically take a patient direct-object can also be used — in some discourse contexts — without their object. They thus appear syntactically as intransitive verbs. In most cases of this kind, the object is in some sense implied. However, it is either stereotypical, habitual, predictable, non-refer­ ring — or simply unimportant. As illustrations, consider: (67) a. They ate (early) (> OBJ = food) b. She drinks (like a fish) (> OBJ = liquor)  They hunted (for two weeks) (> OBJ = game animals) d. He traps (in the winter) ( > OBJ = animals) e. She drove (too fast) (> OBJ = her car) f. He plowed all day ( OBJ = field) g. He used to teach at the local highschool ( > OBJ = some subject matter) (> IO = to the students) h. She preached to the converted (> OBJ = the Gospel) i. We gave at the office (> OBJ = money) (> IO = to some charity) These objectless clauses using semantically-transitive verbs in contexts when the object is predictable, stereotypical or unimportant, are one type of the so-called antipassive construction in English.18 3.3.6.

Intransitive verbs with an indirect object

The verbs in this group have a subject and an indirect object; that is, an object marked by a preposition. These verbs are further divided into a number of semantic sub-types.

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

117

3.3.6.1. The prototype: Verbs with a locative indirect-object Verbs in this sub-group are in some sense the prototype of intransitive verbs with an indirect object. Their subject is either an agent or a patient, and the indirect-object is a locative. These verbs code, first, events of motion, whereby the subject moves toward or away from the locative object. They may also code states of being-in-location, whereby the subject is at, on, in, under, in front of or behind the locative object. The locative object may thus be viewed as the spatial reference point with respect to which the subject either moves or is located. Syntactically, the preposition (P) plus the object noun-phrase (NP) combine to form a prepositional phrase (PP). Examples of typical verbs in this sub-group are: (68) a. b.  d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k.

John remained in the house She walked into the yard The book is on the table The cat is behind the couch Mary came from Buffalo Joe went to the market The horse jumped over the fence They ran across the street The boat floated on the river They sat on the couch She lay on the floor

The syntactic structure of clauses such as (68) is given in (69) below, representing (68f): (69)

118

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

3.3.6.2. Verbs with dative or patient indirect-object Verbs in this sub-group take an indirect object, and thus fit the syntac­ tic frame of (69) above. Semantically, however, they diverge from the loca­ tion or motion prototype. Again, their semantic divergence from the pro­ totype may be viewed as metaphoric extension. Many verbs in this sub­ group involve mental activity, with the subject being either an agent or a dative, and the object either dative or patient. Marking such objects with a locative preposition somehow makes it possible to construe the event metaphorically as spatial, involving motion vis-a-vis the object. However, what "moves" here is not the physical subject itself, but rather the subject's voice, vision, attention, feelings or thoughts. As illustrations, consider: (70) a. b.  d. e. f. g. h.

Mary looked at John John listened to Mary/the music Mary thought/knew about John John was angry19 at Mary I'm disappointed at you She shouted at him He talked to her I'll attend to this right away

When the preposition used is 'from', the implicit motion seems to be from the object to the subject, as in: (71) She never heard from him (again) The metaphoric sense of motion involved in constructions such as (70) can be shown by contrasting two pairs of semantically rather similar verbs, respectively: (72) a. She saw him b. She looked at him  She heard him d. She listened to him The verbs 'see' and 'hear' are stative; their subject is a conscious dative, not an agent. Whatever moves — light, sounds — moves from the object to the subject. In contrast, the verbs 'look at' and 'listen to' are active; their sub­ ject is an agent. And whatever moves — visual or auditory attention — now seems to be construed as moving from the agent-subject to the object.

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

119

3.3.6.3. Reciprocal verbs with an associative indirect-object Some syntactically intransitive verbs code a reciprocal event, where the subject is an agent and the indirect object an associative co-agent. Quite often, these verbs have two other patterns: (a) a transitive clause pattern with the associative co-agent marked as direct object; and (b) a coordi­ nate-subject reciprocal pattern. As illustrations, consider: (73) a. Intransitive: Mary fought with her mother b. Transitive: Mary fought her mother  Coordinated: Mary and her mother fought (74) a. Intransitive: Bill met with John b. Transitive: Bill met John  Coordinated: Bill and John met For some reciprocal verbs, one of the patterns is less likely or margi­ nal. Consider for example the verbs 'embrace' and 'kiss': (75) a. Intransitive: ?Mary embraced with John b. Transitive: Mary embraced John  Coordinated: Mary and John embraced (76) a. Intransitive: *Mary kissed with John b. Transitive: Mary kissed John  Coordinated: Mary and John kissed While all three syntactic patterns in (73)-(76) are possible, each affects a different shade of meaning. When coded as direct object, as in the (b) exam­ ples above, the co-agent is somehow less endowed with agent-like proper­ ties such as volition and initiative. It is thus metaphorically downgraded, and is now construed as a patient, with less control over the event. When coded as a coordinate subject, as in the (c) examples, the co-agent is con­ strued as being much more of an equal in the reciprocal event, on a par with the subject-agent. Placing the co-agent in the position of a co-subject also makes it pragmatically more topical. Finally, in the intransitive pattern as in examples (a), the co-agent escapes the semantic downgrading to mere patienthood; but it is not pragmatic upgraded to co-subjecthood.

120

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

3.3.7.

Bi-transitive verbs

3.3.7.1. Preamble Bi-transitive verbs are verbs that take two objects. Their subject is almost always an agent, and one of the objects is almost always a patient. The bulk of these verbs are thus highly transitive verbs. But in addition to their agent and patient, they also take an indirect object. That indirect object may occupy a variety of semantic roles. Bi-transitive verbs can thus be sub-divided according to the semantic role of their indirect object. We will again proceed by describing first the prototype for the group. 3.3.7.2. The bi-transitive prototype: Locative indirect object Verbs in this sub-group code events in which a deliberate agent (the subject) causes the motion of the patient (direct object) relative to some location (indirect object). Typical examples are: (77) a. b.  d. e. f. g. h.

John put the book on the table Mary sent the merchandise to the store The clerk took the book off the shelf They removed him from the premises They brought the horse into the barn She poured the water out of the cup He carries the world on his shoulders They planted it in the ground

The syntactic structure of bi-transitive clauses as in (77) is given in the tree diagram (78) below, representing (77a): (78)

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

121

3.3.7.3. Dative-Benefactive indirect object This group of bi-transitive verbs code events in which the indirect object is a dative or a benefactive. The event itself is often a more abstract transaction, where the agent causes a non-prototypical, often abstract, "pa­ tient" to metaphorically "move" to or from the indirect object. The latter is thus metaphorically a 'location", and as such not prototypical, since it is most commonly a human participant. Most verbs in this sub-group have an alternative syntactic pattern, whereby the dative-benefactive object is "promoted" to the grammatical role of direct object, while the patient is "demoted" and placed at the end of the clause. In examples (79) below, this alternative pattern is given in parentheses: 20 (79) a. She gave the book to him (She gave him the book) b. He told the story to his son (He told his son a story) c. She showed the house to him (She showed him the house) d. She taught French to her children (She taught them French) e. They sent their love to him (They sent him their love) f. He promised the car to her (He promised her a car) g. She did a favor for him (She did him a favor) h. They asked a question of him (They asked him a question) The syntactic pattern of the verbs in (79) may be viewed as a metaphoric extension of the locative bi-transitive prototype. In some of them, such as 'give', 'send' or 'bring', the sense of physical motion remains intact. In others, such as 'promise', 'show', 'tell', 'teach', the metaphoric shift is more apparent. But even the more concrete verbs in this sub-group, such as 'give', 'bring' and 'send', are prone to further metaphoric stretch­ ing. Thus compare:

122

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(80) a. Give her my love b. She sent him her best wishes  It brings bad luck 3.3.7.4. The instrumental-locative alternation Members of this bi-transitive sub-group have one object that is semantically a locative, and another that is semantically an instrumental. These verbs are commonly paired, so that one typically takes the instrumental as its indirect object and the locative as direct; while the other shows the reverse pattern, with the locative as indirect object and the instrumental as direct object. As illustrations, consider: (81) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

locative IO

instrumental IO

put/pour x into  take x out of  spread x on y take x from  give x to  wrap/tie x around  place x around y stick x into y spray x on y

fill  with x empty  of x cover  with x rob/deprive  of x supply  with x wrap/tie  with x surround y with x stab y with x spray y with x

This alternation achieves, both semantically and pragmatically, a change in perspective.The object that is viewed as being semantically more affected is made the direct object — a position prototypically occupied by a patient. In the same vein, the object that is viewed as pragmatically more topical is made the direct object — a position typically occupied by the more topical of the two objects. To illustrate the semantic effect associated with this alternation, consider (81i), recapitulate in full in (82) below: (82) a. She sprayed the paint on the wall b. She sprayed the wall with paint Clause (82a) implies that all the paint was used up, but not that the entire wall got painted. The direct object 'paint' is thus construed as being more thoroughly affected, thus more patient-like. In contrast, clause (82b) implies that the entire wall was painted, but not necessarily all the paint

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

123

used up. The direct object 'wall is now construed as more affected, thus more patient-like. Pragmatically, a participant coded as direct object slot is more topical than one coded as indirect object. This may be illustrated by adding a pre­ ceding context to examples (82a,b), topicalizing either 'paint' or 'wall': (83) a. Context: What did you do with the paint? (i) I sprayed it on the wall. (ii) ?I sprayed the wall with it. b. Context: What did you do to the wall? (i) I sprayed it with paint. (ii) ?I sprayed the paint on it. Strictly speaking, there is nothing 'ungrammatical' about variants (ii) of (83a,b). But variants (i) seem more natural, more coherent, more likely. In other words, the object that is topicalized in the preceding context is rendered more naturally as the direct object. 3.3.7.5. Three-object verbs Verbs of this group code exchange transactions. They thus involve, at least implicitly, three (or even four) objects: A patient direct object that is being transferred to a recipient; a dative-benefactive indirect object that is the recipient; and an exchange commodity, another indirect object, that is being transferred to the agent in return. Occasionally, even the source from which the patient was obtained may be coded, as a third indirect object. Verbs in this group also allow the alternative pattern seen in (79) above. That is, the dative-benefactive may be "promoted" to direct object. The following are typical examples of exchange verbs (with the alternative pattern given in parentheses): (84) a. He bought the book for Jim from Mary for five dollars (He bought Jim a book from Mary for five dollars) b. She traded her old Honda to Joe for his Chevy (She traded Joe her old Honda for his Chevy)  They sold the house to Jane for peanuts (They sold Jane a house for peanuts) In actual text, exchange verbs most commonly appear with only one of their semantically-possible indirect objects. That is, as bi-transitive verbs with one direct and one indirect object:

124

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(85) a. She bought a book for five dollars b. She bought a book from her son  She bought a book for her daughter 3.3.7.6. Extending the verbal frame with optional indirect objects Many transitive and intransitive verbs of various types can take, in addition to their obligatory participants, also some optional indirect objects. Most commonly, such added participants are either a benefactive, instrument, associative, manner, location or time. When an objectless intransitive verb takes such an optional participant, the result is an intran­ sitive clause with an indirect object, syntactically akin to the structure described in (69), above. As illustrations, consider: (86) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Benefactive: Instrument: Associative: Manner: Location: Time:

John works for the city They fight with bows and arrows He works with his brother She ate like a pig He worked in the warehouse She doesn't work on Tuesdays

When an optional indirect object is added to a prototypical transitive verb, the result is a bi-transitive clause, syntactically akin to the structure described in (78) above. As illustrations of this, consider: (87) a. b.  d. e. f.

Benefactive: Instrument: Associative: Manner: Location: Time:

He washed two shirts for her She cut the wood with an axe She managed the ranch with her sister She finished supper in a hurry They killed him in the barn He met her at noon

There are some grounds for suspecting that at least some optional indi­ rect objects should not be considered part of the verb phrase. 21 For the pur­ pose of the discussion here, we will consider the syntactic structure of the clauses in (86) akin to that of intransitive verbs with an obligatory indirect object, i.e. tree diagram (69). In the same vein, we will consider the syntac­ tic structure of the clauses in (87) akin to that of bi-transitive verbs, i.e. tree diagram (78).

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

125

3.3.7.7. Verbs with two direct objects Verbs in this group seem to be syntactically transitive. That is, they have a direct object. However, semantically their direct object is far from the patient direct object prototype of transitive clauses. Further, the verb itself tends to code an abstract, mental or social event that is also remote from the prototype transitive verb. Often, the event may occur in the mind of the subject-agent and involve an unaware, thus unaffected, patient. In addition, another participant seems to appear in the clause, coded as a se­ cond direct object. But here again, that second direct object is not a patient, and is so unlike the transitive direct object prototype that it is most com­ monly non-referring. The semantic role of this second object turns out to be more like that of a nominal predicate. This is apparent from the para­ phrases given in parentheses in (88) below: (88) a. They elected him president (> They elected him to be president) b. They appointed her judge ( > They appointed her to be a judge)  We consider them members (> We consider that they are members) d. They judge him a good man (> They judge that he is a good man) e. She deemed their marriage a fiasco (> She deemed that their marriage was a fiasco) Several verbs in this group may take an adjective — rather than a noun phrase — as their "second object". This further underscores the semantic connection of the "second object" to a copular-predicate construction. As illustration of such cases, consider: (89) a. We consider him useless (> We consider him to be useless) b. They judged him insane ( > T h e y judged him to be insane)  She deemed it inappropriate (> She deemed it to be inappropriate) What the paraphrases in parentheses in both (88) and (89) suggest is that both types are examples of complex clauses, with the seeming "second

126

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

object" deriving from a verbal complement.22 The tree diagrams represent­ ing the meaning of such complex structures are given in (90) and (91) below, representing respectively (88a) and (89a): (90)

(91)

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

127

3.3.8. Verbs with verbal complements 3.3.8.1. Preamble The structure and meaning of complex clauses with verbal comple­ ments will be covered in considerable detail in chapter 7. At this juncture, we will introduce the verb-types that fall into this group, divide them into their main syntactic patterns, and discuss their more general semantic sub­ divisions. 3.3.8.2. Verbs with clausal subjects A number of predicate types in English, including both transitive verbs and adjectives, may take a proposition as their subject. That subject may appear as a full-fledged clause, either in the characteristic pre-verbal sub­ ject position, or in the characteristic post-verbal position of objects or ver­ bal complements. When this alternative pattern appears, the empty ('dummy') pronoun 'it' occupies the syntactic subject position. Semantically, transitive verbs in this group tend to have a dative direct object, one that is mentally affected by the state or event coded in the clausal subject. As an illustration of this pattern with transitive verbs, con­ sider: (92) a. Clausal subject: That she did it shocked him b. Dummy pronoun subject: It shocked him that she did it (93) a. Clausal subject: Her leaving so suddenly astonished him b. Dummy pronoun subject: It astonished him that she left so suddenly The syntactic structure of the two alternative patterns in (92) and (93) is given as in (94) and (95) below, representing respectively (92a) and (92b):

128

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(94)

(95)

When the main clause in this pattern involves an adjectival predicate, the adjective is typically evaluative vis-a-vis the proposition that occupies the subject slot. The evaluation may be epistemic, i.e. pertain to the propo­ sition's truth or certainty. It may also pertain to the desirability of the state/ event. Or it may assess the relative difficulty of performing the event. As illustrations, consider: (96) a. Epistemic:

That he did it is true (> It is true that he did it) b. Desirability: That she flunked the exam is terrible (> It is terrible that she flunked the exam) . Difficulty: To do this is difficult (> It is difficult to do this)

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

129

The syntactic structure of examples such as (96) is given in the tree diagrams (97) and (98) below, representing the two patterns in (96b). Respectively: (97)

(98)

3.3.8.3. Modality verbs Modality verbs form a coherent group, both in terms of the range of meanings they cover and their syntactic structure. Semantically, the group as a whole may be characterized as follows: (99) Semantic definition of modality verbs a. The complement clause is semantically a proposition, coding a state or event. b. The subject of the main clause is co-referent — i.e. refers to the same discourse entity — as the subject of the complement clause.

130

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

. The main verb codes either inception, termination, persistence, success, failure, attempt, intent, obligation or ability — by the subject of the main clause — to per­ form the action or be in the state that is depicted in the complement clause. Syntactically, modality verbs may be characterized as follows: (100) Syntactic definition of modality verbs a. The co-referent subject of the complement clause is left unexpressed.23 b. The complement-clause verb appears in an infinitive (or 'nominal') form, lacking any tense, aspect, modal­ ity or verb-agreement morphology. c. The complement clause tends to appear in the charac­ teristic — post-verbal — direct object position, and is normally packed under the same intonation contour with the main clause. As an example of a prototypical modality verb, consider 'want', as in: (101) Mary wanted to leave The complex syntactic structure of the main-plus-complement construction in (101) is given in the tree diagram in (102): (102)

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

131

Modality verbs may be further divided into a number of semantic sub­ groups. In the main, the semantic distinctions here involve the attitude of the main-clause subject vis-a-vis the state or event coded in the comple­ ment. The first sub-group, that of intentional verbs, code volition, attempt or ability. Typical examples of verbs in this group are: (103) a. She wanted to leave b. Mary tried to see Joe  Joe can see Mary Other verbs in this sub-group are intend, plan, decide, agree, strive, think of, be able. Some of them may code negative intent or in-ability, as in: (104) a. b.  d.

John refused to take the job Mary declined to be interrogated She was reluctant to admit it24 He was unable to return her call

A second sub-group of modality verbs code success or accomplishment of acts, as in: (105) a. Mary managed to escape b. John remembered to pick up the laundry  She succeeded in reversing the verdict The negative verbs in this sub-group code failure, as in: (106) a. b. c. d.

He forgot to wash the dishes She failed to understand him  escaped paying the fine She avoided meeting his eyes

A third sub-group of modality verbs code various aspectual properties of the complement-clause event, such as inception, termination, repetition or continuation. Thus consider: (107) a. b.  d. e. f.

Mary started to move out John finished washing the dishes John began to understand She continued to pursue her plan He stopped loving her She kept insisting

132

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

3.3.8.4. Manipulative verbs Manipulative verbs may be defined semantically as follows: (108) Semantic definition of manipulative verbs a. The main clause has a human agent that manipulates the behavior of another human, the manipulee. b. The agent of the complement clause is co-referential with the manipulee of the main clause. c. The complement clause codes the target event to be performed by the manipulee. Syntactically, manipulative verbs may be characterized as follows: (109) Syntactic definition of manipulative verbs a. The agent of the main clause is its subject. b. The manipulee of the main clause is its direct object.  The manipulee is also the subject of the complement clause, but is left unexpressed.25 d. The complement-clause verb appears in an infinitive (or 'nominal') form, lacking any tense, aspect, modal­ ity or verb-agreement morphology. A typical use of a manipulative verb may be seen in (110) below, involving the verb 'tell': (110) Mary told John to leave A tree diagram of the syntactic structure of complex clauses with a mani­ pulative verb is given in (111) below, corresponding to (110) above: (111)

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

133

Manipulative verbs may be further sub-divided according to their semantic properties. Some manipulative verbs code a successful manipula­ tion. That is, if the main-clause proposition is true, the complement propo­ sition is also true, as in: (112) Mary made Joe do the dishes (> Joe did the dishes) Common successful manipulative verbs in English are force, cause, let, help, have, trick, enable. Some manipulative verbs code a successful prevention, with the sub­ ject of the main clause successfully manipulating the object toward non-per­ formance of the complement-clause event. In such cases, if the main-clause proposition is true, the complement proposition is false, as in: (113) She prevented him from selling the house (> He did not sell the house) Other successful preventive verbs are: stop, dissuade, talk out of, scare away from. Some manipulative verbs code an attempted manipulation, without necessarily implying success, as in: (114) Joe asked Mary to leave the house Other verbs of this sub-type are: tell, beg, want, allow, permit, expect, order, tempt, encourage. Finally, some manipulative verbs code an attempted dissuasion, with­ out necessarily implying success. An example of this is: (115) She forbade him to leave 3.3.8.5. Perception-cognition-utterance (PCU) verbs The subject of verbs in this important group either perceives or cog­ nizes a state or event, or utters a proposition concerning a state or event. That proposition is then coded in the complement clause. The complement clause thus functions, in a way, as the object of the mental or verbal activity depicted in the main clause. The semantic characterization of PCU verbs may be given as follows:

134

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(116) Semantic definition of PCU verbs a. The main-clause verb codes either the perception, cog­ nition, or verbal utterance by the dative or agent sub­ ject. b. The complement clause codes the state or event that is the object of the mental or verbal activity by the mainclause subject. The syntactic characterization of PCU verbs may be given as: (117) Syntactic definition of PCU verbs a. No co-reference restrictions hold between the subject or object of the main and the subordinate clause. b. The subordinate clause appears like a full-fledged main clause, with no missing subject.  The subordinate clause may be preceded by the subordinator morpheme that, or in some cases by if Typical examples of PCU verbs are 'see', 'know' and 'say', as in: (118) a. She saw that he was leaving b. He knew that Marge had left town  They say she's going to recover The syntactic structure of PCU verbs is given in the tree diagram (119) below, representing (118b): (119)

PCU verbs may be further sub-divided according to a number of semantic criteria. Some code preference or aversion vis-a-vis the event or state coded in the complement, as in: (120) a. Preference: b. Aversion:

She wished (that) he would do it He was afraid (that) she'd be late26

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

135

Other verbs of this sub-type are: hope, prefer, would rather. Other PCU verbs code epistemic attitude — relative certainty — vis-avis the reality of the state or event in the complement, as in: (121) He thought (that) she wasn't there Other verbs of this sub-type are: believe, suspect, guess, suppose, decide, assume, be sure, feel, doubt, and others. When a PCU verb of epistemic attitude codes low or negative cer­ tainty, the complement clause is often preceded by the subordinators 'if or 'whether', as in: (122) a. She wondered //they were still there b. He doubted whether there was any gin left Other PCU verbs code various kinds of sensory perception, as in: (123) a. He saw that she was going out without him b. She heard that their house was on fire Many PCU verbs of high epistemic certainty are characterized as presuppositional or factive. That means, roughly, that the speaker considers the proposition in the complement clause to be true regardless of the truth value of the main-clause proposition. As illustration of this, consider:27 (124) a. Mary knew that John loved her (> John loved her) b. Mary didn't know that John loved her (> John loved her) Other factive verbs are: understand, remember, forget, see, hear, perceive, learn, find out, discover, regret, be sorry, be aware. A small group of PCU verbs, such as pretend and lie, are said to be negative factive. That is, roughly, the speaker considers the proposition in the complement to be false, regardless of the truth-value of the main-clause proposition. As an illustration, consider: (125) a. Mary pretended that John was there (> John wasn't there) b. Mary didn't pretend that John was there ( > John wasn't there) Finally, some PCU verbs are utterance verbs, such as say, announce, ask, explain, propose, disclose and others. This means, roughly, that the

136

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

proposition in the complement is verbally expressed by the subject of the main verb. The speaker is thus quoting the main-verb subject. The quota­ tion may be either direct or indirect, yielding two distinct complement forms: (126) a. Indirect quote: She said (that) she wasn't sure. b. Direct quote: She said: "I'm not sure". Predictably, direct quote complements, as in (126b) are a more ver­ batim rendition of the quoted speech, with the speaker-quoter taking more responsibility — and legal culpability — for the exact form of the quoted speech, often including mimicry and gestures. Somewhat paradoxically, while taking responsibility for the exact form, the speaker also disclaims responsibility for the contents of the direct-quoted information. In contrast, indirect quotes such as (126a) are more heavily edited by the speaker, and thus are not meant to represent the exact form of the quoted speech. They thus display much more of the quoter's interpretation of the quoted information. While not striving for exact reproduction of the form, the indi­ rect quoter takes more responsibility for the information itself. 3.3.8.6. Information verbs A number of verbs in English, such as tell, inform, ask, convince, per­ suade, lie to, or announce to, can take both a dative direct object and a ver­ bal complement of the type taken by PCU verbs. As an example, consider: (127) She told him (that) she was leaving The syntactic structure of complex clauses such as (127) is given in the tree diagram (128): (128)

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

3.4.

137

MULTIPLE MEMBERSHIP IN VERB CLASSES

Quite a few verbs in English can belong to more than one syntactic — thus also semantic — verb-class. Such multiple membership is often sys­ tematic, in the sense that many verbs may reveal the same multiple mem­ bership pattern. Thus, a verb like 't1l' or 'ask' may be either a simple tran­ sitive verb (like 'kill'), a manipulative verb (like 'force'), or an information verb as in (127). That is: (129) a. Transitive: She told him a story b. Manipulative: She told him to bug off c. Informative: She told him that his timing was a bit off Similarly, a verb such as 'know' or 'say' may be either a simple transitive or a PCU verb, as in: (130) a. Transitive: b. Utterance:

He said his prayers He said that there was no juice left

In the same vein, a verb such as 'forget' or 'remember' may either be a sim­ ple transitive verb, an intransitive with an indirect object, a modality verb, or a PCU verb. That is, respectively: (131) a. b.  d.

Transitive: Intransitive: Modality: Cognition:

She forgot her husband She forgot about dinner She forgot to cook dinner She forgot that he hadn't cooked dinner

And similarly, a verb such as 'want' can be either a simple transitive verb, a modality verb, or a manipulative verb. That is, respectively: (132) a. Transitive: He wanted a new car b. Modality: He wanted to leave  Manipulative: He wanted her to leave Sense variation in the case of some verbs is more subtle, so that its syntactic consequences are correspondingly more subtle. Thus, for exam­ ple, modality verbs such as 'forget', 'remember', 'learn' or 'plan' can take two variant equi-subject complements, yielding two different senses of the main verb, one involving performance, the other know-how. That is, respectively:

138

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(133) a. Performance: She forgot to solve the problem ( > She could, but didn't) b. Know-how: She forgot how to solve the problem ( > She couldn't, and didn't) (134) a. Performance: She remembered to go home (> She remembered and did) b. Know-how: She remembered how to go home ( > She remembered the way, but may not have gone home) Semantic and syntactic characterization is thus not assigned to the verb as a sequence of sounds, but rather to each particular sense of the verb. 3.5.

VERBS THAT INCORPORATE PREPOSITIONS

One of the most baffling facts of English grammar, often defying both description and learning, is the use of prepositions to augment the lexical meaning of verbs. This has been and still remains an ongoing historical pro­ cess in Germanic languages. The evidence of Romance-derived verbs in English suggests that a similar process must have occurred earlier in Latin. 28 As a result of this historical process, English prepositions as a class are stranded somewhere between the grammar and the lexicon. The English verbal lexicon is thus systematically enriched with new senses of existing verbs, as they are combined with various prepositions. Prepositions used in this capacity often resemble, to the naked eye, their 'grammatical' counterparts used in marking the various types of indi­ rect objects. However, more careful inspection reveals that the two uses are rather different, both semantically and syntactically. The distinction between the grammatical and lexical use of preposi­ tions is easier to illustrate with simple intransitive verbs, ones that normally take neither direct nor indirect objects. As illustrations, consider:

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES (135) a. b. c. d.

The The Her Her

(136) a. b. c. d.

He turned (and left) (So finally) he turns up (in Las Vegas) They turned in (for the night) It turned out (that she was right)

(137) a. b. c. d.

She worked (hard) It worked out (just fine) They worked out (in the gym) He worked up a sweat

139

window broke meeting broke up (early) car broke down (on the freeway) skin broke out (in a rash)

A similar variation can be shown with simple transitive verbs that, typ­ ically, take a direct object. Thus, compare: (138) a. b. c. d.

They broke the furniture She broke up with him They broke him in (gradually) He broke it down (for them into small pieces)

(139) a. b. c. d.

He turned the key He turned the key over (to her) They turned her down (for the job) She turned in her report (and went home)

(140) a. b.  d. e.

They shut the door She shut him up They shut the plant down We shut them out completely (ten to nothing!) He shut the water off.

(141) a. b.  d. e.

He cut the log They cut him in for a piece of the action Cut it out, will ya? Cut the sound down a bit. They cut it up in little pieces

(142) a. They locked the house b. They locked him up (143) a. They let him (go inside) b. They let him down

140

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(144) a. They worked him (hard) b. They worked him over (real slow)  You work it out (for yourself) (145) a. He used the back stairs b. He used up all his credit (146) a. They tracked it (carefully) b. They tracked him down (147) a. She fixed the door b. They fixed him up real good  She fixed him up with her sister (148) a. They found him b. They found him out c. They found out all about it The distinction between the grammatical — i.e. 'predictable' — and lexical use of the preposition is more subtle when the verb is one that typi­ cally takes an indirect — prepositional — object. Thus consider: (149) a. b.  d. e.

She ran to the store (indirect object) She ran out on him They ran out of gas They ran up a huge bill Run this address down for me, will a?

(150) a. He went out of the house b. The fire went out

(indirect object)

(151) a. b.  d. e.

He turned toward her (indirect object) He turned over a new leaf They turned in for the night So one day she turns up there and... It turned out real bad

(152) a. b.  d. e. f.

She looked at him (indirect object) She looked him up She looked him over She looked over the entire list He looks out for number one She looked out (but didn't see the car coming)

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

141

Many bi-transitive verbs also reveal this enrichment of their lexical meaning, as in: (153) a. b. c. d. e.

She gave the book to him (indirect object) They gave up and left She gave up on him They gave in to our demands They gave out everything they owned

(154) a. He took the book to school b. He took up poetry  She took over his business

(indirect object)

(155) a. b.  d.

He put the cup on the table She couldn't put up with him She's only putting him on His behavior really put them off

(indirect object)

(156) a. b. c. d.

He brought the wine to her (indirect object) She brought it up the next meeting  brought down the house I don't think they can bring it about.

As noted above, the use of highly specific verb-preposition combina­ tions to yield highly specific new senses of verbs has been a protracted his­ torical process in English. It began at different times for different verbs, has progressed at different rates, and has arrived at different end-points. Con­ sequently, the semantic correlation between the older meaning of a propo­ sition and its verb-incorporated lexical use may be anywhere from transpar­ ent to obscure. Like other lexical processes, it is a matter for case-by-case examination. Certain regularities have been noted, 29 but they are far from being totally predictable across the verbal lexicon. It is only natural, there­ fore, that non-native speakers of English find this area of English grammar particularly opaque. And there is enough evidence to suggest that native speakers learn these verb-proposition combinations as unitary lexical items — by memorizing them, rather than by deriving them through rules. It is also natural that a considerable amount of syntactic irregularity should accompany the semantic complexity of verb-proposition combina­ tions. For example, many transitive verbs allow the preposition to come either directly after the verb, or following the direct object. Thus compare:

142

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(157) a. b.  d.

They locked out the entire class They locked him out of the house They covered up the entire affair They covered it up

The factors that control the choice between the two variants are both syn­ tactic and pragmatic. Syntactically, if the direct object is a long noun phrase, the verb-augmenting preposition tends to be placed right after the verb, as in (157a,c). Pragmatically, if the direct object is more topical— in which case it also tends to be shorter, often only a pronoun — then the ten­ dency is to place it directly after the verb, as in (157b,d). The preposition is thus left dangling at the end of the clause.30

3.6.

SUMMARY OF THE STRUCTURE OF SIMPLE CLAUSES

The structure of simple clauses in English is summarized in (158) below, using the node-labels we have introduced for the tree diagram method of describing syntactic structure. The summary is similar to the for­ malism of Phrase Structure Rules,31 but is intended only as a notational convenience, collapsing the various types of tree diagrams we have used above to represent the syntactic structure of the various simple-clause types of English. To make the difference between copular and verbal clauses more apparent, two additional intermediate categories are introduced in (158c) — 'copular' and 'verbal'. Similarly, the category, ADV, standing for an optional adverb within the verb phrase, has also been introduced in (158c). The category MODIF, standing for 'modifier', has been introduced in (158k), to represent — informally — noun modifiers within the noun phrase. A more extensive treatment of the structure of noun phrases is found in chapter 6. A constituent placed within the parentheses ( ) is optional. When two (or more) constituents are placed within the curly brackets { }, a disjunctive choice of only one of them is meant. The sign = means "The category on the left side has the constituents on the right side, in the same linear order".

SIMPLE VERBAL CLAUSES

(158) Summary of the phrase-structure of simple clauses (obligatory participants only) a. S = SUBJ VP b. SUBJ = c. VP =

d. COPULAR = COP PRED e. PRED = f. V E R B A L = V (OBJ) g. C O M P = S h. IO = PP i. PP = Ρ NP j. OBJ = NP k. NP =

143

144

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

NOTES 1) We noted earlier that many adverbs are structurally prepositional phrases, thus to some extent overlapping — at least structurally — with indirect objects. At the level of analysis we are concerned with here, we will more or less ignore the grammatical tests that distinguish between a prepositional phrase that is an 'indirect object' and one that is an 'adverb'. 2) The bulk of these grammatical constraints will be dealt with in later chapters, since they tend to involve the behavior of complex clauses; that is, the behavior of clauses in more complex contexts. 3) What is said here about the limits of strict definitions of semantic roles also applies to grammatical roles, although to a lesser degree. Given the more abstract, structural nature of grammatical case-roles, they tend to exhibit a higher level of categoriality (or 'grammaticalization'). 4) For the purpose of the discussion here, we will ignore the role of 'adverb'. Its status as a purely grammatical role in English is somewhat hazy. As noted in chapter 2, the morphological form and syntactic position of adverbs are both rather variable. More subtle grammatical tests go a longer way toward differentiating adverbs from indirect objects. But at this point such tests cannot be discussed. 5) 'Locative' here stands in for all others' in (6). 6) In several complex clause-types, such as questions (chapter 12) or contrastive topics (chapters 10, 11), the subject may be switched to other positions in the clause. 7) Or at least less topical than the direct object. 8) It may be argued that by adding more optional constituents, one increases the complexity of the clause. 9) Several other aspects of transitivity will be discussed in chapters 7 and 8. For an extensive discussion of transitivity in language, see Hopper and Thompson (1980); Givón (1984a, chapters 4,5.8); Givón (1990, chapters 13, 14). 10) It is also likely that the probability of the overlap between semantic and syntactic tran­ sitivity in English is not the same in both directions. Thus, while a large majority of semanticallytransitive clauses are also syntactically transitive, probably a smaller majority of syntacticallytransitive clauses are also semantically transitive. 11) While 'it' does not exactly 'refer' to anything in such clauses, it does have some semantic consequences. For example, it clearly stands for neither a male nor a female entity, but rather an inanimate or non-human one. And it certainly is more of a 'singular' than a 'plural'. 12) The reference properties of noun phrases are discussed in considerable detail in chapter 5. 13) For a detailed discussion of verbal complements, see chapter 7. 14) English is not necessarily a typical language in this respect. In most languages transitivity is more constrained semantically, though to varying degrees. 15) The term 'cognate' alludes to the fact that many such objects are in fact nominalized forms of the activity-verb involved ('sing'/'song', 'dance'/'dance', 'talk'/'talk', 'lecture'/'lecture', 'promise'/'promise', etc.). Most of the others are also nominalized verbs, but they follow an unre­ lated transitive verb (see (63) below).

SIMPLE V E R B A L CLAUSES

145

16) While semantically this may be viewed as 'downgrading', pragmatically the direct object position codes more topical, important participants than the indirect object. 17) One may as well note that as a historical semantic extension of the transitive prototype, an earlier sense of 'have' was the more concrete meaning of 'hold', 'seize', 'grab'. The semantic extension involved the 'bleaching out' of the sense of concrete action, to leave only the sense of resulting possession, eventually not even physical possession. The same process is currently going on with 'get', which also retains its earlier sense of 'obtain'. 18) For discussion of the antipassive voice, see chapter 8. 19) While 'be angry at', 'be mad at', 'be disappointed at' etc. fit semantically in this group, they are syntactically adjectival predicate constructions, and as such involve the copular verb 'be'. 20) The discourse-pragmatic function of this variant pattern, also called dative shifting, will be discussed in chapter 11. 21) The arguments hinge on various grammatical-behavior criteria by which it is possible to classify these optional prepositional phrases as adverbs, ones that are direct constituents of the clause (S) rather than of the verb phrase (VP). 22) See section 3.3.8. directly below. 23) Or 'is deleted under identity'. In a transformational format of syntactic description, where the surface structure of a complex clause is 'derived' from the deep syntactic structure of its com­ ponent simple clauses, the zero expression of a co-referent NP is interpreted as 'deletion' of that NP. 24) Both 'reluctant' and 'unable' are adjectives. In terms of their semantic and syntactic relation to the complement clause, however, they follow the general pattern of modality verbs. 25) Or 'deleted under identity'; see footnote 23. 26) A number of complement-taking adjectives fall into the general syntactic pattern of PCU verbs as described here. Such adjectives are 'be afraid', 'be aware', 'be sure', 'be certain', 'be hopeful' and others. 27) Several factive predicates are adjectives in English, such as 'be sad', 'be happy', 'be dis­ gusted', 'be encouraged', 'be disappointed' and others. For an extensive discussion of the semantics of factive predicates, see Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1968). 28) Incorporated prepositions in Latin-derived Romance verbs are pre-verbal, as in 'im-bibe', 'ex-pell', 'sub-ject', 'sur-prise', 'per-form', 'pre-tend', 'ab-sorp', ac-cept', 're-ceive', 'de-ceive', 'ob-tain', etc. The same pre-verbal pattern of incorporating prepositions is found in German. 29) An extensive discussion of these regularities can be found in Lindner (1982). A discussion of this lexical extension pattern as metaphoric extension of the meaning of locative prepositions can be found in Lakoff and Johnson (1980). 30) An account of the pragmatics factors controlling this variation may be found in Chen (1986). 31) In standard transformational formats, this summary — called Phrase-Structure Rules — is considered a description of the 'competence' of the grammar user, and is thus given a much more prominent theoretical status. See Chomsky (1965).

4

VERBAL INFLECTIONS: TENSE, ASPECT, MODALITY AND NEGATION

4.1.

INTRODUCTION

The grammar of verbal inflections is often the most complex part of the grammar in any language. In terms of function, it spans over all three wellcoded functional realms of language: Lexical meaning, propositional informa­ tion, and discourse coherence. In terms of morpho-syntactic structure, it often involves a mix of diachronically older bound morphemes and diachronically younger verb-like auxiliaries, with the latter having not only morphological but also syntactic status. The verbal inflections of English represent successive generations of historical development, and often bear the footprints of their protracted history. This is true in terms of the position of verbal inflections — both auxiliaries and bound affixes — relative to the verb, as well as in terms of the rules that govern their grammatical behavior. What is more, the his­ tory of the tense-aspect-modal system of English is far from over. New operators are still being introduced into the system; and both those and the system as a whole are in the process of being re-shaped. We will begin our survey by considering the three main functional domains that underlie the system: (a) (b) (c)

Tense Aspect Modality

After surveying the syntactic behavior of these three, we will discuss the fourth category (d)

Negation

148

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

4.2.

TENSE

4.2.1.

Preliminaries

The category tense codes the relation between two points along the ordered linear dimension of time — the time of speech and event time. The time of speech serves as the universal reference-point for event time. The relation between the two may be represented diagrammatically as follows: (1)

Tense and time

One may distinguish four tenses in English: (a) Past:

An event (or state) whose event-time preceded the time of speech (b) Future: An event (or state) whose event-time follows the time of speech (c) Present: An event (or state) whose event-time is right at the time of speech (d) Habitual:1 An event (or state) that either occurs always, or is timeless, or whose event-time is left unspecified 4.2.2.

Past

The past tense in English is marked most commonly by the suffix -ed. For a group of irregular verbs, the form is unpredictable, and involves internal changes in the form of the verb-stem itself. Some of these verbs are:

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

(2)

irregular past-tense forms base form sing see bring know be come go stand sit leave have run begin find teach hang put cast etc.

4.2.3.

past tense form sang saw brought knew was/were came went stood sat left had ran began found taught hung put cast

Future

The future tense in English is marked by three alternative forms: (a) (b) (c)

the the (or the

modal auxiliary 'will' complex auxiliary 'be going to' the contracted 'be gonna') progressive auxiliary 'be...-ing'

Examples of the three are, respectively:

149

150

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(3)

a. The modal auxiliary 'will': She will leave at midnight b. The complex auxiliary 'be going to': She's going to leave right away (She's gonna leave right away) c. The progressive auxiliary 'be': She is leaving tomorrow

The difference in function between the three options for marking the future tense is not easy to characterize, but at least three distinct dimen­ sions seem to be involved. (i) Formality of genre: The use of 'will' may be more formal; the other two may be more col­ loquial. (ii) Time distance: The use of 'will' probably signals a more distant future, while the other two may signal a more immediate future. (iii) Degree of certainty: Both 'will' and the progressive 'be' seem to signal higher certainty; the use of 'going to' or 'gonna' seems to signal lower certainty. 4.2.4.

Present

The present tense is not specifically marked in English. Rather, in the absence of explicit marking of any other tense, the progressive aspect, marked by the suffix -ing, is interpreted as a present progressive, as in: (4)

He is chopping wood

Stative verbs, ones that code a state rather than an event, typically don't take the progressive aspect. The 'present' meaning of such verbs is signalled by the habitual form, which is then ambiguous; it signals either the habitual or the present tense. As illustration of this, compare (5) and (6) below: (5)

Active (event) verb: a. Past: He chopp-ed wood b. Present-progressive: He is chopping wood  Habitual: He (always) chops wood

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

(6)

151

Stative (state) verb: a. Past: He knew the answer b. Progressive: *He is knowing the answer  Habitual: He (always) knows the answer d. Present: (Right now) he knows the answer

Other stative verbs are 'see', 'hear, 'be', 'have', 'want' and many others. The reason for the restriction will become more obvious when we dis­ cuss the progressive aspect (section 4.3.2. below). Briefly, the progressive converts a compact event into a state. But stative verbs already signal a state through their inherent lexical meaning. It thus makes no sense to con­ vert them into what they already are. One must note that it is not the progressive form of the verb that exhibits the restriction, but rather the particular sense associated with that form. To illustrate this, consider the behavior of the progressive form with the verb 'see': (7)

a. b.  d.

I see her now *I am seeing her now I am seeing her first thing tomorrow morning He's seeing the delegation right now

When the progressive form is interpreted as a present-progressive, as in (7b), it is incompatible with 'see'. When it is interpreted as a future, as in (7c), 'see' is compatible with it. The acceptability of both (7c) and (7d), finally, is due to a subtle change in the lexical meaning of the verb — from the stative 'see' to the active 'meet'. The acceptability of (7d) above underscores the fact that it is not the verb stem-form that is responsible for the restriction, but rather a specific (stative) sense of the verb. To illustrate this again, consider the behavior of two stative verbs par excellence — 'be' and 'have': (8)

a. Joe was tall b. *Joe was being tall c. Joe was being obnoxious

Being tall is an involuntary state over which the subject exercises no con­ trol. Being obnoxious, in contrast, may also be an activity, and it is that sense that is captured in (8c). Similarly:

152

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(9)

a. Mary had blond hair b. *Mary was having blond hair c. Mary was having steak for dinner (> She was eating steak) d. Mary was having her baby on the kitchen floor (> She was giving birth) e. Mary was having a good time in Hawaii ( > She was enjoying herself)

The purely stative sense of 'have', as in (9a,b), is incompatible with the pro­ gressive aspect. But the senses of 'have' in (9c,d,e) are all active — eventive — senses; hence their compatibility with the progressive aspect. 4.2.5.

Habitual

The simple — unmarked — form of the English verb is often labeled, mistakenly, the 'present'. This is the verb-form that requires third-personsingular subject agreement, coded by the suffix -s. Thus compare: (10)

number person first second third

singular

plural

I fall we fall you fall you/y'all fall he/she/it falls they fall

As noted above, only with stative verbs, ones that cannot take the progres­ sive aspect, does the unmarked form double up as both the habitual and present. As we shall see below, it also doubles up as a special form of the past. 4.3.

ASPECT

4.3.1.

Preliminaries

Aspect in English, as elsewhere, encompasses a group of heterogenous semantic and pragmatic categories. 2 Some involve temporal properties of the event, such as boundedness, sequentiality or temporal gapping. Others involve purely pragmatic notions such as relevance. Others yet involve more subtle facets of the perspective taken by the speaker. While aspects are distinguished from tenses, they often combine with various tenses. What is more, in such combinations aspects often display distinct patterns

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

153

of association with particular tenses. But even granting that the separation between 'tense' and 'aspect' is not absolute, it is still useful to treat the two notions separately. 4.3.2. The progressive 4.3.2.1. Unboundedness (vs. compactness) The progressive aspect converts a temporally compact, bounded, ter­ minated event, one that has sharp temporal boundaries, into a temporally diffuse, unbounded, ongoing process, which thus resembles a state.3 The English progressive is marked by the auxiliary 'be' before the verb and the suffix -ing on the verb. When the progressive combines with the three main tenses, the auxiliary 'be' — unless preceded by another auxiliary — behaves like the main verb and carries the tense marking: (11) a. Present progressive: b. Future progressive:  Past progressive:

She is working She will be working She was working

The progressive aspect represents a stative semantic perspective on an otherwise non-stative event. Its use does not imply that the event per se was unbounded or diffuse, but rather that from the perspective of the speaker, the event is described in the middle of happening, with its boundaries disre­ garded and its temporal span accentuated. A spatial metaphor may help clarify our notion of 'perspective' here. Compare the very same 'objective' event, described first in the simple bounded past, then as progressive past: (12) a. Bounded past: She cut the log b. Progressive past: She was cutting the log The bounded-past perspective in (12a) may be likened to a narrow cameraangle — say a fish-eye lens — view. The event is observed from close prox­ imity, taking up the entire frame, so that it is viewed as a protracted object progressive-past perspective in (12b) may be likened to a wide cameraangle — say a fish-eye lens — view. The event is observed from close pro­ ximity, taking up the entire frame, so that it is viewed as a protracted object whose boundaries are not included in the frame. The two perspectives may be represented diagrammatically as:

154

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(13) Bounded (narrow-angle) perspective:

(14) Progressive (wide-angle) perspective:

The interpretation of the progressive aspect varies a little when the verb is super-compact, i.e. of a very short duration, as in 'kick', 'blink', 'hit' or 'shoot'. With such verbs, the progressive typically assumes an iterative interpretation, i.e. a progression of repeated acts. As illustrations, con­ sider: (15) a. b. c. d.

He was kicking the couch She was blinking her eyes rapidly  was hitting the door with both hands They were shooting at the house

4.3.2.2. Proximity (vs. remoteness) One consequence of the metaphor of narrow vs. wide camera-angle perspective on the event is of particular interest. In the visual construction of space, a wide lens-angle represents either a large or a nearby object. From the progressive perspective then, an on-going event is thus scrutinized

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

155

from close proximity, with all details visible. It is as if the observer is placed right at the scene. In contrast, from a bounded, narrow-angle perspective the event is viewed from a remote vantage point. The observer is removed from the scene and its minute details. The strong, near automatic association of the progressive with the pre­ sent — absent explicitly marked tense — is indeed a cognitive reflection of the metaphoric extension from spatial to temporal proximity. Proximity — whether spatial or temporal — has similar cognitive consequences. 4 4.3.2.3. Simultaneity (vs. sequentiality) The progressive perspective on an event is often established through bringing the observer onto the scene in the middle of the event, when it is already going on. This is most commonly accomplished by depicting in an adjacent clause the entry of a witness onto the scene. Thus compare (15) above with (16): (16) a. b.  d.

When I came in, he was kicking the couch When he looked up, she was blinking her eyes rapidly They saw that he was hitting the door with both hands The police caught them shooting at the house

This juxtaposition of two event-clauses, the one compact and representing the observer's entry or perspective, the other the depicted event-in-progress, indeed involves a pragmatic dimension of the progressive aspect. The feature of simultaneity — to contrast with sequentiality — of two clauses is 'pragmatic' in the sense that it cannot be defined without reference to another clause, i.e. to the discourse context. As a more explicit illustration of this, compare the two highlighted clauses in (17a,b) below, representing the same 'objective' events: (17) a. Bounded past: After she came home, he cooked dinner, and they ate and went to bed. b. Progressive past: When she came home, he was cooking dinner. Then they ate and went to bed. One could further suggest that the pragmatic feature of 'simultaneity1 is implicit even in the single-clause use of the progressive. That is, a simul­ taneous point-of-reference is always implicit in the discourse context of a

156

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

progressive-coded clause. Consider, for example, the typical elicitation of progressive-coded single-clause responses: (18) a. Question (context): What is he doing (now, as we are talking)? b. Response: He's eating supper.  Question (context): What was he doing (then, when you entered the room)? d. Response: He was eating supper. The discourse contexts 'now' (18a) and 'when you entered the room' (18c) establish the temporal reference-point that is simultaneous with the on­ going event in the responses (18b) and (18d), respectively. Granted, not all contexts for progressive-marked clauses are as explicit as (18a,c). Neverthe­ less, it is possible that the seeming absence of the pragmatic feature of 'simultaneity' in isolated progressive-marked clauses is the mere conse­ quence of disregarding the natural discourse context. In connected discourse, the bounded ('perfective') past — as in (17a) — is typically used to code events that are temporally sequential, often visa-vis both the preceding and following event-clauses. In contrast, the pro­ gressive ('imperfective') aspect — as in (17b) — is typically used to depict events that are simultaneous to a contiguous event-clause. In narrative text, the sequential past-perfective aspect is much more frequent than the simultaneous progressive. This is due to the fact that nar­ rative tends to be action oriented, so that its coherence structure most com­ monly involves chains of sequentially-ordered events. These past/perfectivemarked events follow each other in temporal order, and are typically pack­ aged in main clauses. Within these chains, the simultaneous-progressive aspect is interspersed more sparsely, quite often in dependent clauses. As illustrations of the use of both aspects in narrative, consider the following fiction passage:5 (19) "...Within the mouth of the draw he drew reins again. With his first glance he recognized the body for what it was, but only when he was quite sure that he was alone did he approach it. He circled it as warily as a wolf, studying it from all angles, and when he finally stopped, within a dozen feet of the dead man, he knew much of..."

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

157

The simultaneous progressive in narrative can also contrast with the habitual tense-aspect, which then codes the more sequential information much like the past-perfective did in (19). As illustration of this, consider:6 (20) ''...Movement attracts the eye, draws the attention, ren­ ders visible. A motionless object that blends with the sur­ roundings can long remain invisible even when close by, and Shalako was not moving..." While the habitual-marked clauses in (20) do not involve, strictly speaking, actual events that took place at temporally-ordered points in time, the sequences 'attracts the eye' > 'draws attention' > 'renders visible' and 'blends with the surroundings' > 'can remain invisible' are nonetheless well ordered, while the progressive-coded 'was not moving' is clearly outside the sequence. 4.3.2.4. The habitual progressive The simple progressive form, while most often interpreted as the pre­ sent progressive, can also signal a habitual progressive. This may be high­ lighted by the use of specific time adverbs: (21) a. Present progressive: She is watching TV (right now). b. Habitual progressive: (Whenever I come over), she's (always) watching TV The habitual-progressive in (21b) is clearly the progressive aspect in the habitual tense, i.e. without a specific time reference. It may also be con­ trasted with the simple habitual, as in: (22) a. Simple habitual: QUESTION: What does he do for a living? RESPONSE: He works at a gas station. b. Progressive habitual: QUESTION: What's he doing nowadays? RESPONSE: Working at a gas station. In a clear sense though, the simple habitual in (22a) characterizes a "more habitual" situation, with a less specific time-reference and a wider

158

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

temporal scope. In contrast, the progressive-habitual in (22b) characterizes a "less habitual" situation, with a much narrower temporal scope. Obvi­ ously, habits require time to establish, so that the progressive habitual in (22b) is clearly a less prototypical habitual. 7 4.3.3.

Other progressive aspectuals

4.3.3.1. Continuous-repetitive aspectuals Several aspectual auxiliaries in English clearly involve the progressive, in that they depict events as ongoing and unbounded. However, they dis­ play subtle differences when compared to the 'be'-marked progressive. We will consider first the copular auxiliary 'keep'. Syntactically, 'keep' patterns very much like 'be', in that it follows the auxiliary 'have', if present, and imposes the progressive suffix -ing on the following main verb. Thus compare: (23) a. b. c. d. e. f.

She She She She She She

is working keeps working was working kept working has been working has kept working

One clear semantic difference between 'be' and 'keep' is that 'keep' imparts a sense of continuation, with an implicit sense that the activity was going on for some time before. Another difference is that 'keep' may also code repetition and habitual action. This is more apparent when the main verb is temporally compact. Thus contrast: (24) a. Less compact verb: She kept sucking her thumb. (> She sucked on an on) b. More compact verb: She kept breaking her leg. (> She broke it again and again) The verb 'suck' codes, prototypically, a more protracted activity; hence the more natural continuous interpretation on (24a). The verb 'break' tends to code more a compact event; hence the more natural repetitive interpreta­ tion of (24b). Closely related to 'keep' in meaning is the aspectual — or modality-

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

159

verb — 'continue'. Unlike 'keep', it is followed by a main verb marked by either progressive -ing or the infinitive to. Formally, then, only the variant of 'continue' that is followed by an -ing-marked verb can be called 'aspec­ tual'. 8 As illustrations, consider: (25) a. Progressive aspectual: She continued dealing out cards. b. Modality verb: She continued to deal out cards. The progressive variant (25a) thus follows the syntactic pattern of the copu­ lar auxiliaries 'be' and 'keep'. The aspectual use of 'go on' is similar to 'continue'. Again, the pro­ gressive sense is obtained only with the -ing suffix. Thus compare: (26) a. Progressive aspectual: She went on hitting the wall (> she was hitting it before) b. Modality verb: She went on to hit the wall (> she was doing something else before) The non-progressive sense of 'go on' (26b) is much closer to the motionverb sense of 'go'. However, the verb seems to have undergone a metaphoric shift — from motion in physical space to motion in event time. Such a shift is characteristic of the gradual change from motion verb to tense-aspect marker. 4.3.3.2. Inceptive-progressive aspectuals Three modality verbs, 'start', 'begin' and 'resume', also pattern as inceptive aspectual markers. When followed by a verb with the progres­ sive suffix -ing, they impart a progressive aspectual sense. Their progressive use may be contrasted with their non-progressive, perhaps habitual, sense. The latter is obtained when the following verb is marked by the infinitive to. Thus compare: (27) a. b. c. d. e. f.

She started dealing out cards She started to deal out cards She began eating her salad (voraciously) She began to eat her salad (regularly) She resumed working on her book *She resumed to work on her book

160

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

The contrast between the progressive and non-progressive usage is further sharpened with verbs that typically code a super-compact event. Thus compare: (28) a. She started kicking the ball, then stopped (> she kicked it several times before stopping) b. She started to kick the ball, then stopped (> she started, but changed her mind and didn't) The sense of the -ing-marked (28a) is that of repeated kicking, as one would expect with the progressive. In contrast, (28b) may also depict the inception of a single act. 4.3.3.3. Terminative-progressive aspectuals An oft-unrecognized English aspect is signalled by the aspectual aux­ iliaries 'stop', 'quit' and 'finish'. All three fall into the same syntactic slot and morphological form as 'be' and 'keep'. 'Stop' can signal the termination of either a progressive or a repetitive event. As illustrations, consider: (29) a. Progressive: He stopped reading his book and listened (> He was reading, then stopped) b. Repetitive: He stopped reading comic books (> He used to read them, then quit) 'Finish' seems to impart a more progressive, less repetitive, sense, at least when the verb is not super-compact. Thus consider: (30) a. She finished reading her book (> she was reading it, then she finished) b. She finished reading comic books (> she was reading some, then she finished) (*> she used to read them, then quit) The less-natural habitual sense of (30b) may be perhaps rendered with the aspectual 'be through (with)', as in: (31) She was through (with) reading comic books

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

161

4.3.4. The habitual past The auxiliary 'used to' — colloquially contracted to usta — is employed to signal the past-habitual or past-repetitive aspect, as in: (32) a. She used to talk more often b. He used to visit regularly Unlike progressive aspectual auxiliaries, 'used to' cannot be preceded by other auxiliaries or followed by an -ing-marked main verb. Thus compare: (33) a. b. c. d. e.

She may keep going on and on *She may use(d) to go on and on *She used (to) going on and on She has kept working *She has use(d) to work

As noted above, many of the progressive aspectuals can also code a habitual sense. Thus, when in the past tense, they also code the habitual past. The modal auxiliary 'would' can also be used to render the habitual past. This usage is probably more colloquial: (34) a. One would come in and look around and... b. She would eat two loaves a day...  They'd work real hard for an hour, then quit and... There is a subtle semantic difference between 'used to' and 'would', in that the former implies termination of the past habit, while the latter does not. As illustration of this, consider:9 (35) a. She used to sing in the shower (> but she no longer does) b. She would sing in the shower (> she may still do) 4.3.5. The perfect 4.3.5.1. Preliminaries The perfect, marked by the auxiliary 'have' and the perfect suffixal form of the main verb, is functionally the most complex aspect in English. It involves a cluster of features, some more semantic, others more pragma­ tic. And while the association of these features together with the same form is both common and natural, it would be best to describe them separately.

162

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

4.3.5.2. Anteriority The perfect bears a strong but not binding association with 'past'. The fact that the association is not absolute can be seen from the fact that the perfect can be used with three distinct temporal reference points: (a) Time of speech, (b) Past, and (c) Future. With respect to each one, the perfect codes an event that either occurred or was initiated prior to the temporal reference point. This may be illustrated in: (36) a. Present perfect: (Speaking now,) She has (already) finished b. Past perfect: (When he arrived,) She had (already) finished  Future perfect: (When he arrives,) She will have (already) finished These three configurations may be represented diagrammatically as, respectively: (37) Present perfect:

(38) Past perfect:

(39) Future perfect:

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

163

4.3.5.3. Perfectivity The perfect may be used to signal an event that has been terminated or accomplished before the reference time. As an example consider the exchange: (40) A: -Why don't you go and wash your hands? B: -I've already washed them. 4.3.5.4. Counter-sequentiality One of the more pragmatic features of the perfect involves its use in signaling that the event stands out of temporal sequence in the narrative. Here the perfect again contrasts with the simple — sequential — past, which codes events that are recounted in proper temporal sequence. As illustration, compare (41) and (42) below: (41) Simple past: a. She came back into the room, b. looked around,  spotted the buffet d. and went to get a sandwich.... (42) Perfect past: a. She came back into the room b. and looked around.  She had spotted the buffet earlier, d. So she went to get a sandwich... In narrative (41), the events are all recounted in the same order in which they occurred, with all verbal clauses marked with the simple-sequential past. In narrative (42) of the very same chain of events, event (42c) is recounted after (42b), though in fact it occurred before (42b). The verb in (42c) — the off-sequence link in the chain — is therefore marked with the perfect aspect. Further, the counter-sequential placement of (42c) precipitates a thematic break in the discourse, signalled by a period punctu­ ation in (42b). The difference between the sequential ('perfective') aspect and the perfect may be illustrated diagrammatically as follows:

164

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(43) a. Order of events: ...A,B,C,D... b. Order of narration in the simple past: ...A,B,C,D...  Order of narration with the perfect: ...A,C,B,D... In (43b), narrated in the simple past, all four events — A,B,C,D — are in the natural sequential order as they occurred in (43a). In (43c), events A,C,D remain in their natural sequence as in (43a), and are still marked with the simple past. But event  is displaced, it is out of sequence, and so marked with the perfect. Displaced, off-sequence chunks of the narrative can encompass more than one event. When that occurs, the off-sequence events may be them­ selves recounted in the natural sequential order. As a group though, they remain off-sequence relative to the preceding sequential events. As an illus­ tration of this, consider the following passage of fiction:10 (44) "...He circled it warily as a wolf, studying it from all ang­ les, and when finally he stopped within a dozen feet of the dead man, he knew much of what had happened at this place. The dead man had ridden a freshly shod horse into the playa from the north, and when shot he had tumbled from the saddle and the horse had galloped away. Several riders on unshod ponies had then approached the body and one had dismounted to collect the weapons..." In the second paragraph in (44), the main sequence of events — an elabora­ tion of the preceding perfect-marked "what had happened" — is recounted in the natural sequence in which they occur. Since they are off-sequence relative to the events in the preceding paragraph, they are marked with the perfect. 4.3.5.5. Relevance A major pragmatic feature associated with the perfect involves the judgement of relevance of the information in the perfect-marked clause. Here again it is most instructive to contrast first the perfect-past with the simple sequential past, as in:

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

165

(45) a. Simple past: (She came in, and) he went to sleep. b. Perfect past: (When she came in,) he had already gone to sleep. When marked with the simple past as in (45a), the event is construed as rel­ evant at event time. By marking the event with the perfect one shifts its rele­ vance perspective: It is now relevant at some subsequent reference time. And since the narrative chain is given in the past tense, the reference point for relevance naturally precedes the time of speech. The contrast between the simple past (45a) and the perfect past (45b) may be given diagrammatically as, respectively: (46) Simple past perspective:

(47) Past perfect perspective:

The temporal reference point relative to which relevance is judged need not be anchored in the past, but may also be fixed either in the present or future, as in: (48) a. Present perfect: (She is coming in, and) he has already gone to sleep b. Future perfect: (When she leaves,) he will have already gone to sleep The configuration of speech-time, event-time and relevance-time in (48a,b) are given diagrammatically in (49) and (50) below. Respectively:

166

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(49) Present perfect perspective:

(50) Future perfect perspective:

There is a predictable difference between the semantic interpretation of states and events in the perfect. With events, the tendency is to have a temporal gap between the completion-time of the event and the relevancetime reference point. With states, the tendency is for the state itself to linger all the way to the reference point. To illustrate this, compare: (51) a. Event: She has read this book (already) (> she finished sometime ago) b. State: She has been a club member (for a long time) ( > she still is a member) In order to obtain an interpretation such as (51b) with an event verb, one must convert it first into a state, e.g. with the progressive. Thus compare: (52) She has been reading this book (for a long time) (> she still is reading it) 4.3.6.

The immediate aspect

The simple form of the verb in English, the one that codes the habitual (and also the present for stative verbs), may be used as another variant of the sequential ('perfective') past. This usage, in both the spoken and writ­ ten language, renders the events somehow more vivid or immediate. This involves a manipulation of the pragmatic perspective of the discourse, as if the narrator invites the hearer to be present on the scene, observe the action from close quarters, be more emotionally involved.

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

167

The immediate aspect contrasts with the simple past, which codes a more remote perspective on the event. As an illustration of this contrast, compare the same 'objective' series of events, rendered below in both aspects: (53) a. Remote: ...So I gave him his instructions, and I told him to go ahead and do it. And he said he would. Y'know, I really trusted the guy, I had known him for a long time. Plus, he was taking notes all along. So I figured... Well, what the heck, it all happened such a long time ago... b. Immediate: ...So I give him his instructions, and I tell him I say go ahead and do it. And he says he will. Hey, I really trust the guy, I've known him for such a long time. Plus he's taking notes and all. So I figure... I tell you, I'm still so pissed I could... There is obviously a certain correlation between the aspectual contrast immediate vs. remote and the genre contrast oral vs. written discourse. The immediate aspect is probably used much more frequently in oral narrative. But literary usage has borrowed the contrast, to the point where whole stories, essays or novels may be written in the immediate aspect. As an example of a highly literary usage, consider the following passage from Donald Barthelme's short story ' T h e Emperor": 11 (54) "...His gifts this morning include two white jade tigers, at full scale, carved by the artist Lieh Yi, and the Emperor himself takes brush in hand to paint their eyes with dark lacquer; responsible officials have suggested that six thousand terra-cotta soldiers and two thousand terra-cotta horses, all full scale, be buried, for the defense of his tomb; the Emperor in his rage orders that three thousand convicts cut down all the trees on Mt. Hsiang, leaving it bare, bald, so that responsible officials may understand what is possible; the Emperor commands the court poets to write poems about immortals, pure beings, and noble spirits who by their own labor change night to day, and

168

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

these sung to him; everyone knows that executions should not be carried out in the spring, even a child knows it, but in certain cases..." The first line of narrative above also exhibits a common associated feature of the immediate aspect: Grammatical markers that identify a referent visa-vis either the location of the speaker or time of speech tend to be proxi­ mate — 'this' (rather than 'that'), 'here' (rather than 'there') and 'now' (rather than 'then'). As illustration of the use of the 'immediate' aspect in a more colloquial written genre, consider the following example of direct-quoted uneducated speech:12 (55) "...See, what happened... This's at the time I'm getting 'Freaks' ready for production. I've got a script, but it needs work, get rid of some of the more expensive special effects. So I go see my writer and we discuss revisions. Murray's good, he's been with me, he wrote all my 'Grotesque' pictures, some of the others. He's done I don't know how many TV scripts, hundreds. He's done sitcoms, westerns, sci-fi, did a few 'Twilight Zone's... Only now he can't get any TV work 'cause he's around my age and the networks don't like to hire any writers over forty. Murray has kind of a drinking problem, too, that doesn't help. Likes the sauce, smokes four packs a day... We're talking — get back to what I want to tell you — he happens to mention a script he wrote years ago when he was starting out and never sold. I ask him what it's about. He tells me. It sounds pretty good, so I take the script home and read it." Harry paused. "I read it again, just to be sure. My experience, my instinct, my gut, tells me I have a property here, that with the right actor in the star­ ring role, I can take to any studio in town and practically write my own deal. This one, I know, is gonna take on heat fast. The next day I call Murray, tell him I'm willing to option the script..." In addition to the use of the proximate 'this' (vs. 'that'), one also finds in this passage the use of the proximate 'now' (rather than 'then'). In addition,

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

169

another feature of the informal, colloquial, less-educated speech-style is also found here: The off-sequence perfect aspect is now split; the present perfect ('has done') codes minor off-sequence digressions — from the strict temporal sequence but not from the thematic line of the narrative. While the simple past ('wrote', 'sold', 'was') replaces the past-perfect in marking digressions that go back to much earlier times and events. This includes the opening line 'See what happened' that is by definition off-sequence,13 as well as the digression back to the author's voice ('Harry paused').

4.4.

MODALITY

4.4.1.

Propositional modalities

The propositional modality associated with a clause may be likened to a shell that encases it but does not tamper with the kernel inside. The prop­ ositional frame of clauses — participant roles, verb-type, transitivity — as well as the actual lexical items that fill the various slots in the frame, remain largely unaffected by the modality wrapped around it. Rather, the modality codes the speaker's attitude toward the proposition. By 'attitude' we mean here primarily two types of judgement made by the speaker concerning the propositional information carried in the clause: (a) (b)

Epistemic judgements of truth, probability, certainty, belief or evidence. Evaluative judgements of desirability, preference, intent, ability, obligation or manipulation.

In principle, both the epistemic and evaluative mega-modalities display shading and gradation, within as well as across categories. 14 But the range of well-coded modalities in any specific language is more limited. So that in our discussion of modality in English, we will be guided by the search for grammatically well-coded modal categories. Although in at least one major area, that of the irrealis modality, the epistemic and evaluative modes over­ lap to quite a degree, and often share their grammatical coding. 4.4.2.

Epistemic modalities

Four major epistemic modalities display the strongest grammatical consequences in human language. They are:

170

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(a) Presupposition: The proposition is assumed to be true, either by definition, by prior agreement, by general culturally-shared conventions, by being obvious to all present at the speech situation, or by having been uttered by the speaker and left unchallenged by the hearer. 15 (b) Realis assertion: The proposition is strongly asserted as true; but challenge from the hearer is deemed appropriate, although the speaker has evidence or other grounds to defend his/her strong belief. (c) Irrealis assertion: The proposition is weakly asserted as either possible or likely (or neces­ sary or desired, in the converging evaluative case); but the speaker is not ready to back it up with evidence or other strong grounds; and chal­ lenge from the hearer is readily entertained or even explicitly solicited. (d) Negative assertion: The proposition is strongly asserted as false, most commonly in con­ tradiction to the hearer's explicit or assumed beliefs; challenge from the hearer is anticipated, and the speaker has evidence or other grounds to back up his/her strong belief. In the following sections we will deal primarily with the contrast between the realis (b) and Irrealis () modalities, beginning with a survey of the distribution of modality in the various categories of grammar. The evaluative aspects of irrealis will be covered within the discussion of modal auxiliaries and irrealis-marked adverbs. Negation will be discussed in a sep­ arate section further below. Presupposition is the modality with the least grammatical marking (although many other grammatical consequences) in English, and will receive only limited discussion in this chapter. 4.4.3.

The grammatical distribution of modality

There is no uniform coding of realis, irrealis and presupposition in English grammar. Rather, their treatment interacts with several other domains of grammar. This interaction is far from arbitrary, but rather is highly predictable. In this section we deal with the distribution of modality in the various grammatical environments. The bulk of our attention will be directed to the predictable association between various grammatical con­ text and irrealis. The predictable association of presupposition with some

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

171

grammatical environments will also be discussed. As far as the modality of realis, its distribution is the least constrained, either in grammar or in dis­ course. So that one may assume that it can appear in all grammatical con­ texts, except for the few that are explicitly proscribed. 4.4.3.1. Tense-aspect The following correlations between tense-aspect and epistemic modal­ ity are highly predictable: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Past Perfect Present Future Habitual

=== === === === ===

> > > > >

R-assertion (or presupposition) R-assertion (or presupposition) R-assertion IRR-assertion IRR-assertion

The realis effect of 'past', 'perfect' and 'present' holds only if no other irrealis-inducing operator intervenes. In formal terms, one may consider realis as the 'unmarked' category, automatically prevailing unless some other modality intervenes. 16 This means, in terms of our discussion below, that we will describe more explicitly the grammatical environments that correlate with irrealis and presupposition, assuming then that realis is freely distributed 'elsewhere', in all other environments. The status of the habitual tense-aspect as an irrealis modality needs to be somewhat qualified. All other things being equal, a habitual-coded clause is just as strongly asserted as a realis-coded and thus shares an important pragmatic feature of realis.17 However, the most important fea­ ture of realis is that of occurrence at some specific time. Thus, while a habitual assertion may be founded — as a generalization — on many events that may have indeed occurred at specific times, it does not assert the occurrence of any specific event at any specific time. 4.4.3.2. Irrealis-inducing adverbs Epistemic adverbs, such as 'maybe', 'probably', 'possibly, 'likely', 'supposedly', 'presumably', 'surely' or 'undoubtedly', create an irrealis scope over the proposition in which they are lodged. The same is also true of evaluative adverbs such as 'preferably', 'hopefully' or 'ideally'. The pre­ sence of such an irrealis operator within a clause overrides the otherwise realis value of past, present or perfect.18 For example:

172

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(56) a. b. c. d.

Maybe she left. He is probably reading in the library. She has undoubtedly finished by now. Hopefully, he is resting at home.

Some evaluative adverbs are strictly future-projecting, and thus incompati­ ble with past tense. Thus compare: (57) a. She should do it preferably tomorrow. b. *She did it preferably yesterday. c. *She is preferably doing it right now. 4.4.3.3. Modals and irrealis English modals are all irrealis operators par excellence. Beyond the shared modality of irrealis, a modal may involve either an epistemic sense of lower certainty or lower probability, or various evaluative — also called 'deontic' — senses of either ability, intent, preference, obligation, necessity or permission. It is likely, further, that evaluative modalities always involve an irreducible core sense of epistemic uncertainty (but not vice versa). That is, that the relation between the epistemic and evaluative sub-modes of irrealis is a one-way conditional: (58) 'If evaluative, then epistemic' (but not vice versa) or 'if preference, then uncertainty' (but not vice versa) This asymmetric relation is presumably due to the fact that intention, abil­ ity, preference, permission and obligation are all future projecting, and that the future is by definition an irrealis mode. One may thus suggest, tenta­ tively, that the epistemic aspect of irrealis is its common denominator, and that the evaluative-deontic aspect may be added to it. This common denominator of irrealis may help explain the common occurrence of shared grammatical marking of the two sub-modalities of irrealis. The sharing of the grammatical code between the epistemic sub-modality of low certainty and the evaluative sub-modality of preference is most striking in the gram­ mar of English modals. 19 Most English modals code more than one irrealis sub-modality. Both 'can' and 'may', for example, can yield three senses. Thus consider:

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

173

(59) a. Ability:

If he tries hard, he can do it ( > he has the ability to do it) b. Probability: The guy who did it could be insane ( > it is likely that he is insane) c. Permission: If he pays the fee, he can join (> he is permitted to join)

Other modals, such as 'should' and 'must', can signal either obligation or probability: (60) a. Obligation:

She should stop wasting her time on it (> she better stop) b. Probability: He should be there by now (> it is likely that he is)

(61) a. Obligation:

You must do it right away ( > you better) b. Probability: She must be there by now (> she is probably there)

The interaction between 'past' and modals is also of some interest. When the auxiliary 'have' is combined with modals, it then most commonly signals the past (rather than the perfect). This may be due to the fact that unlike the auxiliaries 'be' and 'have', modals in English cannot be marked for past. This is a consequence of fairly recent historical developments, some of them still ongoing, whereby the past form of the modal had been re-analyzed as another modal with a different epistemic or deontic sense.20 The older present-past pairings of these re-analyzed modals are: (62)

present form can shall will may

past form could should would might

Currently, the pairing of modals with the auxiliary 'have' imparts a sense of 'past':

174

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(63)

present form a. b. . d. . f.

She could do it She may do it She must do it She might do it She will do it She would do it g· She should do it

past form She She She She She She She

could have done it may have done it must have done it might have done it will have done it would have done it should have done it

Only for the pairing of 'can' vs. 'could' is the older distinction of pre­ sent vs. past preserved to some extent. This is perhaps the reason why 'can' — unlike 'could' — is incompatible with the perfect/past auxiliary 'have'. That is: (64) a. She can do it b. *She can have done it But since the old past form 'could' is used increasingly in non-past senses, its past sense of 'could' is being supplanted by the past form of 'be able', as in: (65) She was able to do it Another noteworthy fact concerning the use of the auxiliary 'have' to render the past tense of modals is that such usage precipitates a shift in the semantic range of the modal. The exact direction of the shift cannot always be predicted. Thus, for example, either 'could' or 'may' can by itself be used to signal any of the three modal senses — ability, permission, and probability: (66) a. Ability: If she really tries, maybe she could/may do it b. Permission: If he behave himself, he could/may be reinstated  Probability: Well, it could/may be true, right? In contrast, 'could have' retains only two of the modal senses — ability and probability. Thus, compare (66) above with, respectively:

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

175

(67) a. Ability: If she had tried hard, she could have done it b. *Permission: If he had behaved himself, he could have been reinstated c. Probability: Well, it could have been true, right? There is nothing ungrammatical about (67b), but it does not convey a sense of permission, only of either probability or ability. In the same vein, 'may have' retains only the epistemic —probability — sense of 'may', but neither its ability nor its permission sense. Thus, compare (66) above with: (68) a. *Ability: *If she had really tried, she may have done it b. *Permission: *If he had behaved himself, he may have been reinstated  Probability: Well, it may have been true, right? The loss of the deontic sub-modality of permission in the past may be due to the fact that the use of 'can' and 'may' in that capacity in the present probably involves the actual performance of the speech act of permission. One of the most salient aspects of performed speech-acts is that they only retain the performative force in the face-to-face communicative situation, i.e. the here-and-now present.21 With four of the modals — 'might', 'could', 'would' and 'should' — the combination with 'have' imparts not only the sense of past, but also a nega­ tive or counter-fact sense. That is: (69) a. She

( > But she didn't) At least historically, these modals are the past-tense forms of 'can', 'shall', 'will' and 'may', respectively. The counter-fact sense of their combination with 'have' may be predictable from this historical fact.22

176

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

4.4.3.4. Irrealis in verb complements Some verbs create an irrealis modal scope over their entire verb phrase; so that if they have a verbal/clausal complement, that complement clause automatically falls under an irrealis modal scope. This is true even when the verb itself is marked by the present or past tense, i.e. by a realis modality. Non-implicative modality verbs, i.e. those that do not imply that the event in their complement has taken place, 23 cast such an irrealis modal scope over their complement, as in: (70) a. She wanted to go to Paris b. He planned to build a new house  She decided to quit her job In the same vein, non-implicative manipulation verbs24 cast an irrealis scope over their complements, as in: (71) a. She wanted him to quit his job b. He asked her to write his boss  She told him to look for a house And similarly, non-factive perception-cognition-utterance verbs, i.e. those that do not presuppose their complements, 25 cast an irrealis scope over their complements, as in: (72) a. He thought that she loved him b. She imagined that he loved her c.  said that the letter had arrived late 4.4.3.5. Irrealis and non-declarative speech-acts Two non-declarative clause types — manipulative clauses and yes-no questions — are strongly associated with irrealis. Manipulatives — such as command, request, exhortation etc. — are associated with irrealis because, like modals, modality-verbs and manipulation-verbs above, they are future projecting. That is, they deal with events that have not yet occurred. In addition, manipulative speech-acts are associated with the evaluative aspect of irrealis, i.e. the sub-modality of preference. The strong association of yes-no questions with irrealis is due to their low epistemic certainty. As illustrations of irrealis-connected non-declarative clauses, consider:26

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

177

(73) a. Command: Turn off the light! b. Request: Could you please turn off the light? c. Exhortation: Let's turn off the light. d. Yes-no question: Did you turn off the light? 4.4.3.6. Grammatical environments associated with presupposition Several adverbial clauses,27 when marked with realis tense-aspects such as past, perfect or present, fall under the scope of presupposition, as in: (74) a. b.  d. e. f.

Because Joe has gone away,... When Mary left,... In spite of the fact that she didn't love him,... Although he is here,... Since she had disappeared,... While he's doing the dishes,...

That is, the proposition coded by such clauses is not asserted, but rather is taken for granted as one the hearer would accept without a challenge. In a similar vein, participial adverbial clauses, especially when preced­ ing the main clause,28 tend to fall under the scope of presupposition, as in: (75) a. Having finished reading, he then... b. Stopping first to fill up her tank, she then... Propositions coded in relative clauses,29 WH-questions30 and focus clauses31 also tend to fall under the scope of presupposition, as in: (76) a. REL-clause: The man I saw yesterday is a crook. b. WH-question: Who did you see there?  Cleft-focus: It was Joe that I saw there, not Mary. Propositions coded in the complements of factive perception-cognition verbs32 also tend to fall under presupposition scope, as in:

178

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(77) a. She knew that he was in Boston b. He regretted that she was away c. He saw that the house was locked up Finally, nominalized clauses,33 occupying either the subject or object position of at least some verbs, also tend to fall under presupposition scope, as in: (78) a. b. c. d.

His coming late surprised nobody. Her breaking the mirror was a bad omen. W e r e appalled at her refusal to cooperate. She observed his retreat from the top with trepidation.

4.5.

COMMUNICATIVE A N D COGNITIVE ASPECTS OF T E N S E - A S P E C T - M O D A L I T Y

4.5.1.

Markedness

The binary contrasts found in the tense-aspect-modal system exhibit a certain asymmetry that is characteristic of both linguistic and cognitive binary contrasts: One member of the pair acts as the unmarked case, the absence of the category, the general norm. While the other member acts as the marked case, the presence of the category, the counter-norm. The facts that support such a distinction in language come from three areas of behavior: (79) Criteria for markedness: (a) Structural complexity: The marked case is more complex (b) Discourse distribution: The marked case is less frequent (c) Cognitive complexity: The marked category is harder to process In the space below we will deal primarily with the discourse distribution of tense-aspect-modality, and with what it implies about the communicative and cognitive correlates of tense-aspect-modality. The fact that the three criteria for markedness (79a,b,c) tend to correlate in a systematic fashion is of considerable theoretical interest but will not concern us here. 34 The markedness status of the binary distinctions that underlie tenseaspect-modality is summarized in (80) below:

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

179

(80) Markedness of tense-aspect-modal categories: category unmarked marked (a) Modality (b) Perfectivity (i) Completion (ii) Boundedness (iii) Compactness (c) Perfectness (i) Sequentiality (ii) Relevance

4.5.2.

realis irrealis perfective imperfective completed incompletive bounded unbounded compact durative simple past perfect in-sequence off-sequence event-anchored speech-anchored

Frequency distribution in text

The general considerations in support of the markedness scheme in (80) have been discussed in considerable detail in Hopper and Thompson (1980) and elsewhere. Briefly, the realis, terminated, compact, completive, in-sequence verb-form tends to be more frequent in human discourse. This distributional norm is to some extent genre-dependent, and is most charac­ teristic of human oriented, action-focused, spoken narrative or conversa­ tion. In this discourse genre, which in some sense is prototypical, people tend to talk more about: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

events and actions (rather than states) real events in real time (rather than imaginary ones) accomplished events (rather than pending ones) events relevant at the time of their occurrence (rather than at a later time) events in the natural sequence in which they occurred (rather than in a scrambled order)

Different discourse genres may show different distributional charac­ teristics. For example, both academic and procedural discourse tend to be oriented toward the habitual tense, which is a sub-category of both irrealis and durative. And oral conversation tends to have a higher ratio of irrealis than oral narrative. As an illustration of these genre differences, consider the distribution of verbal modalities in action-oriented low-brow fiction, and in academic writing, summarized in (81) below. The fiction text

180

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

included both narrative and direct-quoted dialogue. While written, it nevertheless remains fairly close to the oral genre. (81) The distribution of tense-aspect-modality in low-brow fic­ tion and academic text in English35 academic

fiction

category

N

%

N

%

past/realis irrealis habitual progressive/realis perfect/realis

2 18 62 / 7

2% 20% 70% / 8%

74 8 / 43 8

56% 6% / 32% 6%

total:

89

100%

133

100%

4.5.3.

Cognitive considerations

4.5.3.1. Modality The status of realis as the unmarked category of modality may be due to both cognitive and socio-cultural factors. Events that did occur in real time, or are occurring at the time of speech, are cognitively more salient, i.e. more vivid and accessible in the mind, than events that did not occur, or might occur at some future date. Directly-experienced states or events are presumably more memorable than unexperienced ones. Information stored in episodic memory about real events — whether due to direct experience or the account of a direct witness — is more salient, better stored, and is retrieved faster than information about potential, hypothetical, future events. The unmarked status of realis may be also due to its higher rele­ vance: Events that did happen, or are happening, are likely to affect one's life more than possible, hypothetical, future events. 4.5.3.2. Perfectivity Sharply-bounded, compact, fast-changing events are more salient both perceptually and cognitively. They are thus likely to be better attended to, memorized and retrieved.

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

181

4.5.3.3. Sequentiality It is presumably easier to encode, store in episodic memory and retrieve a chain of events that are narrated in a coherent sequence, as com­ pared to an incoherent sequence. The strong preference in human com­ munication toward sequential order in communicating events is most visi­ ble in the case of temporal coherence and causal coherence. The strong pref­ erence in text production and text interpretation is toward: (82) a. Temporal sequence: earlier before later b. Causal sequence: cause before effect There is, in addition, an inherent temporal bias in complex, coherent human action. Action sequences tend to come in routinized, culturallyshared scripts or schemata. These schemata, as well as the general princi­ ples used in constructing them, are part of our permanently-stored, com­ munally-shared knowledge of the physical and cultural universe. Event sequences that violate these schemata are harder to interpret, encode, store and retrieve. Such schemata are so ubiquitous, and permeate our life to such an extent, that we tend to ignore them as we do all presupposed background information. Consider, for example, the normative script of "frying bacon and making a BLT sandwich". The script is told first in the normative order (83a), then in a scrambled counter-normative order (83b): (83) a. He took the bacon out of the fridge, cut it, put it in a pan, lighted the stove, put the pan on the stove, fried the bacon to a dark crisp, drained it on a paper towel, and made himself a BLT sandwich. b. ?He fried the bacon to a dark crisp, lighted the stove, put the bacon in a pan, cut it, made himself a BLT sandwich, took the bacon out of the fridge, drained it on a paper towel, and put the pan on the stove. Culturally-shared scripts constitute an ever-present constraint on the coher­ ence of text. 4.5.3.4. Relevance There is a strong preference in discourse production toward recounting events in an order that unites their relevance-time and occurrence-time.

182

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

This preference is the human communicative norm, as can be seen from the low frequency of the counter-sequence perfect in both genres in table (81) — 6%-8%. The relatively few events that are deemed relevant at some other time — say speech-time ('present perfect') or some time after the event ('past perfect') — are counter normative, thus a 'marked' case. It may well be that detaching the event's relevance-time from its occur­ rence-time constitutes an added cognitive burden on the speech receiver. In processing an event that occurred earlier — at its natural script-point — but is recounted off-sequence, the speech receiver may face a more costly speech-processing task. The costliness of this task is perhaps due to the fact that in the processing of off-sequence events, two separate but equally-valid aspects of text coherence come into sharp conflict: (a) (b)

The current relevance-point of the event The natural script-coherence of the event

In the vast majority of normal ('unmarked') cases, these two aspects of text coherence go hand in hand. That is, an event is deemed relevant — and is thus recounted — at its natural script-point (as in (83a) above). But a nar­ rator may decide that an event is more currently-relevant at some offsequence point, one that diverges from the event's natural script-location. When such an option is exercised, the two aspects of text coherence are brought into sharp conflict. Such a conflict presumably incurs added cogni­ tive costs.

4.6.

THE SYNTAX OF TENSE-ASPECT-MODALITY

4.6.1.

Combinations and ordering rules

Tense-aspect-modality in English is coded by a combination of pre-verbal auxiliaries and verb suffixes. The general ordering rule has been given traditionally as:36 (84) a. VP = (AUX) V (...) b. AUX = (PAST) (MODAL) (HAVE) (BE) Rule (84a) states that a Verb Phrase (VP) may begin, optionally, with some element of the auxiliary (AUX); it always has a main verb (V); and it may also have other elements following the verb. Rule (84b) states that the var­ ious elements in the auxiliary — 'past', 'modal', 'have' and 'be' — are all

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

183

optional. But if more than one occurs, their relative order is rigid; so that a modal can only precede 'have' or 'be' but never follow either; and 'have' can only precede 'be' but never follow it. A special provision must be made for 'past', since it is not an indepen­ dent auxiliary word, but rather a suffix. Placing 'past' as the first element of the auxiliary is a mere notational convention that allows us to formulate the rules for the morphology of tense-aspect in English in the most general way: (85) "The past tense must attach itself as suffix to the first VP element that follows it, be it an auxiliary (AUX) or the main verb (V)". In order to interpret rules (84b)/(85) without exceptions, one must assume that the modals 'could', 'should', 'would' and 'might' are past forms of, respectively, 'can', 'shall', 'will' and 'may'. While this was indeed the historical fact, it is not true any more. These so-called 'past' forms have diverged in their meanings, so that their use need not connote any past tense. Often, the use of the old past form seems to connote a lower degree of epistemic certainty.37 Thus contrast: (86) a. He may come tomorrow (more certain) b. He might come tomorrow (more dubious) c.  can still do it (>and may yet) d. He could still do it (>though I doubt it) In other cases, as in 'will'/'would' and 'shall'/'should', the semantic divergence between the two forms is even more advanced. Further, for some pairs both members may combine with 'have' to yield a past-related epistemic sense, with the same epistemic gradation as in (86) above. That is: (87) a. He may have done it (less doubtful) b. He might have done it (more doubtful) In other cases, the combination with 'have' yields a different meaning altogether, as in:

184

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(88) a. He would have done it (>past counter-fact) b. He will have done it (>future-perfect) In other cases yet, one member of the historical pair cannot take 'have' at all, as in: (89) a. b. c. d.

She should have done it *She shall have done it He could have come *He can have come

Finally, the modal 'must' has no corresponding older past form, but can combine with 'have'. But while the present form tends to connote an evaluative modality of obligation, the combination with 'have' connotes an epistemic modality: (90) a. She must finish on time. b. She must have finished on time. The facts surveyed above suggest that rule (84b)/(85) is not a realistic description of current English grammar. It neither predicts the possible forms nor their functional distribution. Rather, the current situation is bet­ ter described by rule (91): (91) AUX

=

(HAVE) (BE)

Rule (91) is interpreted as follows: (92) "The past tense will attach to the first element of the verb phrase, be it an auxiliary or the main verb, but only in the absence of a modal. In the presence of a modal, the past tense cannot be used". The application of rule (91)/(92) may be illustrated as follows. If only one auxiliary element is chosen, its morphological effects on the main verb may be given as: (93) a. b.  d.

Modal: Past: Have: Be:

Mary may work Mary work-ed Mary has work-ed Mary is work-ing

(no effect)

Three combinations of two auxiliaries are possible, first without 'past':

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

185

(94) a. Modal-perfect: Mary may have work-ed b. Modal-progressive: Mary might be work-ing c. Perfect-progressive: Mary has b e e n working Since 'modal' is incompatible with 'past' (cf. rule (92)), only one two-auxil­ iary combination with 'past' is possible: (95) Perfect-progressive: Mary ha-d be-en work-ing Finally, only one three-auxiliary combination — with a modal and thus without 'past' — is possible: (96) Mary should have been working 4.6.2.

Some recent developments in the grammar of tense-aspect-modality

We have noted earlier that the English tense-aspect-modal system is still in the process of being enriched by the addition of new auxiliaries. Thus, for example, the progressive auxiliaries 'keep', 'start', 'finish', 'stop' and 'continue' may occupy the same slot as 'be', induce the same -ing suffix on the following main verb, and register the appropriate suffix in the pres­ ence of 'past', 'perfect' or 'modal': (97) a. Past+progressive: She kept avoid-ing him b. Perfect+progressive: He has started working  Modal+progressive: She will stop pack-ing Other recent developments are less integrated into the current auxil­ iary rule (91b)/(92). Thus, for example, while the future modal 'will' can combine with 'have' and 'be', the future marker 'going to' (or 'gonna' in the colloquial) cannot combine with the perfect 'have', but only with pro­ gressive 'be': (98) a. b.  d.

She will have work-ed *She's gonna (to) have work-ed She will be work-ing She's gonna be work-ing

Similarly, the use of the present-progressive to render 'future' allows nei­ ther 'have' nor 'be': (99) a. She is leav-ing tomorrow b. *She is hav-ing lef-t tomorrow c. *She is be-ing leav-ing tomorrow

186

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

'Have 1 , '(have) got' and 'need' can be used to signal the evaluative modality of necessity or obligation. Semantically, they thus fit the same slot as the English modals. Syntactically, however, these three new modal auxiliaries still behave like main modality verbs such as 'want'. Thus com­ pare: (100) Modality verbs: a. She wants to rest b. She has to rest  She's got to rest d. She needs to rest (101) True modals: a. She can rest b. She must rest  She should rest Much like 'want', 'have' (but not 'need' or 'have got') can combine with the perfect auxiliary 'have', as in: (102) a. She has want-ed to rest b. She has ha-d to rest c. *She has need-ed to rest The reduced colloquial invariant form 'got' can of course combine with 'have', but that simply reiterates its historical point of origin, which how­ ever has no equivalent simple-present form: (103) a. She has got to rest b. *She get(s) to rest Like 'want' and several other stative modality verbs, 'need', 'have' and '(have) got' cannot combine with the progressive auxiliary 'be': (104) a. b. c. d.

*He ?He *He *He

is is is is

want-ing to leave hav-ing to leave need-ing to leave got-ing to leave

Like 'want', both 'have' and 'need' (but not '(have) got') can com­ bine with modal auxiliaries: (105) a. b.  d.

She may want to She may need to She may have to *She may (have)

leave leave leave early got to leave early

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

187

This contrasts with the normal restriction in standard written English against combining two modals in the same verb phrase. That is: (106) a. *She will can do it (> She will be able to do it) b. *She must can do it (> She must be able to do it) The restriction in (106) is disregarded in many, perhaps most, non-standard spoken dialects of English, which allow more than one modal per verb phrase. Samples of such usage even find their way on occasion into literary works. The following example is taken from a short story by Ursula K. LeGuin: 38 (107) "...Waking up made her sleepy. She yawned again. "Excuse me! He said, oh, he said something might would open up in June..." [emphases added] The English tense-aspect-modal system thus remains in considerable flux, with erstwhile verbs being added as new auxiliaries. The grammatical behavior of such new auxiliaries often lags behind their new semantic status, with the result that even our revised rules (91b)/(92) do not account for the more recent innovations.

4.7.

NEGATION

4.7.1.

Negation and logic

Among the four main propositional modalities, the status of NEGassertion is somewhat muddled. Logicians have traditionally considered negation only in terms of truth value; that is, as an operator that 'reverses the truth-value of a proposition', This may be captured in the strict rules of logic: (108) a. NOT(NOT-P) = Ρ b. If Ρ is true, then NOT-P is not true (and vice versa) Rule (108a) allows for the NEG-operator to cancel itself without any effect on the proposition (P) under its scope. Rule (108b) is the celebrated law of the excluded middle that bars logical contradictions. The logical properties of negation are indeed reflected in language, but

188

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

only up to a point. Logic captures only a small portion of what negation does in language. To illustrate this, consider: (109) a. b. c. d.

I I I I

am am am am

happy not happy unhappy not unhappy

According to the logic of (108a,b), expressions (109a) and (109d) are synonymous, as are (109c) and (109d). In fact, however, (109d) signals an intermediate state of happiness, somewhere between (109a) and (109b) or (109c). And (109b) and (109c), while both negations of (109a), are not identical in meaning. Obviously, more than just logic must be involved. 4.7.2.

Negation and the strength of assertion

Among the four propositional modes, both negation and realis involve strong assertion. They thus contrast with both presupposition (where a proposition is not asserted but rather taken for granted) and irrealis, where a proposition is only weakly asserted. This is important to remember when the discussion turns to the social, interactional or affective correlates of negation. As we shall see further below, negation is a confrontational, chal­ lenging speech-act. Being both a confrontational speech-act and a strong assertion, it often yields problematic social consequences. 4.7.3.

Negation and presupposition

Consider the two possible responses to a question of information, one affirmative (110), the other negative (111): (110) A: -What's new? B: -The president died. A: -Oh, when? How? (111) A: -What's new? B: -The President didn't die. A: -Was he supposed to? The negative assertion in (111) is somehow bizarre, it elicits a baffled response, one that indicates that something was amiss in the presupposed background. What was missing is, of course, the assumption — as background — of the corresponding affirmative proposition 'The President

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

189

died'. A negative assertion is indeed made on the tacit assumption that the hearer either has heard about, believes in, is likely to take for granted, or is at least familiar with the corresponding affirmative proposition. The corresponding affirmative may be established explicitly in the pre­ ceding discourse as background for a NEG-assertion, as in: (112) Background:

Joe told me that he won ten grand in the lottery... NEG-assertion: ...tho later I found out he didn't

In (112), it is the speaker who sets up the expectation of the corresponding affirmative, then contradicts it with the negative. But the background expectations may be contributed by the interlocutor, as in: (113) Background: A: I understand you're leaving tomorrow. NEG-assertion: B: No, I'm not. Who told you that? The speaker may also rely, in assuming background expectations, on specific knowledge about the hearer's state of affairs or state of mind. To illustrate this, consider the felicity of the three responses to the NEG-asser­ tion below: (114) A: So you didn't leave after all. B: (i): No, it turned out to be unnecessary. (ii): Who said I was going to leave? (iii): How did you know I was going to? B's response (114i) suggests that the  ('hearer') is going along with A's ('speaker's') presupposition of the corresponding affirmative as shared information. Response (114ii), on the other hand, suggests that  believes A must have been misled. Finally, in response (114iii)  registers surprise at how the information leaked out to A, by inference thus conceding that A indeed had it right. The background expectations associated with a NEG-assertion can also be traced to generic culturally-shared information. Consider: (115) a. b.  d.

There was once a man who didn't have a head ?There was once a man who had a head ?There was once a man who didn't look like a frog There was once a man who looked like a frog

The reason why the negative in (115a) is pragmatically felicitous is because it reports a break from the norm. The reason why (115b) is pragmatically

190

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

odd is because it merely echoes that norm, and is thus a tautology. Con­ versely, the negative in (115c) is a tautology that re-phrases the norm, and is thus pragmatically odd; while the affirmative (115d) breaks the norm, and is thus pragmatically felicitous. Now, if we lived in a universe where men had no heads, or where they most commonly resembled frogs, both felicity contrasts in (115) would have been reversed. 4.7.4.

Negation as a speech-act

The contrast between the background assumptions of affirmative and negative assertions may be given as follows: AFF-assertion:

The hearer does not know, the speaker knows. NEG-assertion: The hearer knows wrong, the speaker knows better. NEG-assertion is thus a different type of speech-act, one of denial. In using a NEG-assertion, the speaker is not in the business of communicating new information to the hearer. Rather, he/she is in the business of correcting the hearer's mistaken beliefs. 4.7.5.

Negation in discourse

4.7.5.1. Preamble: Change vs. stasis From a cognitive perspective, events are changes in an otherwise inert universe. It is a law of physics — of inertia — that motivates the assignment of positive vs. negative status to events in our construed experience. The distribution of the two is strongly skewed: Change, i.e. events, is the less frequent counter-norm. Stasis, i.e. NEG-events, is the more frequent background norm. An event is thus cognitively the salient figure; events stand out against the ground of stasis.39 The frequency skewing of events vs. non-events in our construed experience thus guarantees that events, the salient figure, are more informative than non-events. The definition of information in terms of frequency and thus predictability is the cornerstone of information theory. Negation may be viewed as a pun, a play upon the norm. It is used when — more rarely in communication — one establishes the event rather than inertia as ground. On such a background, the non-event becomes — temporarily, locally — more salient, thus more informative.

191

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

Negative clauses are indeed infrequent in discourse. This is illustrated in the following table, comparing the frequency distribution of negative and affirmative clauses in two English texts, one fiction, the other non-fiction. ( 116) Frequency distribution of affirmative and negative clauses in English narrative40 clause type affirmative

negat ive

total

text

N

%

N

%

N

%

academic fiction

96 142

95% 88%

5 20

5% 12%

101 162

100% 100%

The higher frequency of NEG-clauses in the fiction text in (116) may be sig­ nificant. It may have to do with the fact that fiction contains conversational interaction, in which the perspective of several speakers alternates. The shift of perspective is a natural venue for valuative conflict and epistemic disagreement. In contrast, non-fiction is written from the perspective of a single speaker, whose goal and knowledge-base are likely to be more uniform. 4.7.5.2. The ontology of negative events The play of norm vs. counter-norm in the use of negation may be illus­ trated with a number of simple examples. Consider first: (117) a. A man came into my office yesterday and said... b. *A man didn't come into my office yesterday and said... c. ?Nobody came into my office yesterday and said... The non-event (117b) is pragmatically — and indeed grammatically — the oddest. This must be so because if an event did not occur at all, why should one bother to talk about a specific individual who 'participated' in that nonevent? While more acceptable, (117c) is still pragmatically less likely. This is so because the norm of one's everyday routine is not 'all people visit my office at all times', but rather 'most people don't ever visit my office'. Visits to one's office are thus much more rare than non-visits. This is what makes visits (events) more salient than non-visits (non-events). On the background

192

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

norm of non-events, the event reported in (117a) is indeed pragmatically more felicitous. Consider next: (118) a. The man you met yesterday is a crook. b. ?The man you didn't meet yesterday is a crook. Normally, one meets a limited number of men in a given day. So, to iden­ tify a person by an event — coded in the relative clause in (118a)41 — is indeed informative, salient, an apt way of distinguishing him from the zil­ lion men you did not meet that day. Given the norm, (118b) is indeed prag­ matically odd. Unless the figure-ground relations are reversed, as in, for example: (119) You were supposed to meet four men yesterday. Three showed up, the last one never did. Against the background of (119), the non-event in (118b) now becomes salient, i.e. pragmatically felicitous. Next, consider: (120) a. Where did you leave the keys? b. ?Where didn't you leave the keys? In general, WH-questions such as (120) are presuppositional. 42 That is, the entire clause, excepting the WH-pronoun, is taken to be background infor­ mation. The affirmative (120a) is pragmatically felicitous because normally there are a zillion possible places where your keys have not been left, but only one place (at a time) where they have been left. For that very reason, the negative (120b) is pragmatically bizarre. Even supposing that the background expectations were somehow reversed, say with (121): (121) I didn't leave my keys anywhere Question (120b) would still remain odd. This is so because, given that a potentially infinite number of places would qualify for the correct answer, the purpose of asking — to elicit a specific location response — cannot be fulfilled. Indeed, (120b) is only pragmatically felicitous as an echo question. Negative echo questions are used roughly in the following context: One heard a NEG-assertion, a denial, but has somehow missed a component of that assertion. In such a context, (120b) may be felicitous. Finally, consider:

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

193

(122) a. When John comes, I'll leave. b. ?When John doesn't come, I'll leave The affirmative (122a) is felicitous because the time when John comes, on a particular occasion, can be specified. But the zillions of times when John doesn't come are not exactly denumerable. For that reason, the negative (122b) is odd — unless one modifies the background, as in: (123) I waited and waited there. Finally, when John didn't come, I left. What makes the negative ADV-clause 'when John didn't come' in (123) felicitous is that it establishes a unique reference point in time, by which John had not come. Once such a point is specifiable, the use of the negative in the time-adverb clause becomes felicitous.43 4.7.6.

Negation and social interaction

As noted above, NEG-assertion is a contrary, denying speech act. One would thus expect its use to be extremely sensitive to the relative social position of the interlocutors. This is indeed the case, for example when one's interlocutor is perceived to be of higher status or power. A speaker placed at the lower end of the power gradient would tend to tone down their disagreement, and couch their contrary opinion in a variety of 'soften­ ing' devices. Many of these devices are sub-varieties of irrealis. Some exam­ ples of those are: (124) a. b.  d. e. f. g. h.

Quite, quite. Yes, I see. I see what you mean. I suppose you got a point there. Perhaps not quite so. Perhaps you may wish to consider an alternative. Well, I'm not sure about that, maybe... Now if it were up to me, I would suggest...

In a more traditional society, such as small town America, overt NEGassertions are considered rude, and seem to be less frequent than in an academic environment. In a close, intimate community, open disagreement and contrariness is a disruptive social force, and various indirect means are used to avoid direct NEG-assertions. To illustrate this, consider the follow­ ing passage from a novel depicting small-town life. The passage involves a

194

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

disagreement about facts, and a subsequent negotiation, between two friends, Mrs. Phillip J. King and Momma. The substantive issue that is being negotiated is marked below in boldface. The use of various irrealis devices — rather than negation — is given in italics.44 "...Mrs. Phillip J. King said he had been dashing, but Momma would not go along with dashing and said to her mind he had been not unattrac­ tive, but Mrs. Phillip J. King couldn't see fit to drop all the way from dash­ ing to not unattractive, so her and Momma negotiated a description and arrived at reasonably good looking, which was mutually agreeable though it seemed for a minute or two that Mrs. Phillip J. King might hold out to have the reasonably struck from the official version. But Momma went on to tell her how she thought his nose had a fanciful bend to it which distracted Mrs. Phillip J. King away from the reasonably because, as she told Momma back, she had always thought his nose had a fanciful bend to it herself. Mrs. Phillip J. King called it a Roman nose and she said there wasn't anything uppity or snotty about it but it was purely a sign of nobility. And Momma said he certainly carried himself like a Roman, which sparked Mrs. Phillip J. King to wonder if maybe he hadn't come from Romans, if maybe that wasn't why he was a Republican. But Momma said she recalled he was a notable Democrat. And Mrs. Phillip J. King said, "Maybe he was". And Momma said she believed so. And Mrs. Phillip J. King said "Maybe he was" again...I was not present when Mrs. Phillip J. King decided she couldn't let reasonably good looking rest peacefully and resurrected the whole business with the argument that a moustache under that fancifully bent nose would have most certainly made for dashing. But Momma could not see clear to allow for a moustache since there had not been one actually; however, Mrs. Phillip J. King insisted that if Momma could just imagine a finely manicured and dignified Douglas Fairbanks-style moustache under that Roman nose then all of the rest of the features would surely come together and pretty much scream Dashing at her. But even with a moustache thrown in Momma could not sit still for any degree of dashing though Mrs. Phillip J. King campaigned rather fiercely for Considerably Dashing and then Some­ what Dashing and then A Touch Dashing, so Momma for her part felt obliged to retreat some from reasonably good looking and her and Mrs. Phillip J. King settled on passably handsome with Mrs. Phillip J. King sup­ plying the handsome and Momma of course supplying the passably..."

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

195

Somewhat paradoxically, negation can itself be used as a softening operator in the face of perceived higher authority. This toning-down func­ tion of negation seems to apply to both epistemic and manipulative mo­ dalities. Thus consider: (125) a. Won't you come in please? ( > Do come in) b. I suppose he isn't done yet. ( > I wonder if he's done)  I don't suppose he's done yet? (> I wonder if he's done) d. Wouldn't it be better if... ( > It would be better if...) e. I suppose you couldn't spare a fiver... (> I wish you could) f. Couldn't I possibly interest you in buying one? ( > I would like you to buy one) Negation as a toning-down device is most commonly coupled with some irrealis operator, such as modal, subjunctive, conditional, yes/no question or irrealis adverbial. The two examples of overt negation used in the truthnegotiation in the fiction passage above were both of this type: (126) "...to wonder if maybe he hadn't come from Romans, if maybe that wasn't why he was a Republican..." 4.7.7.

Presupposition and the scope of negation

When a proposition — packaged as a clause — is negated, its logical truth value is reversed, so that rather than being asserted true it is now asserted false. The effect of negation on propositions in language is often more complex. Most typically, only a portion of a negative proposition falls under the scope of the NEG-modality. The rest remains shielded from the negation. The portion of the clause that is shielded from the scope of nega­ tion may be viewed as its presupposed part. To illustrate this, consider first examples (127), (128) and (129) below. In each case, the main clause is affected by negation, but the subordinate clause, being presupposed, is not. In (127b), the proposition coded in the relative clause is shielded from the truth-reversing effect of negation:

196

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(127)

She saw the man who stood in the corner (> He stood in the corner, and she saw him) b. She didn't see the man who stood in the corner ( > He stood in the corner, but she didn't see him)

In (128b) the proposition coded in the verb complement is shielded: (128) a. I'm sorry he's sick (> He's sick, and I'm sorry about it) b. I'm not sorry he's sick (> He's sick, but I'm not sorry about it) Similarly, the subordinate adverbial clause in (129b) is also shielded from the scope of negation: (129) a. Running out of gas, she stopped (> She was running out of gas, and she stopped) b. Running out of gas, she didn't stop ( > She was running out of gas, but she didn't stop) The most common variant of negation, the one we have dealt with thus far, is verb phrase negation. In this type of negation, the subject is most typ­ ically excluded from the scope of negation. One may thus wish to consider the subject as a presupposed part of the clause. To illustrate this, consider: (130) The King of France did not eat his dinner Logicians used to insist that the negative (130) has two interpretations: 45 (131) a. Narrow (subject excluding) interpretation: There is a king of France, and he didn't eat his dinner. b. Wide (subject including) interpretation: There is no king of France, therefore it makes no sense to say that he didn't eat his dinner. Most speakers of English (as well as of other languages) would find it hard to attach interpretation (131b) to the negative clause (130), more so because there are much more natural alternative forms that code such an interpretation, such as:

197

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

(132) a. There is no king of France b. No king of France ate his dinner  Nobody ate their dinner The various noun-phrase negation forms used in (132) above will be discuss­ ed further below. The intuition that VP-negation, as in (130), is not interpreted as the subject-NP negation in (131b) and (132), is corroborated by the frequency distribution of negation forms in English text. All the negative clauses in a narrative text were collected and divided into three categories: (a) (b) (c)

VP-negation excluding the subject from NEG-scope VP-negation including the subject under NEG-scope NP-negation forms.

The frequency distribution of these three categories is reported in (133) below. (133) Distribution of negative forms (and interpretations) in an English narrative text46 VP negation SUBJ excluded

VP negation SUBJ included

SUBJ-NP negation

total

Ν

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

60

89%

/

/

7

11%

67

100%

The figures recorded in (133) suggest that none of the instances of VP-nega­ tion allowed the inclusion of the subject under the scope of negation. Rather, to place the subject under negative scope, only the NP-negation form was used. In addition to typically excluding the subject, VP-negation is often used to further narrow down the portion of the clause that is being negated. The most common way of doing this in English is by focused negation. Focused negation involves placing contrastive stress47 on one element in the clause. That element is then the only one falling under NEG-scope. The rest of the clause is presupposed. As noted above, VP-negation typically excludes the subject, and thus applies only to the verb phrase ('predicate'). Such negation may be consid­ ered the most wide-scoped; it can be now contrasted with the various exam-

198

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

ples of the more narrow-scoped focused negation. As illustrations, con­ sider: (134) a. Neutral VP-negation: John didn't kill the goat (> He did not kill the goat) b. Subject focus: John didn't kill the goat (> Someone killed it, but not John) c. Object focus: John didn't kill the goat (> He killed something, but not the goat) d. Verb focus: John didn't kill the goat (> He did something to the goat, but not kill it) The same focused negation can be affected by combining contrastive stress with a construction called cleft:48 (135) a. Neutral VP-negation: John didn't kill the goat (> He did not kill the goat) b. Subject focus: It's not John who killed the goat (> Someone killed it, but not John) . Object focus: It's not the goat that John killed (> He killed something, but not the goat) d. Verb focus: ?It's not killing that John did to the goat49 (> He did something to the goat, but not kill it) When optional participants, including adverbs, are present in the clause, they tend to attract the focus of negation to themselves, leaving the rest of the clause to be presupposed. As illustrations, consider: (136) a. Optional benefactive: She didn't write the book for her father (> She wrote it, but not for him) b. Optional associative: She didn't write the book with her sister (> She wrote it, but not with her sister)

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

199

c. Optional instrumental: She didn't shoot him with the gun ( > She shot him, but not with the gun) d. Optional purpose ADV: She didn't flunk on purpose (> She flunked, but not on purpose) e. Optional time ADV: She didn't come Saturday (> She came, but not on Saturday) f. Optional frequency ADV: She doesn't visit often ( > She visits, but not often) g. Optional locative ADV: She didn't kick the ball out of the park (> She kicked it, but not out of the park) The inferences in (136a-g) are pragmatic and normative, rather than logical and absolute. A change in the intonation pattern of the clause may yield other inferences. The reason why optional constituents attract the focus of negation is, probably, because they are likely to constitute the focus of the assertion itself, even without negation. The normal pragmatic inference concerning the use of optional clausal constituents thus seems to be: (137) "If an optional element is chosen, chances are it is the focus of the asserted information". 4.7.8. The morpho-syntax of English negation The morpho-syntax of negation in English is closely tied to the struc­ ture of the auxiliary and the tense-aspect-modal system. To accommodate negation, a slightly modified version of our auxiliary rule (91)/(92) must be given, one that is applicable only in the case of negation: (138) AUX = NEG

Rule (138) only applies to the most common type of negation, VP-negation. The rule is to be interpreted as follows:

200

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(139) a. "If no auxiliary element exists, the auxiliary 'do' is inserted. b. The NEG morpheme is attached to the auxiliary that directly follows it, be that a MODAL, HAVE, or BE; or, in the absence of those, DO.  A MODAL cannot take the PAST morpheme". The various options arising from rule (139) are illustrated in (140) below: (140) a. b.  d. e. f. g.

Modal: Have: Have-past: Be: Be-past: Do: Do-past:

Mary can-n't work Mary has-n't work-ed Mary had-n't work-ed Mary is-n't work-ing Mary was-n't work-ing Mary does-n't work Mary did-n't work

The negation rule (138)/(139) is still subject to one exception, designed to accommodate the fact that, for the purpose of negation, the main copu­ lar verb 'be' in English behaves like the auxiliary 'be'. That is, the main verb 'be' requires no 'do' auxiliary, but rather takes the NEG suffix directly. As illustration of this, consider: (141) a. b.  d. e.

Mary isn't tall Mary is-n't a teacher Mary is-n't here Mary was-n't seen there It is-n't Mary who left

In at least some variants of British English, the main verb 'have' exhibits a similar behavior. Thus compare: (142) a. British: I have-n't a clue what this is about b. American: I do-n't have a clue what this is about The British pattern (142a) represents an older, more conservative state of English grammar. The pattern in (141) also represents the survival of the older historical pattern of English negation.

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

4.7.9.

201

Further topics in the syntax of negation

4.7.9.1. Negation in main vs. complement clauses When two propositions are joined together in a complex construc­ tion, as in main plus complement clause, the whole is not merely the sum of the parts. Here again, language violates some strict predictions of logic. One of the best illustrations for this is the interaction between negation of the main clause and negation of the complement clause. Consider first the non-factive verb 'think': (143) a. b.  d.

I don't think (that) she came I think (that) she didn't come It is not true that I think (that) she came I think that it is not true (that) she came

By logic alone, (143a) should mean (143c), and (143b) should mean (143d). In fact, under some conditions (143a) and (143b) have a similar though perhaps not identical meaning, with (143a) tipping toward a slightly stronger belief in the complement proposition 'She came', and (143b) toward a slightly weaker belief in that proposition. Further, both (143a) and (143b) tend to be rather close to the meaning of (143d), but equally remote from the meaning of (143c). The same weak equivalency can be seen with non-implicative modality or manipulation verbs such as 'want': (144) a. She didn't want (him) to leave b. She wanted (him) not to leave Somehow the meaning of (144a) and (144b) is almost the same, but perhaps again with a certain gradation in strength of preference regarding the com­ plement proposition. With other complement-taking verbs, the senses of the two negation patterns — of main and complement clause — are rather distinct and con­ form better to the predictions of logic: (145) a. She didn't know (that) he was there (> It isn't true that she knew he was there) b. She knew that he wasn't there (> She knew that it wasn't true he was there)

202

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

c.  didn't ask her to leave ( > It isn't true that he asked her to leave) d. He asked her not to leave (> It is true that he asked her not to leave) e. She didn't continue working ( > It isn't true that she continued working) f. She continued not working (> It is true that she continued not working) 4.7.9.2. Syntactic, morphological and inherent negation The VP-negation we have discussed above, the one that is most wide­ spread, is a syntactic negation pattern. Another negation pattern is also found in English, that of morphological negation. In addition, there are also some inherently negative verbs or adjectives. As illustration of the three forms, compare: (146) a. Contracted syntactic negation: I think she is-n't happy b. Syntactic negation: I think she is not happy c. Morphological negative: I think she's un-happy d. Inherent negative: I think she's sad The syntactic patterns (146a,b) are applicable to all adjectives. The inher­ ent and morphological patterns (146c,d), on the other hand, are more idiosyncratic, applying to only some adjectives. Similarly, compare: (147) a. Contracted syntactic negation: I do-n't believe her story b. Syntactic negation: I do not believe her story  Morphological negation: I dis-believe her story d. Inherent negative: I doubt her story Again, while the syntactic patterns (147a,b) are applicable to all verbs, the

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

203

morphological and inherent patterns (147c,d) are more selective, applying to only some verbs. 4.7.9.3. Negative polarity and levels of negation Some paired grammatical operators seem to distribute in a mutuallyexclusive way: One member of the pair specializes in negative clauses, the other affirmative clauses. This phenomenon is called negative polarity. Some common examples are: (148) a. Negative: Mary wasn't happy, and Jack wasn't happy b. Affirmative: Mary was happy, and Jack was happy  Negative: Jack hasn't left d. Affirmative: Jack has left e. Negative: Mary isn't home, f.

Affirmative: Mary is home,

Negative polarity operators such as those in (148) are sensitive to the presence or absence of negation, but only if it is syntactic negation. To illus­ trate this bias of negative polarity operators, compare their behavior in syn­ tactic negation with their behavior in morphological and inherent-lexical negatives: (149) a. Affirmative: Mary was happy, and Jack was b. Syntactic negation: Mary wasn't happy, and Jack wasn't

204

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

c. Morphological negation: Mary was unhappy, and Jack was d. Inherent-lexical negation: Mary was sad, and Jack was The distribution of the NEG-polarity operators 'too' and 'either' in both the morphological negative (149c) and the inherent-lexical negative (149d) follows that of the affirmative clause (149a), rather than the syntactic-nega­ tive clause (149b). In the same vein: (150) a. Affirmative: Jack was present b. Syntactic negation: Jack wasn't present c. Inherent-lexical negation: Jack was absent Logically, 'present' and 'absent' are exact antonyms, seemingly abiding by the exclusion-of-the-middle rule: (151) present < = = = > not absent absent < = = = > not present As noted earlier above, the syntactic source of negation, in terms of main vs. complement clause, sometimes makes an important semantic dif­ ference, one that was not predictable from the mere logic of negation. What examples such as (149) and (150) suggest is that even when a single clause is involved, the grammatical organization of clauses, in this case the syntactic source of negation, makes a difference in meaning that is not pre­ dicted from the logic of negation. 4.7.9.4. Constituent negation and emphatic denial The syntactic negation we have discussed all along is VP negation. In this type of negation, the NEG-marker is grammatically part of the auxil­ iary complex, which in turn is part of the verb phrase in English. This is indeed the most common device for expressing the negative speech-act in

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

205

English. But as noted earlier, English also has another, less common type of syntactic negation, whereby the NEG-marker attaches itself to one of the non-verbal constituents of the clause, such as the subject, direct object, indirect object, nominal predicate or adverb. In most cases, that constituent turns out to be a noun phrase, so that we will refer to this negation pattern as NP negation. As illustrations, consider: (152) a. Affirmative frame: The woman gave the book to the boy b. VP negation: The woman didn't give the book to the boy c. Subject-NP negation: No woman gave the book to the boy d. Direct object-NP negation: The woman gave no book to the boy e. Indirect object-NP negation. The woman gave the book to no boy (153) a. Time adverb negation: The woman never gave the book to the boy b. Place negation: The boy is nowhere to be seen c. Predicate-NP negation: She's no fool d. Possessive-NP negation: She's nobody's fool In the more common VP negation, as in (152b), the propositional event-frame of the corresponding affirmative (cf. (152a)) is taken for granted as the presupposed background for negation. It is that background proposition that is then denied. Constituent (NP) negation seems to attack the presuppositional foundation of the hearer's contrary belief more emphatically, and zero in on the object of denial more specifically: Not only did the event not occur with the listed participants, but one of the partici­ pants was not even involved. As a speech-act, emphatic denial of this type is even more contrary than the normal VP negation. And the semantic effect of such negation on the noun phrase in question is to render it nonreferring.50 That is, the denial is carried further — not only wasn't this specific participant involved, but not even a member of its type. The emphatic denial of the hearer's event-frame belief is pressed

206

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

further home by the use of non-referring negative pronouns, such as 'no­ body', 'no one' and 'nothing', 'never', 'nowhere' or 'no way'. Thus compare (154) below with (152): (154) a. Subject NEG-pronoun: Nobody gave the book to the boy (> let alone the woman) b. Direct object NEG-pronoun: The woman gave nothing to the boy (> let alone a book)  Indirect object NEG-pronoun: The woman gave the book to no one (> let alone to the boy) There is in fact a continuum of negation patterns between clear VP negation and clear NP negation in English, allowing for graded escalation of emphatic denial. As illustrations, compare the various possible patterns with a non-human direct object: (155) a. Syntactic VP negation: The woman didn't read the book b. VP negation plus emphasis: The woman didn't read any book c. VP negation plus NEG-pronoun: The woman didn't read anything d. NP negation: The woman read no book e. NP negation plus NEG-pronoun: The woman read nothing And similarly for a human direct object: (156) a. Syntactic VP negation: She didn't see the boy b. VP negation plus emphasis: She didn't see any boy c. VP negation plus NEG pronoun: She didn't see anybody d. NP negation: She saw no boy e. NP negation plus NEG pronoun: She saw no one

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

207

For adverbs of time, place or manner, some points along this gradation may be less natural, for reasons that have to do with reference.51 Thus compare: (157) a. Syntactic VP negation: She didn't work yesterday b. VP negation plus emphasis: ?She didn't work any time c. VP negation plus NEG pronoun: She didn't ever work d. NP negation: ?She worked no time e. NP negation plus NEG pronoun: She never worked Emphatic constituent negation is probably at the bottom of the infa­ mous double negation, commonly found in the spoken register, as in: (158) a. b.  d.

I didn't see nothin' I don't love nobody I didn't go nowhere I don't never drink

These are the colloquial equivalents of emphatic VP negation (cf. (155c), (156c), (157c) above) in the written standard, respectively: (159) a. b.  d.

I didn't see anything I don't love anybody I didn't go anywhere I don't ever drink

Hybrid emphatic negation forms close in spirit to the 'double negation' pattern (158) still lurk about even in more standard usage, as in: (160) a. b.  d.

She saw nothing, not a thing She loves nobody, not a soul She didn't eat a thing She doesn't love a soul

And one must remember that the proper negation pattern of current-day written English did arise from the earlier pattern of emphatic double nega­ tion in Old English. The transition involved two consecutive cycles of deemphasizing an emphatic VP negation pattern, roughly along the line of (simplified):52

208

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(161) a. Emphatic VP negation: I ne see ne-ought ('Ι don't see no-thing') b. Emphatic NP negation: I see nought ('I see nothing') c. De-emphasized VP negation: I see not ('I don't see') d. New emphatic VP negation: I do not see ('I do not see!') e. De-emphasized VP negation: I don't see

(ought = 'thing')

(no-ought = 'nothing')

(contraction)

(introduction of 'do' AUX)

(contraction)

The use of the auxiliary 'do' to carry the NEG-marker, as in (161d), signal­ led originally a new cycle of emphatic negation. Only later on was this pat­ tern de-emphasized and assumed the current value of standard VP negation (161e). The old emphatic use of 'do' still survives in the affirmative, as in the contrast: (162) a. She saw him b. She did see him The pattern of emphatic negation for subject NPs is not quite as full as the one for object. Thus, compare (163) below with (155), (156) above: (163) a. Syntactic VP negation: The woman didn't read the book b. VP negation plus emphasis: *Any woman didn't read the book c. VP negation plus NEG-pronoun: *Nobody didn't read the book d. NP negation: No woman read the book e. NP negation plus NEG-pronoun: Nobody read the book The absence of patterns (163b,c) is probably due to the fact, noted earlier above, that the clausal subject is excluded from the scope of VP negation, while objects and adverbs do fall under the scope of negation. 53

VERBAL INFLECTIONS

209

NOTES 1) Some people treat the 'habitual' as an aspect rather than a tense. This preference is moti­ vated first by the fact that the habitual can distribute in both the "present" and the "past" tense, as in the contrast between: Present: She sings every day. Past: Then she would sing every day. It is also motivated by the semantic grouping of the 'habitual' with the 'durative' and 'iterative' under the super-category of imperfective or unbounded. The problem with the distributional argument is that the 'habitual' can also distribute in two aspects — "simple" and "durative", as in the contrast between: Simple:

He works at a gas station. (> What does he do for a living?) Durative: He is working at a gas station. (> What's he doing with himself nowadays?)

The truth of the matter is that the 'habitual' in English is a swing category, partly tense and partly aspect. As we shall see later on, the habitual is also a swing category in terms of modality. 2) Given that aspect markers in English are always attached to the verb phrase of a particu­ lar clause, we will consider the function — or any sub-function — of an aspect to be 'semantic' if its definition requires no reference to entities (be they functional or structural) outside the clause. In contrast, the definition of a 'pragmatic' function of an aspect requires reference to entities outside the clause. 3) The contrast between bounded and unbounded is also referred to by the traditional terms of 'perfective' vs. 'imperfective', respectively. 4) In the historical development of tense-aspect markers from verbs (the most common source), many if not most tense-aspect markers arise from verbs of spatial motion ('go', 'come', 'arrive', 'leave') or spatial presence ('be', 'sit', 'stand', 'stay', 'lie', 'sleep', 'live-at'). For the role of space-to-time metaphoric extension in the evolution of tense-aspect markers, see Heine et al (1991). For the systematic use of space-to-time metaphors in English, see Lakoff and Johnson (1980). 5) L'Amour (1962, p. 7). 6) L'Amour (1962, p. 2). 7) Alternatively, one may wish to argue that the progressive-habitual represents a widening of the temporal scope of the progressive, from 'right now' to 'nowadays'. So that one way or another, the combination progressive-cum-habitual produces an intermediate perspective on the temporal scope of the event. As John Haiman (in personal communication) has suggested, this would place the progressive and habitual on a continuum of a single aspectual dimension (rather than one being an aspect and the other a tense). 8) The historical rise of auxiliaries out of modality verbs is still an ongoing development in English, so that several modality verbs can be characterized synchronically as "aspectuals", with intermediate syntactic properties (García, 1967). 9) I am indebted to John Haiman (in personal communication) for this suggestion. 10) L'Amour (1962, p. 7).

210

ENGLISH G R A M M A R

11) In The New Yorker, January 26, 1981 (p. 32). 12) From Leonard (1990, pp. 86-87). 13) In many languages that have only one sequential-perfective past marker, the perfect is used in precisely the same narrative-initial context as the simple past here. This is as true of the English-based Creole Krio as it is of Early Biblical Hebrew (see Givón, 1984a, chapter 8). The tendency to merge the past-perfect with the simple past in colloquial styles often leads to the loss of the simple past form and its replacement by the perfect — which then codes both aspectual functions (cf. spoken French, Modern Hebrew, also many spoken German dialects). 14) For a study of the semantic diversity of propositional modalities, see Ransom (1986). A more English-specific description may be found in Palmer (1979). 15) These grounds are only the most common. In principle, telepathy as well as any other grounds by which the speaker may deem that the hearer is not likely to challenge a proposition may serve as grounds for presupposition. See discussion in my Mind, Code and Context (1989, chapter 4). 16) The unmarked category is more common in actual communication (i.e. text), contrasting with the marked category which is the less common, exceptional case. See distributional tables further below. 17) The more pragmatic features of a modality have to do with the interaction between the speaker and hearer, i.e. expectations of challenge, options of dealing with challenge, mutual knowledge, respective motivations etc. Both the speaker and the hearer are part of the clauseexternal context. In contrast, the more semantic features of a modality make no reference to the speaker-hearer interaction, i.e. to entities outside the clause. Whether such features indeed exist in natural language remains to be shown. The purely logical modal notion of 'truth' — un-refer­ enced to speaker or hearer — is probably unattested in language. Its closest equivalents in lan­ guage are 'belief or 'subjective certainty'. 18) This again suggests that irrealis is the marked category and realis the unmarked one, i.e. the absence of irrealis marking. 19) In other languages, this cross-modality sharing of code is most striking in the grammar of the subjunctive mood, which spans over the epistemic and evaluative sub-modalities. 20) For some details of the historical process, see Jespersen (1938, p. 193) or Visser (1973), as well as Fleischman (1989) and Bybee (1992). 21) For a general discussion of non-declarative speech-acts, see chapter 12. 22) The grammatical marking of counter-fact is commonly obtained by combining some irrealis operator with either the past or the perfect. For counter-fact conditional ADV-clauses, see chapter 13. 23) Such verbs may also be called 'future-projecting'; see chapter 3, section 3.3.8.3. 24) See chapter 3, section 3.3.8.4. 25) See chapter 3, section 3.3.8.5. 26) The main discussion of non-declarative clauses, and speech-acts, can be found in chapter 12. 27) For adverbial subordinate clauses, see chapter 13. 28) See chapter 13.

V E R B A L INFLECTIONS

211

29) See chapter 9. 30) See chapter 12. 31) See chapter 10. 32) See chapter 3, section 3.3.8.5. 33) See chapter 3, section 3.3.8.2; also chapter 6, section 6.6.3. 34) For an extensive discussion of this see Givón (1991a). 35) The academic text was Haiman (1985, pp. 21-23). The fiction text was L'Amour (1962, pp. 83-85). 36) Following Chomsky (1957). 37) The association of an irrealis modality with the past or perfect to code lower epistemic certainty is most conspicuous in the subjunctive category in many languages, including English. Thus compare: If you do this, you'll be rewarded. (> you are likely to do it) If you did this, you'd really be rewarded (> you are less likely to do it) 38) From The New Yorker, 9-28-87 (p. 35). 39) One may as well note that breaking the norm of inertia requires more energy. The counter-norm status of events conforms in this way the broad sweep of the law of inertia in physics: "Things will tend to stay at their present state of either motion or stasis unless more energy is pumped into the system to change the current state". 40) The academic text is Haiman (1985, pp. 119-120). The fiction text is McMurtry (1963, pp. 76-77). 41) For relative clauses, see chapter 9. 42) For WH-questions, see chapter 12. 43) John Haiman (in personal communication) suggests that the reason may be different: When in (124) is interpreted as 'since', i.e. 'given that' or 'because'. 44) From Pearson, (1985, pp. 191-192). 45) See Keenan (1969). 46) The text used was MacDonald (1974, pp. 49-70). 47) For contrastive stress and focus constructions in general, see chapter 10. 48) For cleft-focus see chapter 10. 49) Verb clefting in English is either unacceptable or marginal; see chapter 10. 50) For referring and non-referring NPs, see chapter 5. 51) Unlike subjects and objects, adverbial participants tend to be either non-referring, or else the range of referring entities subsumed under them is drastically reduced, so that often only highly generic nouns such as 'time', 'place' or 'manner' are involved. The denial of a lexicalspecific adverbial noun ('no day', 'no month', 'no week', 'no Saturday' or even 'no time') is thus redundant in emphatic negation of adverbs. While the use of the strictly non-referring NEGpronouns ('never', 'nowhere', 'no way' etc.) become the norm.

212

ENGLISH G R A M M A R

52) See Visser (1973). 53) The strong interaction between non-fact modalities such as negation and irrealis, and the reference properties of NPs under their scope, is discussed in chapter 5.

5

5.1.

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

INTRODUCTION

Up to this point, we have dealt with noun phrases rather informally when giving examples of subjects and objects, sometimes using pronouns, sometimes names, sometimes nouns modified by various articles. In this chapter we describe more systematically two central features of the gram­ mar of noun phrases, features that most commonly control the use of vari­ ous determiners that modify the noun. The functional domain associated with this area of the grammar is that of topic identification, also called referential coherence. This domain of grammar includes considerably more than what we cover in this chapter. And in a number of subsequent chapters we will deal with other grammatical constructions that either belong to or intersect with this domain. 1 The two areas of referential coherence we will deal with here are refer­ ence and definiteness. The grammatical devices most commonly used to code these sub-domains in the English noun phrase are: (a) Indefinite articles (b) Definite articles (c) Pronouns (d) Zero anaphora (e) Demonstratives (f) Names

5.2.

REFERENCE

5.2.1.

Existence vs. reference

There is a long logical tradition in the treatment of reference, holding that reference (also called denotation or extension) is a mapping relation between linguistic terms (such as noun phrases) and entities which exist in the Real World.2 In this tradition, a noun phrase either refers to an entity

214

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

in the Real World, or does not refer. To illustrate this approach, consider first: (1)

a. The Queen of England is bald b. The King of France is bald

In the logical tradition, the subject of (la) truly refers, since it maps onto an entity that truly exists in the Real World. In contrast, the subject of (lb) does not refer, since it maps onto an entity that does not exist. Similarly, the object of (2a) below can, at least in principle, refer to an existing entity, while that of (2b) presumably cannot: (2)

a. I rode a horse yesterday b. I rode a unicorn yesterday

What is of course remarkable is that the grammar of English (and other languages) tends to code the two subject noun phrases in (la,b), and similarly the object noun phrases in (2a,b), with the very same grammatical devices, and is thus seemingly oblivious to whether their respective refer­ ents do or don't exist in the Real World. What the grammar seems to be sensitive to is, rather, whether entities we refer to by such noun phrases have been verbally established in the universe of discourse. Once an entity has been established in the universe of discourse, it is treated as referring, regardless of what its status may be in the Real World. A discourse-participant is introduced into the universe of discourse, and once introduced, it may be referred to by various grammatical devices. The rules that govern both the initial introduction and subsequent reference have little to do with real-world existence. Thus, the two alternative refer­ ents introduced initially in (3a) below would be subsequently referred to with the same grammatical devices in (3b,c,d,e,f), regardless of the fact that one of them presumably cannot refer to an entity in the Real World: (3)

a. There was once b. c. d. e. f.

who lived in the forest.  lived all by himself and [0] was very lonely. One day he met a frog near a pond. said...

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

5.2.2.

215

Referential intent

Since definite NPs, by definition, almost always refer to some entity in the universe of discourse, we will introduce the contrast between referring and non-referring NPs by using indefinite NPs. We will defer the discussion of the contrast between definite and indefinite to a subsequent section. Consider first: (4)

John married a rich woman, a. ...though he didn't know her well. b. ...?though he didn't know any well.

The speaker uttering (4) is committed, in terms of referential intent, to the existence in the universe of discourse of some rich woman that John mar­ ried. That is, the conditional implication seems to hold that: (5)

If John married one, then that particular one must have existed.

Referring to that woman with the pronoun 'her' in (4a) is therefore per­ fectly appropriate. But using the non-referring pronoun 'any' in the same frame is a bit odd. Consider now, by comparison: (6)

John wanted to marry a rich woman, a. ...though he didn't know her well. b. ...though he didn't know any (well).

The speaker uttering (6) may or may not be committed to identifying a par­ ticular woman in the universe of discourse. That is, two interpretations of 'a rich woman' in (6) are possible, corresponding to the two possible continu­ ations, (6a) and (6b). Respectively: (7)

a. Referring interpretation: John — and thus the speaker — had a particular woman in mind; John wished to marry her, though he didn't know her well. b. Non-referring interpretation: John — and thus the speaker — has no particular woman in mind; John wished to marry someone of that type, he didn't know (well) any of that type.

216

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

5.2.3.

Reference and propositional modalities

As is obvious from examples (4) and (6) above, the mere presence of the indefinite article a(n) in English does not guarantee either a referring or non-referring interpretation of the noun phrase. The indefinite article is indeed irrelevant to this feature of meaning. Another indefinite article, any, can be used if one wants to mark NPs as non-referring. In contrast, if 'woman' in either (4) or (6) were marked by the definite article the, her status as 'referring' would have been guaranteed. This is obvious from the fact that a non-referring interpretation of the equivalent of (6), and thus the use of 'any' in subsequent reference, becomes unacceptable if the referent is introduced with the definite article 'the': (8)

John wanted to marry the rich woman he met on a cruise, though he didn't love

The reference status of an indefinite noun is predictable, at least up to a point, from the propositional modality under whose scope the noun falls. To predict the relation between propositional modalities and the reference properties of nouns, one must group the four modalities discussed in chap­ ter 4 — presupposition, R-assertion, IRR-assertion and NEG-assertion — into two meta-modalities, fact and non-fact: (9)

a. Fact:

Presupposition R-assertion b. Non-fact: IRR-assertion NEG-assertion

The predictable relation between modality and reference may be now stated as follows: (10) Propositional modality and reference: a. Under the scope of fact modalities, noun phrases can only be interpreted as referring. b. Under the scope of non-fact modalities, noun phrases may be interpreted as either referring or non-referring. Let us illustrate the applicability of rule (10) with a number of simple examples. Consider first the interpretation of indefinite NPs under the scope of fact:

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

217

(11) a. Presupposition: I know she met a man at the bar b. R-assertion: She met a man at the bar In uttering either (11a) or (11b), the speaker is committed to the existence, in the universe of discourse, of a specific man, the one she met at the bar. Consider, on the other hand, the interpretation of the same indefinite noun under the scope of non-fact: (12) IRR-assertion: She will meet a man at the bar; a. ...he's been told to wait for her there. b. ...she always picks up someone. (13) NEG-assertion: She didn't meet a man at the bar. ( > She met no man there) In uttering (12), with an irrealis modality, the speaker may have in mind either the referring interpretation (12a) or the non-referring interpretation (12b). The grammar will tolerate either, although real-world knowledge or specific information may tip the scale toward one or the other. In uttering (13), the range of interpretation is more restricted; only the non-referring interpretation of the indefinite NP is allowed. We will return to this pecu­ liarity of NEG-assertion further below. The particular irrealis marker used in (12) above was the future modalauxiliary 'will'. But an indefinite NP can be interpreted as non-referring under the scope of any irrealis operator in English. Thus consider: (14) a. Conditional: //she meets a man there... b. Yes/no question: Did she meet a man there?  Command: Go meet a man! d. Epistemic adverb: Maybe she met a man there. e. Modals: She may meet a man there. f. Scope of non-implicative modality verb: She wanted to meet a man there.

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

218

g. Scope of non-implicative manipulation verb: They told her to meet a man there. h. Scope of non-factive cognition-utterance verb: They thought that she met a man there. Two other grammatical environments behave like a non-fact modality in allowing a non-referring interpretation of NPs under their scope. The first is the habitual tense-aspect, as in: (15) Habitual: Every Tuesday John meets a woman at the pub. a. Referring: ...She always waits for him there. b. Non-referring: ...Some woman always turns up. The second is nominal predicate, as in: (16) Nominal predicate: a. Non-referring: John is a teacher. (> What does John do for a living?) b. Referring: John is a teacher I used to know. (> Who's this John you told me about?) The common denominator of irrealis, negation, habitual and nominal predication is probably this: None of these modes depicts the occurrence of a particular event at a particular time. This is, presumably, the irreduci­ ble core of 'non-fact'. Some verbs carry the irrealis — thus non-fact — modality with them, in their semantic structure. For example, 'date' in (17a) below does not carry the irrealis modality, but 'look for' in (17b) does. Similarly, 'eat' (17c) does not, but 'crave' (17d) does: (17) a. b. c. d.

She She She She

was dating a rich man was looking for a rich man ate an apple craved an apple

Most transitive verbs resemble 'date' and 'eat' in that they do not carry an inherent irrealis modality. They are thus considered implicative: If one is committed to the truth of the verb-coded event, one is committed to the reference of the object. Verbs that carry the irrealis modality, such as 'look for' and 'crave', are non-implicative (or 'world-creating'). They thus resem-

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

219

ble the non-implicative verbs in (14f,g), or the non-factive verb in (14h). Such verbs do not imply that a specific event indeed took place in the universe of discourse; nor do they imply that an NP refers to a particular entity in that universe. 5.2.4. The indefinite determiners 'any', 'no' and 'some' So far, we have dealt primarily with indefinites marked by the article a(n); we noted that NPs marked by a(n) may take, at least in principle, either a referring or a non-referring interpretation. But English has three other indefinite articles, two of which seem to allow only a non-referring interpretation of the NP — any, no and some. 5.2.4.1. The non-referring article 'any' The fact that 'any' marks only non-referring nouns is apparent from its incompatibility with fact modalities: (18) a. Presupposition: *I know that she saw any man b. R-assertion: *She saw any man In contrast, a noun marked by 'any' is rather compatible with many — though not all — non-fact contexts. Thus compare: (19) a. b.  d. e. f.

Future: She'll see any man Modal: She can see any man Conditional: If she sees any man,... Yes/no question: Did she see any man? Command: Go see any man! Scope of non-implicative modality verb: She wanted to see any man (who would be there) g. Scope of non-implicative manipulation verb: They told her to see any man (who would be there) h. Habitual: She'd see any man (who would be there) i. NEG-assertion: She didn't see any man

The only non-fact context that does not accommodate 'any' is that of predicate nominal. Thus compare: (20) a. She is a teacher b. *She is any teacher

220

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

5.2.4.2. The non-referring article 'no' The other specifically non-referring indefinite article is the negation marker 'no'. As noted in chapter 4, above, this marker is used to code con­ stituent negation, a restricted sub-type of the NEG-assertion modality. The distribution of this marker is thus restricted to clauses under the scope of this sub-type of negation, as in: (21) a. No one came to see her b. She saw no woman there 5.2.4.3. The indefinite article 'some' The indefinite article 'some' may code both referring and non-referring nouns. In this way it shares some of the properties of 'a(n)'. However, 'some' is more likely to be interpreted as non-referring. So that in some sense, it occupies an intermediate position between 'a(n)' and 'any'. Like 'a(n)', 'some' is sensitive to the modality under whose scope it falls. So that under the scope of fact modalities, NPs marked by 'some' can only be interpreted as referring. Consider first: (22) a. Presupposition: I know she met some man there, (and that she told him that...) b. R-assertion: She met some man there, (and she told him that...) At least superficially, 'some' seems to allow both a referring and nonreferring interpretation under the scope of irrealis. Thus consider: (23) Future: She'// see some man there. a. Referring: ...?He's been told to expect her. b. Non-referring: ...And whoever it turns out to be will know what to do. There is nothing ungrammatical per se about (23a). There is, however, a strong sense that 'he' in (23a) must still be interpreted as non-referring. If (23a) were meant as referring, the article 'some' seems inappropriate, and (23) should be rendered as:

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

221

(24) She7/ see a man there; he's already been told to expect her. The same bias seems to crop up under the scope of modals, as in: (25) Modal: She may see some man there. a. Referring: ...?He's been told to expect her. b. Non-referring: ...And whoever it turns out to be will know what to do. Again, (25a) is probably better rendered as: (26) She may see a man there. He's been told to expect her. The reluctance to interpret a noun with 'some' referentially seems even stronger under the irrealis scope of a conditional adverbial clause, as in: (27) Conditional: If she sees some man there, so be it. a. Referring: ...?He's been told to expect her. b. Non-referring: ...Whoever it turns out to be will know what to do. And the bias is even stronger under the scope of a yes/no question, as in: (28) Yes/no question: Did she see some man there? a. Referring: ...?He's been told to expect her. b. Non-referring: ...Whoever was supposed to meet her must have been late. The bias against the use of 'some' is absolute under the scope of nega­ tion. Thus consider: (29) Negation: a. *She didn't see some man there. b. She didn't see a man there.  She didn't see any man there. Under the scope of habitual, the use of NPs marked by 'some' seems to veer back toward allowing both interpretations, as in:

222

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(30) Habituai: She always meets some man there. a. Referring: ...He's an old friend of hers. b. Non-referring: ...Never the same one twice. Still, the referring interpretation in (30a) is better expressed with 'a' than with 'some'. 5.2.4.4. 'Any', 'no' and 'some' as pronouns All three indefinite articles, 'any', 'no' and 'some', can be also used as pronouns. In such usage, 'any' and 'some' may appear either by themselves or augmented with 'one', 'body' or 'thing'. 'Νο', on the other hand, requires such augmentation and may not appear as a pronoun by itself. The reference properties of these indefinite pronouns are roughly the same as those they have as articles, although minor differences may still exist. In general, 'some' and 'any' are used as pronouns by themselves in contexts where the lexical identity of the head noun is recoverable from the immediately preceding — anaphoric — context. As illustrations consider: (31) a. Context: She's looking for books on Chaos Theory. b. IRR-assertion: So if you have , please... c. NEG-assertion: But she can't find The three indefinite pronouns are augmented with '-one' or '-body' in contexts where the noun they refer to is human, or with '-thing' when it is non-human. In the use of these augmented pronouns, previous mention of the referent in the preceding (anaphoric) context is not necessary. When no such previous mention occurs, the pronouns may be un-stressed and unemphatic, as in: (32) IRR-assertion: a. Human: If

b. Non-human: If

shows up, tell them...

happens, 1 be...

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

223

The augmented forms of indefinite pronouns may also be stressed and emphatic. As such, they tend to occur in contexts where their referent had been mentioned in the preceding — anaphoric — discourse. In emphatic realis assertions, only the augmented form of the potentially referring 'some' can be used, as in: (33) a. b.  d. e.

Someone did it! Somebody did it! Something happened to her! *Anybody did it! *Anything happened to her!

Both augmented 'some' and 'any' may be used in emphatic Irrealis asser­ tions, as in: (34) a. b.  d. e.

Someone can do it! Somebody can do it! Something can happen! Anybody can do it! Anything can happen!

In emphatic NEG-assertions involving syntactic (VP) negation, the standard educated register of American English allows the augmented form of only 'any', as in: (35) I haven't seen

there.

Finally, the augmented form of 'no' is restricted to NEG-assertions with NP-negation (see chapter 4, section 4.7.9.4.), as in: (36) I saw

there.

224

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

5.2.5.

Reference under the scope of negation

As noted earlier above, the modality of NEG-assertion is somewhat unique among non-fact modalities, in that it restricts the interpretation of NPs under its scope. Such NPs may be either non-referring or referring-defi­ nite, but not ref erring-indefinite. This peculiarity of NEG-assertions is illus­ trated in: (37) *Referring indefinite: He didn't see an eagle (*> There existed an eagle, but he didn't see it) (38) Non-referring indefinite: a. He didn't see an eagle (> There existed no eagle that he saw) b. He didn't see any eagle c.  saw no eagle (39) Referring definite: He didn't see the eagle Put another way, if a referring noun falls under the scope of negation, it must be definite. The explanation of this restriction derives from what we said earlier (chapter 4) concerning the presuppositional status of NEG-assertions. In making a NEG-assertion, the speaker presupposes the hearer's belief in, or at least familiarity with, the corresponding affirmative proposition. The restriction barring referring indefinites from the scope of negation may be thus formulated as the following probabilistic inference: (40) "If the hearer is familiar with an event, and if a participant in that event is referred to, the speaker may assume that the hearer can identify that participant. Hence the partici­ pant is definite". We thus assume that 'definite' means 'identifiable to the hearer'. We will return to this issue in section 5.3., further below. 5.2.6.

Gradation of indefinite reference

So far we have taken for granted that a noun may be either referring or non-referring. But a range of facts suggest that there exists, at least in prin­ ciple, a continuum of referential intent, and that the grammar of English uses systematic means for coding shades and gradations along that con-

225

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

tinuum. To illustrate this, consider: (41) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Did you see anything there? Did you see anybody there? Did you see any man there? Did you see some man there? Did you see a man there? Did you see a tall man there? Did you see a tall man wearing a blue shirt there? Did you see a tall man there wearing a blue shirt and sitting on a red barrel and twirling a silver baton in his left hand?

There seems to be a clear gradation from (41a) through (41h), one that pro­ ceeds along a psychological or probabilistic dimension: (a)

(b)

Psychological (speaker's perspective): "How strongly does the speaker intend to suggest that they are referring to a particular individual?" Probabilistic (hearer's perspective): "What is the probability that the individual that the speaker referred to is a specific individual?"

Whatever the underlying dimension, a continuum is clearly involved.3 The grammar of English seems to code this continuum by combining three grammatical devices: (42) Coding gradation of reference: grammatical device

likelihood of specific reference more likely less likely

indefinite articles

a

>

some

restrictive modification

more modification

>

lexical noun specification

specific noun

person

5.2.7.

>

>

any

less modification >

thing

Plurality and reference

Another device used extensively in the grammar of reference in Eng­ lish is the plural form of nouns. Consider the effect of the plurality of the interpretation of indefinite nouns under the scope of Irrealis (non-fact):

226

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(43) a. b.  d. e. f.

John was planning to sell a house John was planning to sell houses John always meets a girl for lunch John always meets girls for lunch He was looking for a book He was looking for books

In (43a,c,e), where the indefinite object is singular, there seems to be a higher probability of a referring interpretation of the object noun. That is, the speaker could easily use these expressions intending a particular refer­ ent. In (43b,d,f), on the other hand, the probability of such a referential intent seems much lower. The effect of plurality as downgrading referential intent seems to be preserved even under the scope of the fact modality: (44) Context: -What did she do on the train? a. -She read a book. b. -She read books. (45) Context: -What did he do last year? a. -He sold a house. b. -He sold houses. In both (44a) and (45a), the singular indefinite noun is interpreted as refer­ ring. In contrast, the plurals in both (44b) and (45b) somehow seem to beg a non-referring interpretation. There is of course something rather peculiar about the suggestion that an entity under the scope of fact is interpreted as non-referring. The sense of 'non-referring' here could not possibly be the strict logical sense. From a logical-semantic perspective, if an event did occur in the universe of dis­ course, the participant entities, however large a group, must have existed in that universe. The plural objects in (44b), (45b) are therefore not nonreferring in the strict logical-semantic sense. Rather, they are non-referring in another — pragmatic — sense. That is, their specific identity doesn't mat­ ter. We will return to this pragmatic notion of reference further below. 5.2.8.

Pragmatic effects on possible reference

We noted earlier that under the scope of irrealis, indefinite singular nouns marked with a(n) can be interpreted as either referring or non-refer­ ring. This is indeed the general rule. In many specific situations, however,

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

227

real-world pragmatic knowledge may tip the scales toward either one interpretation or the other. Consider: (46) Context: -What did she call you for? a. -She wanted to buy a house. b. -She wanted to sell a house. If 'she' is a private individual, chances are that when she is in the market to buy a house, she will consider several houses before zeroing in on any par­ ticular house. This pragmatic inference tips the scales toward interpreting 'a house' in (46a) as non-referring. On the other hand, most private individu­ als in this culture own only one house. Chances are that if they want to sell 'a house', as in (46b), it is a specific one, so that 'a house' in (46b) is intended as a referring expression. The pragmatic inferences that govern the probability of referring vs. non-referring interpretations in (46) would of course change if 'she' were a high-powered real-estate dealer. In that case, the probability of a non-refer­ ring interpretation of 'a house' in (46b) will increase, since real-estate deal­ ers tend to have several houses for sale. In the same vein, the probability of a referring interpretation of (46a) will also increase. A high-powered dealer may indeed buy houses for resale, but they tend to find bargain houses one at a time rather than in large lots. Consider next the following contrast, under the scope of fact: (47) a. On the way home he bought a newspaper b. On the way home he bought a book All copies of a newspaper in the pile, and often all newspapers printed in the same town on the same date, are interchangeable. Their individual iden­ tity does not matter. For this pragmatic reason, 'a newspaper' in (47a) is more likely to have been intended as non-referring, the scope of fact not­ withstanding. In contrast, books tend to be put on the shelf judiciously, as individuals. Their specific identity presumably matters. Chances then are higher that 'a book' in (47b) was intended as referring. Consider finally: (48) I'm going to bed to read a book now If I heard (48) announced by my old rancher friend, who keeps a pile of dog-eared paperback westerns on the floor next to his bed, chances are I would interpret 'a book' as non-referring. On the other hand, if I heard (48) announced by my friend the philosopher, who chooses his reading material

228

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

rather deliberately, chances are I would have interpreted 'a book' as refer­ ring. 5.2.9.

The non-referring use of anaphoric pronouns

5.2.9.1. Gender and non-referring and pronouns Unstressed anaphoric pronouns such as 'he', 'she', 'it' and 'they' in English are part and parcel of the grammar of referential coherence in dis­ course. As such, they fall within the large domain of discourse pragmatics. Semantically, such pronouns tend to be predominantly referring. At least at one point, however, these anaphoric pronouns interact with the semantic contrast of referring vs. non-referring. As we will see further below, unstressed anaphoric pronouns are used most commonly in contexts where the antecedent referent is readily accessi­ ble in the immediately preceding discourse context — most typically in the directly-preceding clause. When that antecedent is itself non-referring, an anaphoric pronoun can be used, and its sense may be then either referring or non-referring. In this section we survey some of the options available in English in such discourse contexts. Consider first the context where the non-referring antecedent gives no clue as to gender: (49) a. If you see anybody there,

tell

b. Anybody who thinks

can do it is...

Older prescriptive English grammars would insist on 'him' in (49a) and 'he' in (49b). Colloquial American English, at the very least, has developed a viable — and elegant — alternative, the non-referring use of the plural pro­ noun 'they'/'them'. The use of either 'he'/'him' or 'she'/'her' becomes more viable if the non-referring antecedent is specified for gender. Thus consider: (50) a. If you see any man there, b. Any woman who thinks

tell can do it is...

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

229

A similar use of anaphoric pronouns is found in contexts where the antecedent is logically referring but lexically unspecified, i.e. 'somebody', 'someone' or 'something': (51) a. I bumped into somebody in the street and b. Someone came in and said that c. If something bothers you, ignore it. Again, if 'some' is followed by a more specific noun, the singular pronouns — 'he', 'she' or 'it' — are more likely to be used. That is: (52) a. I bumped into some man in the street and he... b. Some woman came in and said that she... 5.2.9.2. Semantic reference vs. specific individuation It is of course true that anaphoric pronouns are most commonly used to code referring-definite nouns. But they can be used to code non-refer­ ring nouns, as in (49) and (50) above. This double capacity of anaphoric pronouns is even clearer when used in a context where the semantic refer­ ence status of the antecedent noun is potentially ambiguous, as is the case under the scope of many irrealis operators. Consider first: (53) John wanted to marry a rich girl, a. Non-referring: ...but she also had to be pretty. b. DEF-referring: ...though she wasn't pretty. The anaphoric pronoun 'she' is used in both (53a,b) regardless of reference status. The more general rule that governs the use of pronouns — both anaphoric-definite and indefinite — may be now seen. The rule is best illus­ trated in the context where the antecedent is a fully specified indefinite noun under the scope of irrealis. In such a context, a full four-way contrast in the use of pronouns can be observed:

230

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(54) John was planning to marry a. Referring-DEF: b. Non-referring-DEF: c. Referring-INDEF: d. Non-referring-INDEF:

a rich girl, ...but she rejected him. ...provided she was also smart. ...and he finally found one. ...he kept looking for one.

When the antecedent 'a rich girl' in (54) is intended as specific or indi­ viduated, as in (54a,b), the anaphoric-definite pronoun 'she' is used. In (54a), the antecedent of 'she' is meant as referring; in (54b) it is meant as non-referring. The semantic contrast of referring vs. non-referring is thus shown to be irrelevant to the choice of pronoun. In the same way, in both (54c) and (54d) 'a rich girl' must have not been meant as specific-individuated referent. The indefinite pronoun 'one' is used regardless of reference status. In (54c) 'one' is indeed used as a referring indefinite pronoun, in (54d) as a non-referring pronoun. 5.2.9.3. The pronoun 'one' in definite expressions The pronoun 'one' can also be used in combination with a definite arti­ cle. But such a use automatically projects a referring sense. Thus consider: (55) John was looking for a white horse, a. ...we were all looking for the same one. b. ...he didn't like the one he had, (i) ...he likes this one better. (ii) ...he'll settle for that one.  ...and when he finds one he likes,... As noted earlier above, 'a horse' under the scope of irrealis, as in (55), can be interpreted as non-referring, as in (55c). The use of 'one' in combination with a definite determiner, however, narrows down the possible interpreta­ tion; so that in (55a,b) above 'one' — whether coreferent with the anteced­ ent as in (55a) or not, as in (55b) — must be interpreted as referring to a specific, individual horse. 5.2.10. Semantic reference vs. pragmatic importance Up to now, we have dealt with the reference of noun phrases primarily as a semantic mapping relation, involving the speaker's intent to either refer or not refer to a specific entity in the universe of discourse. Other features of the discourse context were relatively immaterial to this distinction. But

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

231

there are some indications that the grammar of indefinite reference, in Eng­ lish as well as in language in general, is more sensitive to the pragmatics of reference. In this instance, what we mean by 'pragmatics' boils down to the question of whether the referent that is introduced into the discourse, in the case of indefinites for the first time, is going to be important in the sub­ sequent discourse. In other words, we deal here with the cataphoric topical­ ity of the indefinite referent. This pragmatic aspect of reference is easier to demonstrate in informal spoken English, where the unstressed demonstrative 'this' is used — con­ trasting with the indefinite article 'a(n)' — to mark important referents when they enter into the discourse for the first time. As illustration, con­ sider the following letter to Dear Abby, one of the few venues where this colloquial usage can be found in print: 4 (56) "Dear Abby: There's this guy I've been going with for near three years. Well, the problem is that he hits me. He started last year. He has done it only four or five times, but each time it was worse than before. Every time he hits me it was because he thought I was flirting (I wasn't). Last time he accused me of coming on to a friend of his. First he called me a lot of dirty names, then he punched my face so bad it left me with a black eye and black-and-blue bruises over half of my face. It was very noticeable, so I told my folks that the car I was riding in stopped suddenly and my face hit the windshield. Abby, he's 19 and I'm 17, and already I feel like an old married lady who lets her husband push her around. I haven't spoken to him since this happened. He keeps bugging me to give him one more chance. I think I've given him enough chances. Should I keep avoiding him or what? Black and Blue". The following features in the use of the unstressed 'this' vs. 'a(n)' in (56) are striking: (a) The referring-indefinite participant introduced by 'this' recurs through­ out the text and is obviously the most important participant (after T ) . (b) The referring-indefinite participant introduced by 'a(n)' never recurs; his specific identity is obviously incidental to the story. (c) The only other indefinite introduced by 'a(n)' is a non-referring, attributive noun.

232

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

5.3.

DEFINITENESS

5.3.1.

Definite reference and the communicative contract

As noted above, the contrast between 'referring' and 'non-referring' NPs, whether semantic or discourse-pragmatic, involved primarily the speaker's intent. In using the various grammatical devices available to code reference in English, the speaker cues the hearer as to whether the NP is or is not semantically referring, or whether it is going to be pragmatically important in the subsequent discourse. Definiteness also involves the speaker's own mind. But in addition it also involves the speaker's assump­ tions about what goes on in the mind of the hearer. More specifically, defi­ niteness pertains to a certain clause in the communicative contract between speaker and hearer. The clause in the communicative contract that concerns definiteness has to do with the grounds on which the speaker may normatively assume that a referent is mentally accessible or identifiable to the hearer. If the speaker judges that the referent is indeed accessible to the hearer, the refer­ ent (NP) is coded as definite. If not, it is coded as indefinite. 5.3.2.

Grounds for referential accessibility

There are three main grounds on which the speaker may assume that the referent is accessible to the hearer and is thus definite. One may view those grounds as sub-clauses in the communicative contract, specifying the three main sources of definiteness: (a) (b) (c)

The shared current speech situation The culturally-shared universe The shared current discourse

We will discuss them in order. 5.3.3.

Situation-based ('deictic') definites

The communicative contract specifies that entities within the current speech situation are assumed by the speaker to be accessible to the hearer, and can thus be coded as definite. Typical situation-based definites are:

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

233

(57) a. The interlocutors (speaker, hearer): I told you I'd rather we met some other time. b. Demonstratives: This house is taller than that one, but that one over there is tallest. c. Adverbs of time: He is not in now, but he was then and may be later. She came yesterday, and will leave today or tomorrow. d. Adverbs of place: Here but not there. For each one of these situation-based definite expressions, the proximity either to the speaker's location or the time of speech is the basis for finer identification of the referent. In present-day English, the most common organization of situation-based definiteness involves the binary contrast between near the speaker and away from the speaker. This contrast ranks the expressions in (57) as follows, respectively: (58)

near the speaker a. b. . d.

5.3.4.

I, we this, these now here

away from the speaker you, y'all that, those then there

Culturally-based definites

The communicative contract also specifies that some entities are identi­ fiable to all members of the speech community; that is, to all who live in the same physical universe and subscribe to the same cultural world-view. This sub-clause governing shared reference may of course be further restricted to the appropriate sub-culture or sub-group within the speech community, if the speech community is large and complex. Generic, culturally-shared definites may be accessible per se, without resort to other sub-clauses of the communicative contract. Typical examples of these are unique mundane or cultural entities such as:

234

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(59) Generically-shared definites: a. The sun came out all of a sudden b. The president fired his chief-of-staff  They went to the cemetery d. The river didn't thaw that year till May e. So they told me to call the sheriff f. The Gods must be angry Shared cultural knowledge is hierarchically organized in frames and sub-frames; so that smaller sub-frames fit into larger frames, etc. When a particular cultural frame is referred to, automatically the various subframes governed by it are also activated — i.e. become accessible and may be referred to. This gives rise to the most common use of culturally-shared information for reference in discourse —frame-based reference. Under this mixed access system, culturally-shared access to referents interacts with text-based access (see below). Typically, a text-based referent is established first; it then triggers access to a related referent via conventions of framebased definiteness. This mixed system may be illustrated with the following examples: (60) Mixed frame-based definites: a. My boy missed school today, he was late for the bus. b. He showed us this gorgeous house, but the living room was too small.  She went into a restaurant and asked the waiter for the menu. d. He said that his father was ill. In (60a), the text-based referent 'school' presupposes — and thus automat­ ically makes accessible — the frame-based knowledge of the definite refer­ ent 'the bus', even if the bus itself has never been mentioned before. In (60b), the text-based referent 'this gorgeous house' presupposes, and thus automatically makes accessible, the frame-based definite referent 'the liv­ ing room'. In (60c), the text-based referent 'a restaurant' presupposes, and thus automatically makes accessible, both 'the waiter' and 'the menu'. And in (60d) the text-based referent 'he' presupposes, and thus automatically makes accessible, the frame-based definite referent 'his father'. In natural communication, the role of frame-based access to definite reference is as immense as it is ubiquitous.

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

5.3.5.

235

Text-based ('anaphoric') definites

Much of the grammar of definite reference involves the tracking of referents that have been introduced verbally, explicitly, in the preceding— anaphoric — discourse. Once introduced, such referents remain at least potentially 'available' for definite reference. The particular grammatical device used for subsequent definite reference depends on the discourse con­ text of re-introducing (or 're-activating') the referent. In the following sec­ tions we will survey the most common devices used in English to code textbased definite referents. 5.3.5.1. Zero anaphora, anaphoric pronouns, and definite NPs A definite anaphoric referent may be either continuous or discontinu­ ous. For a referent to be continuous usually means that it is already men­ tally activated in the preceding clause. Most typically when a referent is already activated in the preceding clause, it is coded in the current clause by either zero anaphora or an unstressed anaphoric pronoun. Such usage can be seen in (61c,d,e,f,h) below. When, on the other hand, a referent is discontinuous, and is being reinstated after a considerable gap of absence, it is typically coded as a full definite NP, with a definite article, another definite determiner, or some other definite device. Such usage can be seen in (61a,b,g) below: (61) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

.. .After the queen said that, the king went into a royal sulk. He retired into the throne chamber, 0 lay on the floor, 0 quit eating and 0 refused to talk. Finally the queen had had enough, so she gave him a piece of her mind...

5.3.5.2. Stressed vs. unstressed pronouns English pronouns are divided according to three grammatical caseroles:

236

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(62) Pronouns category

subject

object

possessive

1st person SG 2nd person SG 3rd person SG/M 3rd person SG/F 3rd person SG/N 1st person PL 2nd person PL 3rd person PL

I you he she it we you they

me you him her it us you them

my/mine your/yours his her/hers its our/ours your/yours their/their

What the written forms of the pronouns do not reveal is that in fact these are two distinct sets of pronouns — stressed and unstressed. Unstressed ('anaphoric') pronouns, as in (61c,h) above, are used under the following combined conditions: (a) (b)

The referent is continuous; and the identification is unproblematic.

The identically-written stressed ('contrastive') pronouns are used in the context where: (a) (b)

The referent is indeed continuous; but identification is problematic.

To illustrate the difference between the use of unstressed ('anaphoric') and stressed ('contrastive') pronouns, consider: (63) a. Unstressed: Mary told Suzy, then she told Sally. b. Stressed: Mary told Suzy, then SHE told Sally. Two referents in the first ('preceding') clause could be referred to by a pro­ noun — 'Mary' and 'Suzy'. In both (63a) and (63b) the condition of con­ tinuous reference is equally satisfied. But when the unstressed 'she' is used, as in (63a), 'she' could only be interpreted as coreferent with 'Mary', which is the subject of the preceding clause. When the stressed pronoun 'SHE' is used in (63b), it must be coreferent with 'Suzy', which was the object of the preceding clause. The stressed pronoun in (63b) thus affects a switch-ofsubject.

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

237

The tacit assumption associated with the use of stressed pronouns to switch the subject, as in (63b) above, is that subject continuity is the more common norm, whereby referential identification is unproblematic. Switchof-subject is then the counter-norm, whereby referential identification is more problematic. Stressed pronouns are required for subject switch even when the two referents in the preceding clause are well differentiated by gender. Con­ sider, for example: (64) a. Continuing subject: BilI was there, but he left before I could... b. Failed switch-of-subject: Bill and Mary were there, but

left before I...

 Proper switch-of-subject: Bill and Mary were there, but

left before I...

Two separate issues concerning the proper use of pronouns are illustrated in (64). First, the switch from a conjoined-NP subject to a single subject, even when the single referent was a member of that conjoined NP, is con­ sidered a switch-of-subject. Second, to affect a switch-of-subject success­ fully, a stressed pronoun, as in (64c), must be used. An unstressed pro­ noun, as in (64b), is not enough. The use of the two pronoun forms — unstressed for unproblematic subject continuity, stressed for more problematic continuation — is further illustrated in (65), (66). The context is a bit more complex here: (65) Unproblematic continuing subject: Bill came in; he looked real tired. a. He's an actor and works late. b. *HE is an actor and works late. (66) Contrastive continuing subject: Bill came in first; he looked real tired. Mary came in next. a. SHE didn't. b. *She didn't. In (65) above, subject continuity is unproblematic. Only one referent could be the antecedent of 'he', so that the unstressed pronoun is properly used in

238

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(65a), and the stressed pronoun in (65b) is inappropriate. In (66), one refer­ ent is introduced first and then referred to, appropriately, with the unstress­ ed pronoun. The second referent is then introduced, and is then the sole subject. What is more, the two referents are fully differentiated by gen­ der, so that the use of the unstressed pronoun 'she' in (66b) ought to suf­ fice. Nevertheless, (66b) is an odd use; and (66a), with the stressed pro­ noun, is preferable. What is most likely involved in (66) is thematic contrast. While 'Mary' is indeed the continuing subject, the context directly preceding her entry into the discourse had another active subject referent, 'Bill'. Further, a thematic parallel is evident in discussing the same predication — 'be tired' — involving both 'Bill' and 'Mary'. This is enough to suggest that the two referents are indeed in contrast. And only the stressed — contrastive — pronoun, as in (66b), can be used appropriately. Similar contrasts may be seen in contexts when one of the participants was the subject of the preceding clause, the other its object. Thus consider: (67) Mary brought Bill over and we talked. a. I gave

the book, she thanked me and they left.

b. I gave

the book, he thanked me and they left.

 To

I gave a book; to

I gave nothing.

The introductory context in (67) makes either 'Mary' or 'Bill' potentially of equal active-topic status. The continuation in either (67a) or (67b) resolves the potential conflict in favor of just one of them. With no contrast, only the unstressed pronoun is used appropriately. In (67c), the two referents are pitted against each other. A special contrastive construction is then used, whereby the object is fronted. And now only a stressed pronoun can be used. 5 5.3.5.3. Demonstratives and text-based definite reference As noted earlier above, demonstrative determiners are typically used to mark situation-based definite referents. But the very same demonstra­ tives are also used to mark text-based definite referents. Consider first the contrast between the use of 'that' and 'this' in the following passage:

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

239

(68) a. Preceding context: ...And so she went and did all of it in one day, and it sure took some doing, she worked as hard as she ever had in her life. But she got it done, all of it. b. Definite reference with 'that': And that's what really happened, if you want to know. c. Definite reference with 'this': Now, this is what she did afterwards... Both 'that' in (68b) and 'this' in (68c) refer to large chunks of text: 'That' refers to such a text-chunk backward, i.e. anaphorically. 'This' refers to such a chunk forward, i.e. cataphorically. Presumably, the anaphoric refer­ ence with 'that' points to a text-chunk that has already been stored in mem­ ory. While the cataphoric reference with 'this' points to a text-chunk that is yet to be delivered. A somewhat similar contrast is made in the following conventionalized newsroom formula: (69) ...And that was the news, Wednesday, January 19th. This is Walter Cronkite, bidding you goodnight... Here the distal demonstrative 'that' refers backward to a chunk of text, while the proximate 'this' is used very much in its capacity of situation-based reference, to point to the speaker himself. The use of both 'this'/'these' and 'that'/'those' can involve references to contrasting chunks of the preceding — anaphoric — text. The subtlety of such reference is not always easy to explain. As illustration, consider the following two passages from Jespersen (1938): (70) "...It is only when we compare the entire linguistic struc­ ture of some remote period with the structure in modern times that we observe that the gain in clearness and simplicity has really been enormous. This grammatical development and simplification has taken place not suddenly and from one cause, but gradu­ ally and from a variety of causes, most of these the same that have worked and are working similar changes in other languages..." (1938, p. 169)

240

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(71 ) "... Chief among the general causes of the decay of the Old English apparatus of declensions and conjugations must be reckoned the manifold incongruities of the system: If the same vowel did not everywhere denote the same shade of meaning, speakers would naturally tend to indulge in the universal inclination to pronounce weak syllables indistinctly... But beside this general cause we must in each separate case inquire into those special causes that may have been at work..." (1938, pp. 169-170) In (70), both proximate demonstratives 'this' and 'these' refer backwards— anaphorically — to different chunks of the preceding text. The singularplural contrast, of course, makes the identification of the different referents that much easier. In (71), the proximate 'this' indeed refers backwards, and to a relatively well-defined chunk of the preceding text. The distal demonstrative 'those', on the other hand, refers to a chunk of text that is not yet clearly defined. The issues may have indeed been raised in the pre­ ceding discourse, and in that sense the referent of 'those' is anaphoric. But, given that the referent is yet to be fully defined, one may argue that it is less accessible. The original spatial use of the demonstratives is in a sense being extended in examples such as (70) and (71), but with the original configura­ tion seemingly preserved: 6 (72) 'this'/'these' = 'near' = = > more accessible 'that'/'those' = 'far' = = > less accessible 5.3.5.4. Names and text-based definite reference An important grammatical device used in text-based definite reference are names ('proper nouns'). A name is used to mark an important referent, one that is not only locally important at a particular point in the text, but globally important for the entire current discourse. For the purpose of using names, one's personal life is considered 'a current discourse' that just hap­ pens to last one's lifetime. In going along with the convention of reference by name, one tacitly agrees to have access to the identity of the named referent at any point during the current text. Most commonly, names are given to unique important persons, locations, or temporal entities. Typical names of this type are:

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

(73)

name a. b. . d. .

referent type

Dorian Grey George Washington John Lima, Perú The Civil War

person person person location time

241

current text a novel US history one's life world geography US history

Some names require a complex referential access. For their referent to be defined uniquely, it must be relationally anchored. Such anchoring depends heavily on generic, culturally-shared, conventional knowledge. Typical examples are: (74)

name

text

a. Mom, Dad

one's life

b. home

one's life

 Tuesday

each week

d. January

each year

e. Christmas

each year

convention a person has only one Mom and Dad a person has only one home at a time each week has only one Tuesday each year has only one January each year has only one Christmas

In discourse, names are used in the same contexts where otherwise a full definite NP would have been used; that is, to introduce or re-introduce a participant into the discourse after a considerable gap of absence. How­ ever, while the access to full definite NPs in memory-stored (anaphoric) text is relatively local, names do not depend for their identification on prior mention in the local anaphoric context. Rather, once established, they are globally accessible for the duration of the current text. The difference in referent accessibility between relationally-anchored (74) and non-relational (73) names is roughly as follows: A non-relational — simple — name must be first established in the text. Once established, it is accessible for the duration of the text. A relationally-anchored name is accessible once its anchor is made accessible. To illustrate the difference, consider:

242

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(75) a. Dad was born in 1913. b. Mary was born in 1913.  Mary's dad was born in 1913. The anchor of 'Dad' in (75a) is the speaker ( T ) , accessible from the shared speech situation. 'Dad' is automatically accessible by the situational accessi­ bility of T , coupled with the culturally-shared convention of 'fatherhood'. For 'Mary' to be accessible in (75b), on the other hand, she must be first introduced in the preceding text. Finally, in (75c) 'Mary' is accessible by virtue of having been introduced in the prior text, while 'dad' is accessible by virtue of Mary's accessibility, coupled with the culturally-shared conven­ tion of 'fatherhood'. 5.4.

GENERIC SUBJECTS, DEFINITENESS A N D REFERENCE

Generic noun phrases refer to the type, species or genus, rather than to a particular individual (or a group). In that sense, logicians have tended to consider them a sub-type of non-referring nouns. In English, generic NPs typically appear in four distinct grammatical forms, at least when occupying the subject position in the clause: (76) a. Definite: The lion is a dangerous feline. b. Plural: Lions are dangerous.  Quantified plural: All lions are dangerous. Many lions are dangerous. Some lions are dangerous. d. Indefinite: A lion is a dangerous feline. There are grounds for suspecting that, from a discourse-pragmatic perspective, generic subjects such as those in (76) are just as 'referring' as any other subject NP. Thus, for example, both singular subjects in (76a) and (76d) may be referred to in subsequent discourse with the anaphoric pronoun 'it' or zero, as in (77a) below. Further, both plural subjects in (76b) and (76c) may be referred to likewise by the anaphoric pronoun 'they' or zero, as in (77b): (77) a.

is a dangerous feline. It lives in the open veld in Africa, 0 hunts animals, and sometimes 0 attacks people.

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

243

b. (All) lions are dangerous; they live in the open veld in Africa, 0 hunt animals, and sometimes 0 attack people. While not referring to individual tokens within the universe of tokens, generic subjects seem to refer to types — within the universe of types. This is a relatively superficial distinction; once one adjusts the universe within which reference takes place, generic subjects seem to refer in very much the same way as other subjects do. What is more, the grammar of referential coherence in discourse seems to treat generic subjects as normal referring expressions, regardless of their seemingly peculiar logical status. Non-referring objects, on the other hand, show a three-way contrast in terms of their reference status. Two of these we have already seen in sec­ tion 5.2. above — reference to a token and non-reference. The third possi­ bility is reference to a type, much like generic subjects. Thus contrast: (78) a. Token reference: He tried to trap a Hon that killed two of his cows. b. Non-reference: He wanted to trap a lion to mount as a trophy. c. Generic: He thought about The Lion, and how majestic it was. Unlike generic subjects, generic objects can be coded by only two of the four forms that coded generic subjects. Thus compare: (79) a. Definite: He thought about The Lion, and how majestic it was. b. Plural. He thought about lions, and how majestic they were. c. Quantified plural:7 *He thought about all lions, and how majestic they were. d. Indefinite: *He thought about a lion, and how majestic it was. Sentence (79d) may be grammatical, but only under a referring interpreta­ tion.

244

5.5.

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

DEFINITENESS, REFERENCE AND TEXT PROCESSING: A COGNITIVE OVERVIEW

One may view nominal referents, coded as subjects or objects of clauses, as the file labels attached to the storage units of text-memory ('episodic memory'). Each storage unit is something like a clause chain or paragraph through which the same topical referent persists. That persistent topic is the important topic of the chain. It tends to participate — as subject or object — in most of the clauses in the chain, most commonly as subject. In text-memory, a number of clauses in sequence constitute a chain, a number of chains in sequence make up a paragraph, a number of para­ graphs make up an episode, etc. The structure of text-memory is thus both sequential and hierarchic. Within this hierarchic structure, each chain can be viewed as a text-node. Incoming information, packaged in successive clauses, can be filed only under one node at a time. In other words, only one node — or its file-label — can be active at any given time. Activat­ ing a referent thus means activating a text-node; that is, filing all sub­ sequent incoming information under the text-node labeled by the referent. The various devices that partake in the grammar of reference and definiteness — i.e. in the grammar of referential coherence — may be thus view­ ed as processing cues that guide the text-interpreter in performing various mental operations, in particular those involving attentional activation and memory searches. The main grammar-cued mental operations relevant to referential coherence may be given as follows: (80) Main grammar-cued mental operations: (a) Retain the activation of the currently-active textnode (and its file-label). (b) Terminate the activation of the currently-active textnode (and its file-label). (c) Activate a currently-inactive new text-node (and its file-label). (d) Search in text-memory to identify a referent that has been stored there previously. (e) Retrieve a previously-stored referent from textmemory and attach it as file-label of a newly-acti­ vated text-node. The relation between the main grammatical operators responsible for marking referential coherence, and these major mental operations, is sum­ marized in chart (81) below. 8

245

REFERENCE AND DEFINITENESS

(81) Major grammar-coded cognitive operations in the grammar of referential coherence: [REFERENT]

~~[M]

[U] CONTINUE CURRENT ACTIVATION [anaphoric PRO] [zero anaphora]

DEFER DECISION ON ACTIVATION [full-NP] [stressed PRO] [name]

~------------

[M]

[U]

IMPORTANT: TERMINATE CURRENT ACTIVATION [articles] [word -order] [SUBJ, DO]

UNIMPORTANT: CONTINUE CURRENT ACTIVATION

------- ---------

[M]

SEARCH FOR AN EXISTING REFERENT [definite]

[U] DON'T SEARCH FOR EXISTING REFERENT [indefinite]

~

~

SEARCH EXISTING - - _ a - ATTACH NEW REFERENT TO MENTAL STRUCTURE; NEW TEXT-NODE RETRIEVE REFERENT ACTIVATE NEW TEXT-NODE

[U] = unmarked [M] = marked

246

ENGLISH G R A M M A R

NOTES 1) See in particular chapter 8 (de-transitive voice), chapter 9 (relative clauses), chapter 10 (contrastive focus), chapter 11 (marked topic constructions), and chapter 13 (interclausal con­ nection). 2) Representative exponents of this view are Russell (1905) and Carnap (1959), inter alia. 3) This continuum is of course another indication that the discrete distinction of 'objective reference" vs. "lack of objective reference" is incapable of characterizing reference in natural language, where referential intent seems to be involved. 4) By most accounts, this usage penetrated American English sometime after World War II. For a quantified text-based study of the contrast between 'a' and 'this' as indefinite articles, see Wright and Givón (1987). 5) For this and other contrastive devices, see Chapter 10. 6) To the extent, however, that the referent of 'those' in (71) depends for its final clarifica­ tion on yet to come discourse, its use has some quality of forward — cataphoric — reference. 7) John Haiman (in personal communication) suggests that sentences like: Mary loves (most) lions. I despise (all) drug addicts Arc counter-examples here. 8) Many other grammatical devices that partake in the grammar of referential coherence will be discussed in subsequent chapters. For more details of this cognitive overview, see Givón (1990, chapter 20).

6

NOUN PHRASES

6.1.

NOUNS AND MODIFIERS

We have seen how noun phrases of different types occupy the charac­ teristic syntactic positions — and case-roles — of nouns. These syntactic positions are most typically those of subject, direct object, indirect object and nominal predicate. If a noun, a name or pronoun can occur in such a position, chances are a larger noun phrase (NP) can also occur. Pronouns and names make up the smallest noun phrases, since they typically come by themselves, with neither determiners nor any other mod­ ifiers. This is so because modifiers function, in various ways, to restrict the domain of possible reference of a noun; and both pronouns and names refer to unique entities that require no further specification. A noun phrase that is neither a name nor a pronoun is then made out of an obligatory head noun plus, optionally, some modifier(s).1 In the grammar of noun phrases, modifiers perform a variety of com­ municative functions, and are accorded, correspondingly, a variety of syn­ tactic treatments. The range of functions performed by the various types of modifiers include: (a) (b)

(c)

Lexical-semantics: the creation of new lexical items. Phrasal-semantics: various operators, such as plurals, case-role markers and some quantifiers, that take under their scope the entire noun phrase. Discourse-pragmatics: various operators, such as determiners and adjectives, that are involved in the grammar of referential coherence in discourse.

Many — perhaps most — modifiers perform more than one of these func­ tions. The head noun is the core of the noun phrase — it determines its lexi­ cal-semantic type. 2 Modifiers may indeed add various types of information

248

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

to the head noun, but typically do not change its inherent lexical type. The central role of the head noun in the noun phrase may be expressed by the following rule of semantic amalgamation of the noun phrase: (1)

The NP semantic amalgamation principle: "Whatever semantic features belong to the head noun also belong to the entire noun phrase".

The utility of principle (1) will become apparent when we examine the var­ ious grammatical means by which the noun phrases are structurally unified, or 'made to look like a noun'.

6.2.

ORDERING OF ELEMENTS WITHIN THE NOUN PHRASE

6.2.1.

Preliminaries

English exhibits a fairly rigid order of elements within the noun phrase. Some modifiers can only precede the noun; we call those pre-nominal mod­ ifiers. Others can only follow the head noun; we call those post-nominal modifiers. Further, modifiers either in front or behind the noun are rigidly ordered relative to each other. In order to express these constraints as an explicit rule, one must first give the more general division of NP types into pronouns, names and noun-based NPs: (2)

Types of noun phrases: NP =

Rule (2) states that an English noun phrase can be either a pronoun (PRO), a name (NAME) or a full noun phrase (NP!). The general rule that orders the various optional modifiers relative to the head noun as well as vis-a-vis each other may now be given as: (3)

Rigid order within the NP: NP! = (QUANT) (DET) (AP) (Ν*) N (PL)

Rule (3) states that modifiers that precede the head noun are, in order, quantifiers (QUANT), determiners (DET), adjectival phrases (AP) or modifying nouns (N). Modifiers that follow the head noun are the plural marker (PL), relative clauses (REL), possessor noun phrases (POSS-NP)

NOUN PHRASES

249

or noun complements (N-COMP). The parentheses ( ) around a constituent in rule (3) indicate that it is optional. The curly brackets {} enclosing a col­ umn of two or more constituents indicate that only one of the bracketed elements may occupy the designated position. In this particular case, this disjunction rule is not absolute in English, where at least in principle more than one post-nominal modifier may occur in the same noun phrase, and at least in principle two post-nominal modifiers may be of different types. 3 The most common violation of this rule involves multiple relative clauses (REL*). The asterisk thus stands for a recursion option, as it also does in the case of modifying nouns (N*). 6.2.2. Pre-nominal modifiers 6.2.2.1. Quantifiers Quantifiers (QUANT) appear in English in two distinct positions pre­ ceding the noun, first as partitive definite quantifiers, and second as indefi­ nite quantifiers-determiners. We will discuss the two in order, then note briefly a third situation, where quantifiers appear in positions outside the noun phrase. 6.2.2.1.1. Partitive definite quantifiers The partitive quantifier is followed by the possessive 'of' and by a defi­ nite determiner, as in: (4)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

some of the people all of that nonsense none of my friends any of those people most of this work lots of their suggestions one of the men two of the men a number of these books

An indefinite head noun, whether referring or non-referring, is incompati­ ble with these partitive quantifiers, as is evident from the unacceptability of: (5)

a. b. c. d.

*none of a man *several of some friends *all of women *lots of any cows

250

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

One quantifier, 'only', cannot appear with the possessive marker 'of'. Another, 'all', may appear either with or without 'of'. Thus consider: (6)

a. b.  d.

only the woman *only of the woman all the men all of the women

6.2.2.1.2. Indefinite quantifiers-determiners The indefinite quantifiers appear with neither 'of' nor a determiner. These quantifiers in fact occupy the determiner (DET) slot in the noun phrase, and some of them — when de-stressed — indeed function as indefi­ nite determiners.4 Quantifiers in this group are, typically: (7)

a. b.  d. e. f.

some women one man two men another day only men all soldiers g· many flowers h. every person i. much unhappiness J. little luck k. a little help 1. any suggestion m . no response

English numerals can appear in both quantifier slots: As definite partitive quantifiers (4g,h), and as indefinite quantifiers-determiners (7b,c). One quantifier that is superficially in this group, 'only' (7e), turns out not to be an indefinite quantifier by itself, but can combine with an indefi­ nite noun. When that indefinite noun is referring, an indefinite determiner/ article must be used, as in (8a,b) below. When the indefinite is non-refer­ ring or generic, no article is needed, as in (7e) and (8c,d): (8)

a. b.  d.

Only some children came Only an old man was there Only children came Only old men were there

NOUN PHRASES

251

Finally, the quantifier 'all' is also problematic. Unless used with a defi­ nite determiner (see (4), (6) above), it is inherently generic, or non-refer­ ring. Thus compare: (9)

a. Generic subject: All humans are created mortal. b. Referring indefinite subject: *A11 some humans are mortal.  Generic object: She loves all men. d. Referring indefinite object: *She loves all some men.

6.2.2.1.3. Quantifier scope 6.2.2.1.3.1. Quantifier scope within the clause A small group of quantifiers in English, most conspicuously 'only', 'even' and 'just', seem to exhibit a relatively free position within the clause. These quantifiers are invariably contrastive. That is, in one way or another they are used in contexts where the speaker goes against what he/she assumes to be the hearer's expectations. We will illustrate this phenomenon with 'only'. Consider the following six placement variants in (10), with the stress indicated by italics: (10) a. Only she could have said this (> but not anybody else) b. She only could have said this (> but not anybody else) c. She only could have said this (> but in fact she didn't) d. *She could only have said this e. *She could only have said this f. She could have only said this (> but not really meant it) g. She could have said only this (> rather than something else) h. She could have said this only (> rather than something else) With the proper intonation, in particular the placement of contrastive stress, most of the patterns (10a-h) can be made both grammatical and

252

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

meaningful in spoken English. The only consistent restriction seems to be against the auxiliary 'have' (10e). 5 However, of all possible positions of 'only' in (10), only the ones directly adjacent to the stressed subject or object — (10a,b) and (10g,h), respectively — can be interpreted as quantifiers within the NP. In the other cases — (10c,f) — the restricting contrastive scope of 'only' falls on elements that are outside the subject or object NP. A quantifier could also be totally non-adjacent to the NP it quantifies and still belong to it in terms of semantic scope. In such cases, it seems that a quantifier of the object can 'float' toward the subject NP, but not vice versa. That is: (11) a. She only could have said this (> rather than something else) b. *She could have said only this. (*> rather than someone else saying it) The contrastive nature of 'only' helps explain its interaction with stress: The contrast here pertains to the numerical scope of the referent NP: The speaker assumes that the hearer expects that scope to be wider, and to counter such expectations, the speaker is limiting that scope. To demonstrate the close interaction between the interpretation of 'only' and the placement of contrastive stress, consider again (10a) above. When the stress is placed on any constituent other than 'she' — or when no stress is placed on 'she' — the clause-initial placement of 'only' seems infelicitous:6 (12) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Only she could have said this. *Only she could have said this. *Only she could have said this *Only she could have said this *Only she could have said this *Only she could have said this

A similar case is found with (10b); although as noted in (11) above, the 'floating' of the object's quantifier toward the subject NP is permissible: (13) a. b. c. d. e.

She only could have said this ?She only could have said this *She only could have said this ?She only could have said this She only could have said this

The scope of 'only' in (13) is again completely determined by stress place-

NOUN PHRASES

253

ment. But here both elements preceding and following 'only' can attract that scope. What is more, with the proper intonation, it seems that the final element in the clause, an object NP, can also be stressed, and thus attract the contrastive scope of 'only'. Mere adjacency, it seems, is not an absolute requirement. Finally, when two elements in a clause with 'only1 are stressed, only one of them is under the scope of 'only': (14) a. She could have only said this ( > 'it is possible that she only said it but didn't really mean it') b. She could have only said this (> 'it is possible that she said only this but nothing else) In attempting to summarize the various constraints on the placement of 'only', the use of contrastive stress and the semantic scope of the quantifier, one must admit the relevance of at least the following factors: (15) Factors affecting contrastive quantifiers: a. Stress: Only a stressed element can come under the contras­ tive scope of 'only'. b. Adjacency: All other things being equal, some effect of adja­ cency can be observed, most strongly at the two extreme positions of subject and object.  Left-right: A weak preference can be observed for the scope of 'only' to fall on the element to its right (suc­ ceeding) rather than on the one to its left (pre­ ceding). d. Object over subject: An object-scope quantifier seems to be easier to 'float' toward the subject NP than vice versa. e. Morphemic status: Lexical morphemes are more likely to take contrastive stress than grammatical morphemes. A suggestion implicit in the rather restricted case of 'floated' quantifier (cf. (11a), (15d)) is that such a quantifier originally 'belonged to' or 'started in' the object NP and somehow 'got displaced' and wound up in the subject NP.

254

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

It is worth noting, finally, that the 'floating' of 'only' from a post-ver­ bal element toward a more forward position in the clause is not limited to direct objects, but may involve other post-verbal phrases. This may be illus­ trated with optional manner adverbs, as in: (16) a. b. . d. e. f.

She only could have said this aloud. She could only have said this aloud. She could have only said this aloud. *She could have said only this aloud. She could have said this only aloud. ?She could have said this aloud only

It seems that the only competition for 'only' that the adverb suffers is when 'only' is placed directly before the object (16d). 6.2.2.1.3.2. Quantifier scope within the noun phrase So far, we have considered the scope — and even 'floating' — of con­ trastive quantifiers within the entire clause. Within the noun phrase itself, the position of contrastive quantifiers is rigidly constrained, so that their contrastive scope — if variable — is determined by the placement of con­ trastive stress. As illustrations, consider: (17) a. Only the red book on the floor [got wet] (> but not the blue one) b. Only the red book on the floor [got wet] (> but not the red pad) . Only the red book on the floor [got wet] (> but not the red one on the couch) 6.2.2.1.3.3. The scope of 'only' in the written register So far, our discussion of the displaced 'only' has pertained primarily to spoken English. The situation is a bit more complex in the written register, where contrastive stress — though in principle reproducible via italics or bold-facing — is often left unmarked. This is indeed one consequence of having a written medium, where many intonational clues that are systemat­ ic and vital in oral communication tend to be left out. In this context, more conservative guardians of our linguistic tradition often inveigh against placing 'only' anywhere except adjacent to — and in fact preceding — the contrasted element. As an example of typical editorial wrath on this thorny subject, consider (18) through (22) below. We give both the cited offensive

NOUN PHRASES

255

passage and their designated correct alternative. In the offending original passage, we supply the stress that would have rendered the usage unam­ biguous in the spoken version:7 (18) Cited:

"...has only been carried live every day by CNN and NBC..." Corrected: "...has been carried live every day only by CNN and NBC..."

(19) Cited:

"...said they would only accept payroll checks from Eastern Airlines..." Corrected: "...would accept only payroll checks from Eastern Airlines..." (20) Cited: "...Sabatini only held her own service once..." Corrected: "...Sabatini held her own service only once..." (21) Cited:

"...The Kremlin so far only seems to be stoking the popular spirit..." Corrected: "...So far the Kremlin seems only to be stoking..."

(22) Cited:

"...that force should only be used to liberate Kuwait and not to destroy Iraq..." Corrected: "...that force should be used only to liberate Kuwait..."

There are two things to be noted in these examples. First, in the absence of marked stress in the written text, positioning of 'only' directly before the intended contrastive constituent (cf. (15c)) indeed achieves unambiguous interpretation. And second, in many of these examples, knowledge of the subject matter and/or common sense would have rescued an unambiguous interpretation of the intended contrast. The most conspicuous case is of course (22), where the alternative assumption "destroy Iraq", is supplied overtly in the text. 6.2.2.2. Determiners We have already dealt, in chapter 5, with English determiners and their use in the grammar of referential coherence. These determiners include the definite article 'the'; the demonstratives 'this', 'that', 'these', 'those'; the indefinite articles 'a(n)', 'some', and the unstressed 'this' and 'these' (for informal spoken English only); and the non-referring articles 'any' and 'no'. In addition, pre-nominal possessive modifiers, either pro­ nouns or full NPs, also function as determiners. This is true in two respects:

256

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

First, possessives occupy the same slot as other determiners in the NP. And second, they are used as part of the grammar of referential coherence. Examples of the various types of determiners are: (23) a. Definite article: b. Demonstrative:

the woman that horse this child a girl  Indefinite article: some children d. Non-referring article: any milk no trouble e. Possessive determiners : my boy John's work the woman's son

The best evidence that all these determiners belong to the same syntactic class is the fact that only one of them at a time can occupy the determiner slot. Thus consider: (24) a. b.  d. e. f.

the my house *my some children *the that house *this her room *his that book *no a solution

6.2.2.3. Adjectives The adjective phrase (AP) follows the determiner but precedes the noun in English. It may involve more than one adjective, as well as a mod­ ifying adverb. The rule for an expanded AP slot may be given as: (25) Adjective phrase (AP): AP = (ADV) (ADJ*) ADJ The optional constituent (ADJ*) signifies that more than one adjective can appear in the adjectival phrase. When this option is exercised, the order of the adjectives preceding the head noun is often rigid, although rigidity may interact with the use of stress on one of the adjectives. To illustrate this rigidity, consider first:

NOUN PHRASES

257

(26) a. a big red ball ?a red big ball b. a tiny little mouse ?a little tiny mouse c. a large African elephant *an African large elephant d. a disgusting new rule ?a new disgusting rule The considerations that govern the rigid order of modifying adjectives in English are complex, involving the following factors (following Gruber, 1967b): (27) Relative order of adjectives: "An adjective will be placed closer to the noun stem if it is: (a) more central to the meaning of the noun; (b) a more inherent, durable quality of the noun; (c) more generic (rather than specific) information; (d) more given (rather than new) information; (e) a non-restrictive (rather than restrictive) modifier". The generalizations in (27) can be illustrated by the following exam­ ples:8 (28) Centrality to the noun meaning: a. A large national monument b. ?A national large monument It is more cogent to say that national monuments come in various sizes, and less cogent to say that large monuments come for different purposes. Consider next: (29) Inherent/durable quality: a. A large African elephant b. ?An African large elephant The concept of 'African elephant' is somehow more inherent as a unitary concept than the concept 'large elephant'. It is thus more cogent to say that African elephants come in various sizes, and less cogent to say that large elephants come from different places. Consider next:

258

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(30) Generic information: a. A dumb four-legged animal b. ?A four-legged dumb animal The concept 'four-legged animal' is somehow more of a generic entity than the concept 'dumb animal'. It is thus more cogent to say that four-legged animals may vary in the level of their intelligence than to say that dumb ani­ mals may exhibit varying numbers of legs. Consider next: (31 ) Given information : a. A trained miniature dachshund b. ?A miniature trained dachshund The concept 'miniature dachshund', in fact the name of a breed, is some­ how more likely to be a unitary piece of given information than 'trained dachshund'. So that it is more cogent to say that miniature dachshunds may vary in their degree of training than to say that trained dachshunds may vary in their size. The final example involves one adjective and one modifying noun that has joined with the head noun to form a noun compound: (32) Non-restrictive : A good bird-dog *A bird good dog The stress pattern on such compounds — lexical stress on 'bird1, with 'dog1 going unstressed9 — already suggests that the modifying noun is not an independent modifier, but is rather fused with the head noun to form a uni­ tary concept. Such modifying nouns are discussed directly below. 6.2.2.4. Compounding: Nouns as modifiers The last modifier slot preceding the head noun is that of modifying nouns. A noun — or several nouns — may be used in English to modify a head noun. Such a construction quite often yields a noun compound; that is, over time the modifier and head become fused or co-lexicalized, forming a new lexical noun. As illustrations of this pattern as a syntactic modifier pattern, consider: (33) Non-compound noun modifiers: a. the Panama invasion surprise decision b. the federal bank inspection fiasco c. the university president selection committee

NOUN PHRASES

259

In examples (33), each modifying noun carries its own primary lexical stress, and thus retains its independence as a lexical word. But a noun and its modifying noun may also fuse to yield a unitary noun compound, as in:10 (34) Compound noun-noun constructions: a. bird-house ("a house where birds live") b. shoe-polish ("gooey stuff with which one polishes shoes")  riding-horse ("horse on which one rides11) d. buffalo-gun ("a gun used to shoot buffalo1') e. wheat-field ("a field where one grows wheat") f. apple-core ("the core inside the apple") mailman ("a person who delivers the mail") g· Noun-noun compounds in English have a characteristic stress pattern: The primary word-stress is invariably placed on the first noun in the compound. That is: (35) a. b. c. d.

BIRD-house *bird-HOUSE MAIL-man *mail-MAN

Compounds are not formed only with modifying nouns, but also with modifying adjectives. In such cases, the characteristic compound stress-pat­ tern tells the difference between a compounding and a modifying use of the adjective: (36) a. b.  d. e. f.

a black bird (= any bird that is black) a black-bird (= a species of birds)11 a long house (=any house that is long) a long-house (=a special house-type) 12 a white house (=a house that is white) the White House (=the President's residence)

Once an adjective is placed in a compound, the meaning of the com­ bined NP is not always the predictable sum of its parts. That is, having become a fused lexical item, the meaning of the whole may change gradu­ ally as a single word. As can be seen from example (32) above, modifying nouns — whether in compounds or not — cannot be separated from the head noun by an adjective. That is, they must be placed closest to the head noun. This

260

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

is a reflection of their coding, typically, more inherent, generic, durable qualities of the head noun. Further examples of this ordering constraint are: (37) a. Noun compound: a large bird-house *a bird large house b. Modifying noun: a white shingle roof *a shingle white roof c. Compounding adjective: a small black-board *a black small board a beautiful long-house *a long beautiful house These ordering constraints most likely reflect our general rule (27). The fact that nouns so often form compounds with the head noun is a direct con­ sequence of two factors: (a) (b)

Nouns tend to code more inherent meanings; and nouns tend to be placed next to the head noun.

Noun-noun compounds can also arise from nominalized verb phrases.13 Such a process commonly yields either action nouns or an actor noun, as in: (38) Action nouns: Compound a. b. . d. .

garbage-disposal trout-fishing fly-fishing deer-hunting bow-&-arrow-season

f. mail-delivery g· home-delivery h. crop-dusting i. floor-dusting

source verb phrase ('disposing of garbage') ('fishing (for) trout') ('fishing with a fly') ('hunting deer') ('season for hunting with bow-and-arrow') ('delivering the mail') ('delivering to one's home') ('spreading dust on the crops') ('removing dust from the floor')

NOUN PHRASES

(39) Actor/agent noun: compound a. b. c. d.

beaver-trapper garbage-collector winter-trapper noise-maker

261

source verb phrase ('he traps beavers1) ('he collects the garbage') ('he traps in the winter') ('he/it makes noise')

As one may have noticed, the compound order in (38) and (39) places the object, adverb or instrument in front of the verb, i.e. in an OV order, while in the source verb phrase the normal VO order of English is observed. The OV order in nominalized VPs in English is indeed an old pattern that harkens back to Anglo-Saxon (Old English), in which OV was the dominant order in the verb phrase. Sometime after the language changed to the VO order, in the Middle English period, an attempt seems to have been made to bring new nominalized-VP compounds in line with the new VO order. The process never became dominant, and the few VO com­ pounds that survive to this day are either archaic or got fused into personal names. Some examples of those are: (40) tell-tale cut-throat scoff-law turn-coat turn-stile spend-thrift hear-say Catch-pole Gather-cole Shake-speare

(something that tells a tale) (one who cuts throats) (one who scoffs at the law) (one who turned his coat) (a gate where one turns a stile) (one who spends one's savings) (something that one hears someone say) (one who gathers taxes) (one who gathers charcoal) (one who wields a spear)

More recently, a few VO compounds seem to have entered the language, as in: (41) a. He's a take-charge kind of a guy b. She's a do-gooder  a carry-all bag 6.2.2.5. Adverbs within the Adjectival Phrase As suggested in rule (25) above, an adjective phrase (AP) may include a manner adverb. Such adverbs act like quantifiers of the extent of the qual­ ity coded by the adjective. Typical adverbs in this slot are 'very', 'not very',

262

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

less than', 'really', 'rather', 'unusually', 'incredibly', 'unbelievably' and others. As illustrations, consider: (42) a. b.  d. e. f. g. h.

a very big house a rather large audience a not very beautiful garden a really fine performance a less than candid response an unusually high rate an incredibly tall man an unbelievably ugly picture

Some adverbs, such as 'too', seem to be more appropriate as modifiers of predicate adjectives than of modifying adjectives, although an alterna­ tive order seems to accommodate them. Thus compare: (43) a. The lecture was too long b. ?a too long lecture c. The task was too hard d. ?a too hard task e. a task too hard f. The bridge is too far g. ?a too far bridge h. a bridge too far Adverbs that modify modifying adjectives in the noun phrase often arise through nominalizations of full clauses, within which the verb was modified by an adverb. Some examples of such constructions are: 14 (44)

nominalized NP a. b. c. d.

6.2.3.

a properly dressed lady a vastly exaggerated satire a largely neglected area the rapidly draining pool

full clause The The The The

lady dressed properly satire was vastly exaggerated area was largely neglected pool drained rapidly

Post-nominal modifiers

Post-nominal modifiers in English are large in size, phrasal rather than single words. Further, they tend to bear a systematic syntactic or semantic relation to full verbal clauses. The syntactic aspect of that relation is most obvious with relative clauses, less obvious with noun complements,

NOUN PHRASES

263

and is purely semantic with possessive phrases. We will deal with the three types in order. 6.2.3.1. Relative clauses The grammar and function of relative clauses will be discussed in con­ siderable detail in chapter 9. Some examples of relative clauses occupying the post-nominal modifier position are: (45) a. The man who came to dinner ( > A man came to dinner) b. The woman I met yesterday (> I met a woman yesterday)  The boy she gave the book to (> She gave the book to some boy) d. The boy sitting there (> A boy is sitting there) e. The fiddler on the roof (> A fiddler is on the roof) 6.2.3.2.

Noun complements

Noun complements, and their connection to nominalization, are dis­ cussed in more detail in section 6.6.3., further below. Some examples of noun complements in the post-nominal modifier position are: (46) a. the suggestion that we quit (> Someone suggested that we quit) b. her periodic attempts to find a job (> She periodically attempted to find a job)  knowing what went on there (> Someone knew what went on there) d. her mastery of algebra (> She mastered algebra) e. working in a factory (> Someone works in a factory) f. his retreat into solitude ( > He retreated into solitude) As is fairly transparent, these post-nominal modifiers are either verbal com­ plements or objects of full clauses. When the full clause is nominalized — i.e. made into a noun phrase —whatever followed the verb now follows the

264

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

de-verbal head noun as its noun complement. 6.2.3.3. Possessive phrases Post-nominal possessive modifiers have the form of a prepositional phrase (PP), marked with the preposition 'of. While semantically some­ time related to a full proposition, the possession relation is constrained neither semantically nor syntactically. Some possessive modifiers indeed involve possession, but almost any other relation between two NPs can be coded, under the appropriate circumstances, as an "NP of NP" construction. Indeed, the possessive or genitive grammatical case-role typically codes a grab-bag of relations. Some examples are: (47) a. a bottle of wine ( > The bottle is full of wine) b. parts of his body ( > His body has various parts)  a house of ill repute (> The house has a bad reputation) d. the headquarters of the oil company (> The oil company has its headquarters there) e. her knowledge of mathematics (> She knew mathematics) 15 f. the march of time (> Time marched) g. the dogs of war (> The dogs' behavior resembled that of soldiers) h. the University of Oregon (> The university is funded by the state of Oregon) i. the President of the US (> He presides over the United States) j . the balance of payments (> incoming payments balance against outgoing ones) k. a bouquet of roses (> The bouquet is made of roses) 6.2.3.4. Pseudo-possessives: Complex locatives Occasionally, what was historically a possessive "NP-of-NP" construc­ tion, and still looks so superficially, turns out to have the exact opposite head-modifier relation. To illustrate this discrepancy between surface form

NOUN PHRASES

265

and semantic-grammatical reality, compare the two uses of 'top' and 'front' below: (48) a. True possessive: He surveyed the top of the house. It was made of old cedar beams. (> it = the top) b. Pseudo-possessive: He climbed on top of the house. It was made of old cedar beams. (> it = the house)  True possessive: He measured the front of the house. It was 30 feet wide. ( > it = the front) d. Pseudo-possessive: He stood in front of the house. It was 30 feet wide. (> it = the house) In (48a) and (48c) above, 'it' refers only to the top and front of the house, respectively. In both cases, 'top' and 'front' are the head nouns mod­ ified by 'of the house'. In (48b) and (48d), on the other hand, 'it' refers to the entire house; and 'of the house' is not a coherent semantic entity, nor is it a coherent syntactic constituent modifying either 'top' or 'front'. What the contrast in (48) reveals is that a semantic and grammatical historical re-analysis has taken place in expressions such as (48b,d). The reanalysis pertained to which noun is the head of the NP and which one is the modifier. In examples (48a,c), the original possessive modifier construction indeed retains its original semantic status. In (48b,d), historical re-analysis has conspired to enrich the inventory of locative prepositions in English, giving rise to new complex prepositions such as: (49) a. b.  d. e. f.

out (of) the window inside the house behind the barn at the bottom of the ocean in the middle of the game at the back of his mind

266

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Some non-locative prepositions have also been derived via such reanalysis, as in: (50) a. b.  d. e.

instead of leaving in spite of her anger because of John for the benefit of her audience for the sake of her children

Some complex prepositions, such as 'inside' (49b) and 'behind' (49c), have been simplified, losing both 'of and 'the'. Others, as in (49d,e,f), still retain both 'of and 'the'. Others yet, such as 'out (of)' in (49a), display a subtle variation between the presence and absence of 'of':16 (51) a. b.  d.

She threw him out of the house *She threw him out the house She looked out the window ?She looked out of the window

The grammatical difference between the original post-nominal posses­ sive construction and the re-analyzed complex preposition may be given by the two tree diagrams below. Of the two, (52) corresponds to the original modifier construction, and (53) to the re-analyzed complex preposition. (52) True possessive modifier:

NOUN PHRASES

267

(53) Re-analyzed complex preposition:

Two other types of pseudo-possessive constructions have undergone a similar re-analysis, although with different motivations. Consider first: (54) a. a hell of a fight b. a tiger of a woman Expressions such as 'a hell of a' and 'a tiger of a' have become frozen mod­ ifiers, semantically specific but syntactically opaque, thus idiomatic. The second group involves complex quantifiers such as: (55) a. b. c. d.

some of the men a bunch of bull a dozen (of) roses a pound of flesh

We have discussed some quantifiers of this type earlier above under the heading of partitive indefinite quantifiers.

6.3.

RESTRICTIVE VS. NON-RESTRICTIVE MODIFIERS

A more extensive discussion of the contrast between restrictive and non-restrictive modification will be deferred till chapter 9. At this point, we will broach the subject only briefly, in connection with pre-nominal mod­ ifiers. Some pre-nominal modifiers are inherently restrictive. That is, they are used primarily to narrow the range of searching for the exact referential identity of the head noun. Demonstratives are typically used in this func­ tion, as in: (56) a. This book (> rather than that) b. That chair (> rather than this)

268

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Ordinal adjectives similarly are used primarily as restrictive modifiers, as in: (57) a. The first one to come in (> rather than the second or third) b. The fifth case (> rather than any other in order) Possessive determiners are used as restrictive modifiers when they are stressed, and as non-restrictive modifiers when they are un-stressed. To illustrate the contrast, consider: (58) a. Restrictive: I found HIS letter. HER letter I must have lost. b. Non-restrictive: I called John but his line was busy. The use of restrictive modifiers is indeed quite often associated with con­ trastive stress. So that when a modifier is contrastive, as in (58a), it must be restrictive. Adjectives, like possessive determiners, may be used as either restric­ tive or non-restrictive modifiers. Non-restrictive adjectives cannot be stress­ ed. Restrictive ones can, and often are, stressed. As illustration of this pos­ sible contrast, consider: (59) a. Non-restrictive: The industrious Chinese came to California in the late 1800s. b. The INDUSTRIOUS Chinese made it, the other Chinese didn't. In (59a), the unstressed 'industrious' is used non-restrictively, signifying the generic quality of all Chinese. In (59b), the adjective is stressed, and the industrious Chinese are contrasted with the non-industrious ones. Nonrestrictive modifiers in a sense enter into a compound relation with their head noun. That is, they create a unitary concept, thus potentially a new lexical item. When the adjective phrase has several adjectives separated by comma intonation, most commonly they are all interpreted as non-restrictive. When no intonational separation occurs, the adjectives are more likely to be interpreted as a progression of restrictive modifiers. To illustrate this, compare:

NOUN PHRASES

269

(60) a. Non-restrictive: The thick, red, leather-bound book sat on the shelf, untouched. b. Restrictive: Bring me the skinny red book on the top shelf. (> not any other book) Names, standing for unique entities, are sufficiently restricted in their reference, so that they require no further restrictive modification. When adjectives modify them, they tend to be strictly non-restrictive, and thus become in a sense part of the name, as in: (61) a. b.  d.

Alexander the Great Gay Paris Beautiful downtown Burbank The ubiquitous Joe Blow

For this reason, names tend to be incompatible with strictly-restrictive mod­ ifiers. Thus compare: 17 (62) a. b. c. d.

6.4.

?This Alexander ?That Paris ?The first downtown Burbank ?The second Joe Blow

MODIFIERS USED AS ANAPHORIC PRONOUNS

Several kinds of noun modifiers can be used as pronouns — i.e. stand for the Noun Phrase without the head noun. Unlike normal anaphoric pro­ nouns, such as 'he', 'she', 'it' or 'they', modifiers used as pronouns do not get de-stressed: (63) a. Demonstrative: That idea will not do = = = > that will not do b. Adjective: The poor 'people suffer = = = > The poor suffer  Numeral: Two women came = = = > two came d. Quantifier: All candidates withdrew = = = > all withdrew

270

ENGLISH GRAMMAR e. Possessive: His book didn't sell = = = > his didn't sell f. Ordinal: The first woman left = = = > The first left

In another pattern, the head noun is replaced by the unstressed pro­ noun 'one' (for singular) or 'ones' (for plural): (64) a. b. c. d. e. f.

6.5.

that one will not do The poor ones suffer *two ones came *all ones withdrew *his one didn't sell18 The first one left

SCATTERED NOUN PHRASES

In written English, there is a strong tendency to keep all elements of the noun phrase contiguous, i.e. next to each other rather than scattered. That is: (65) a. My red horse jumped over the back fence b. *My jumped over red the back fence horse Still, some scattering of members of the noun phrase is allowed. Under cer­ tain conditions, for example, relative clauses can be extraposed — i.e. moved from their head noun all the way to the end of the clause, as in: (66) a. He gave a lecture to his colleagues that was ill prepared b. I sent a book to Sally that appeared last week  She saw a woman there with no shoes on Examples such as (66) are rather restricted in written English. They are more common in the spoken language. Whether common or not, extraposition is often problematic. Thus compare (66) above with (67): (67) a. ?He gave a lecture to a class that was ill prepared b. ?I sent a book to a woman that appeared last week c. ?She saw a woman in the group with no shoes on In (66), extraposition was unproblematic. In (67) it creates problems of

NOUN PHRASES

271

interpretation, since the relative clause could also be interpreted as modify­ ing the indirect object that directly precedes it. The 'scattering' of noun phrases often involves parenthetical added information, whereby the noun phrase inside the clause is semantically under-specified, and a parenthetical noun phrase adds more information at the end of the clause. Typical examples are: (68) a. Mine was faster, the old Chevy b. This one will do, the sheep-dog c. I'd like to see that one if you please, the little red book on the top shelf d. One was quite nice, a Tudor mansion e. Some fell behind, perennial stragglers f. The short skinny one was strange, the Frenchman g. All came across together, enlisted men and officers Clause-final parenthetical constructions such as those in (68) abide by the same constraints of semantic confusion as do extraposed relative clauses. As illustration of this, consider: (69) a. That one bit my friend, the poodle b. That one bit my friend, the artist c. ?That one bit the female, the poodle In (69a), the low likelihood of 'my friend' being 'the poodle' allows the unique identification of 'that one' with 'the poodle'. In (69b) likewise, the low likelihood of 'artist' being the subject of 'bit' allows the unique identifi­ cation of 'my friend' with 'the artist'. In (69c), however, 'the poodle' can be identified equally well with either 'that one' or 'the female'. Similarly: (70) a. b.  d.

6.6.

One disappeared last year, an art professor ?I introduced one to Gina, an art professor I gave one to Gina, a real antique I gave one to Gina, an art professor

COMPLEX NOUN PHRASES

Complex noun phrases may arise through a variety of processes. We have already noted briefly three types of complex noun phrases, those that involve post-nominal modifiers. In this section we touch only briefly upon noun phrases with modifying adjectives. We then turn two other sources of noun phrase complexity — conjunction and nominalization.

272

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

6.6.1.

Modifying adjectives and their 'semantic source'

We noted earlier that large post-nominal modifiers, in particular rela­ tive clauses and verb complements, have a systematic syntactic and seman­ tic relation to full clauses. Some grammatical traditions also hold that pre­ nominai adjectives have such a relation. 19 This relation is said to hold between modifying adjectives and predicate adjectives in full clauses, as in: (71) a. I read an old book (> The book was old) b. The wide river was flooding (> The river was wide) It has been noted (Bolinger, 1967) that many modifying adjectives do not exhibit such a relation to transparent predicate-adjective sources. Con­ sider, for example: (72) a. The main house was there b. The chief reason was...  The first book was good d. He was a total stranger e. He was a true poet f. The regular champion g. His former wife died h. She was a poor liar i. her present predicament j . a criminal lawyer k. an electrical worker 1. the daily newspaper m. her personal manager

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

*The house was main *The reason was chief *The book was first *The stranger was total *The poet was true *The champion was regular *His wife was former *The liar was poor *Her predicament is present *The lawyer is criminal *The worker was electrical *The newspaper is daily *Her manager was personal

Many of the modifying adjectives in (72) have some semantic connection to an adverb within a full-fledged verbal clause. Respectively:20 (73) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

--------He read the book first He was totally a stranger He was truly a poet He was regularly the champion She was formerly his wife She lied poorly

NOUN PHRASES

i. j. k. 1. m.

273

It was presently her predicament The lawyer defended criminals He worked for an electric company The newspaper appeared daily He personally managed someone

The suggested relationship between the adjectives in (72) and the adverbs in (73), even when semantically plausible, is unconstrained either semantically or syntactically. Most often, the relationship depends heavily on real-world cultural-pragmatic knowledge. Whether one would want to express that relationship as a syntactic derivation remains an open issue. 6.6.2.

Conjoined noun phrases

6.6.2.1. Joint participation in a single event The traditional linguistic analysis of conjoined NPs took its major premises from logical treatments of conjunctions, where the following twoway implication holds: (74) F(x)&F(y)



F(x & y)

"If something is true of (x) and also true of (y), then that thing is true of (x and y); and vice versa". Indeed, as long as one deals with timeless predicates connoting inherent qualities, and with propositions removed from discourse context, rule (74) seems to hold for English as well: (75) a. Mary is tall and John is tall < = = = > John and Mary are tall b. John is a linguist and Mary is a linguist < = = = > John and Mary are linguists c. Mary is here and John is here < = = = > Mary and John are here The neat logic of (74) and (75) begins to break down when the exam­ ples are a little more realistic, and in particular when they involve verbcoded events. Consider, for example: (76) a. John and Mary left together? < = = = > *John left together and Mary left together b. John and Mary left in a Cadillac? < = = = > John left in a Cadillac and Mary left in a Cadillac

274

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

c. I saw John and Mary after lunch? < = = = > I saw John after lunch and I saw Mary after lunch d. I saw John and Mary kissing ?< = = = > I saw John kissing and I saw Mary kissing e. She willed her house to Joe and Sally ?< = = = > She willed it to Joe and she willed it to Sally What examples (76a-e) suggest, in various ways, is that the clean logic of rule (74) is just one part of the story of NP conjunction in natural language. And further, that the logic of NP conjunction, taken by itself, may lead to absurd interpretations in natural language. It may well turn out that the most important facets of NP conjunction in natural language are those that violate the logic of rule (74). This has to do with the fact that, particularly when events are involved, NP conjunction is not, primarily, an economy-motivated syntactic device for rendering two clauses about two separate events into a shorter single clause. Rather, NP conjunction in natural language is a device for describing a single event in which two (or more) participants shared a similar role. Only in such con­ texts does rule (74) apply. Otherwise, something like generalization (77) below seems to be closer to the truth: (77) [EVENT(x) & EVENT(y)] *< = = = >

EVENT(x & y)

"If event A involved participant X and a similar but separate event  involved participant Y, then one cannot describe the two as a single event (A&B) involving co-participants X&Y". Sentences with conjoined NPs may on occasion be ambiguous, inter­ preted either as two separate one-participant events or a single two-partici­ pant event. Thus compare: (78) a. John and Mary got married b. Both John and Mary got married Sentence (78a) will be most commonly interpreted as a single event, with John and Mary marrying each other.21 On the other hand, the presence of 'both' in (78b) immediately suggests two separate, non-reciprocal events. What we have in (78b) is indeed a play on the norm of NP conjunction. The normative way of coding a single, reciprocal event of 'X & Y getting married' is (78a). By introducing 'both', we signal that the norm for "X and Y getting married" is violated, and the alternative — two separate non-

NOUN PHRASES

275

reciprocal events — must be the case. In general, the behavior of conjoined NPs in natural language is moti­ vated by a somewhat transparent iconicity principle: (79) NP conjunction and separateness of events: "Separate events will tend to be coded as separate clauses; complex single events will tend to be coded as complex single clauses". Principle (79) will reappear periodically as we discuss complex syntactic structures. It is a sub-case of a more general principle concerning the isomorphism between conceptual proximity and code proximity.22 6.6.2.2. The relative order of conjoined NPs There is another aspect to NP conjunction where the logical tradition fails to characterize the facts of natural language. This concerns the follow­ ing logical rule: (80) A &  < = = = >

 & A

"If A and  is true, then  and A is also true; and vice versa". Rule (80) would claim the full logical equivalence of (81a) and (81b) below, so that if one is true, the other must also be true: (81) a. We visited John and Mary b. We visited Mary and John There is indeed nothing false in the claim rule (80) makes concerning the logical equivalence of (81a,b). But logical value is only part of the message that is coded and communicated in natural language. And natural language is far from neutral with regard to serial order. The rendering of two partic­ ipant NPs in one temporal order rather than the other is a deliberate com­ municative choice, usually reflecting a judgement about their relative importance. It has been shown in text-based studies that more important — more topical — NPs in the clause are more likely to be fronted.23 And the same has been suggested in experimental studies of language processing, where the first of two NPs is both attended to faster and remembered bet­ ter.24 In English as well as in other languages, strong culture-governed pref­ erences exist for some conjoined-NP orders over others. The following generalizations have been noted by Cooper and Ross (1975) in their study of frozen conjoined expressions in English:

276

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(82)

preferred order a. Near > far: now and then here and there this and that b. Adult > young: father and son mother and daughter . Male > female: man and wife d. Male > female > young: men, women and children . Singular > plural: one and all ham and eggs cheese and crackers f. Large > small: large and small g- Singular/large > plural/small: hammer and nails h. Animate > inanimate: life and death i. Human > non-human: a man and a dog j· Agent/large > patient/small: cat and mouse Whole/one > part/many: . hand and finger(s) whole and parts 1. Salient > non-salient: day and night m . Whole/visible > part/invisible: body and soul η . Possessor > possessed: John and his brother . Positive > negative: more or less plus or minus good and bad

less-preferred order *then and now *there and here *that and this *son and father *daughter and mother *wife and man *children, women and men *all and one *eggs and ham *crackers and cheese *small and large *nails and hammer *death and life *a dog and a man *mouse and cat *finger(s) and hand *parts and whole *night and day *soul and body *his brother and John *less or more *minus or plus *bad and good

277

NOUN PHRASES

There is nothing inherently illogical about the less-preferred conjunc­ tion orders on the right-hand side in (82). Nevertheless, there is a clear bias in English — either in absolute terms or in terms of text-frequency — toward a particular order. This strong preference reflects either cognitivelybased or culturally-mediated biases concerning the degree of topic-worthi­ ness of semantically-related phenomena that are coded in our vocabulary. The fact that many of these biases freeze into rigidly-ordered idioms is sim­ ply a reflection of their high frequency in actual communication. While the ordering preferences in (82) are to quite an extent generic and thus are often fixed, the general tendency is to place the more impor­ tant, more topical participant before the less topical one in a conjoined NP. Thus, compare: (83) a. Speaking of Joe,

came over last night

b. Speaking of Sue,

came over last night

The clause-initial frame "Speaking of..." establishes the more topical par­ ticipant, and that is reflected in the preferred order in the following two-NP conjunction. 6.6.2.3. The morphological unification of conjoined NPs 6.6.2.3.1. Case-role integration There is a strong constraint on conjoined NPs, that they share the same case-role. This constraint serves to prevent confusion of case-roles in NP conjunction. In English, an open option then remains, whether the entire conjunction is marked by a single preposition, or whether each NP within the conjunction is marked separately by its own preposition. This option often yields a useful semantic distinction. Consider, for example: (84) a. b. c. d.

They gave the prize They gave the prize She visited with her She visited with her

to Joe and Sally to Joe and to Sally mother and father mother and with her father

There is a strong tendency to interpret (84a) as a joint award for a joint work, i.e. as a single event. In contrast, there is a stronger tendency to interpret (84b) as two separate awards given for separate works, though perhaps rewarded on the same occasion; i.e. as two separate sub-events.

278

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Similarly, the tendency is strong to interpret (84c) as a single joint visit, and (84d) as two separate visits, perhaps made at contiguous times. One may say then that an NP conjunction with a single — thus totally unified — preposition is used when the two events are maximally integrated. While marking each of the conjoined NPs with its own separate preposition repre­ sents an event that is only partially integrated. A natural implication of this is that we may conceive of varying degrees of event integration, and repre­ sent them through grammar as varying degrees of clause integration. In the case of (84a,b) then, the full range would be: (85) a. Separate events: They gave the prize to Joe, they also gave one to Sally. b. Semi-integrated: They gave the prize to Joe and to Sally.  Fully integrated: They gave the prize to Joe and Sally. The two levels of clause integration, (85b) and (85c), may be given as the two tree diagrams (86) and (87) below, representing the conjoined indirect objects. Respectively: (86) Semi-integrated:

(87) Fully integrated:

NOUN PHRASES

279

When the conjoined NPs are marked each by a separate preposition, the incomplete integration of the two events is further underscored when two different prepositions are used. However, such two-preposition combi­ nations are rigidly constrained. First, they must be constrained by the semantic frame of the verb. This rules out semantically incompatible combi­ nations such as: (88) a. *She went to the store and with a hammer b. *He slept in the house and for his brother c. *They argued with him and into the house The conjunctions in (88a,b,c) are unacceptable because the verbs 'go', 'sleep' and 'argue' normally cannot appear with the second NP in a simple clause. That is: (89) a. *She went with a hammer b. *He slept for his brother c. *They argued into the house But the two conjoined participants may be individually compatible with the verb and still not be compatible in combination as closely-related subevents. Thus compare: (90) a. *She went to the store and with her sister b. *He slept in the house and for a long time c. *They argued with him and into the night Only when the conjunction makes sense as closely-related sub-events can different prepositions be used. That is, for example: (91) a. She went into the store and down the escalator. b. He slept in clear conscience and for a long time.  They argued for him and against her. The restrictions in (90), and their absence in (91), do not seem to involve the semantics of the verb frames. Rather, they involve the real-world pragmat­ ics that govern the coherent combination of partially-integrated subevents, i.e. culturally recognized scripts or frames. 6.6.2.3.2. Determiner integration Strong restrictions also seem to govern the reference, definiteness or topicality status of conjoined NPs. Consider definiteness first:

280

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(92) a. b. c. d.

We saw a man and a woman there We saw the man and the woman there ?We saw the man and a woman there *We saw a man and the woman there

While (92c) is marginally 'grammatical', it is pragmatically odd and proba­ bly infrequent in spontaneous text. The difficulty of processing either (92c) or (92d) is in all likelihood pragmatic-cognitive, and may be tentatively out­ lined as follows: (a) When one conjoins two equi-role NPs in a single clause, one intends such a clause to code a single, maximally integrated complex event. (b) Within such an event, the two conjoined NPs have roughly the same topicality status. That is, the two referents must be of equal anaphoric accessibility and cataphoric importance. (c) Not only are the two conjoined NPs of equal topicality, but they must be jointly a single topic. (d) In conjoining a definite with an indefinite NP, one creates a cognitive clash in terms of both aspects of topicality, in addition to destroying the unity of what is normally interpreted as a single topic. The single-topic status of conjoined NPs is supported by the use of stressed vs. unstressed pronouns. As noted in chapter 5, stressed pronouns are used in subject/topic switching. If each of the conjoined NPs is an inde­ pendent topic, then switching from the conjunct to a single member of the conjunct, as in (93b) below, would not require the use of a stressed pro­ noun. But in fact it does: (93) a. John and Mary came by, then they left. b. John and Mary came by, When one continues with the conjunct, as in (93a), the pronoun is unstressed. As with prepositions, one can observe three degrees of syntactic clause-integration in conjunctions involving similar articles: (94) a. Un-integrated: The boys are playing in the yard, and the girls are (also) playing in the yard. b. Semi-integrated: The boys and the girls are playing in the yard.  Fully integrated: The boys and girls are playing in the yard.

NOUN PHRASES

281

(95) a. Un-integrated: I saw your father, and I saw your mother (too). b. Semi-integrated: I saw your father and your mother.  Fully integrated: I saw your father and mother. The maximally-integrated structures in (94c) and (95c) seem to be further constrained by the semantic relatedness of the conjoined nouns. Thus compare: (96) a. b. c. d.

I saw your father and your dog. ?I saw your father and dog. The boys and the dogs ran away. ?The boys and dogs ran away.

The syntactic difference between the semi-integrated conjunction (95b) and the fully integrated conjunction (95c) is given in the tree dia­ grams (97) and (98) below, respectively: (97) Semi-integrated :

(98) Fully integrated:

282

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

A structure such as (98) suggests that when full clause-integration occurs, the two conjuncts are not NPs but rather nouns. The requirement of semantic similarity — or high semantic coherence — noted in (96) above is compatible with such an interpretation. Indeed, well entrenched, habit­ uated, fixed-order conjunctions such as (98) have a high potential for becoming complex but unitary lexical nouns. Examples of such cases are: (99) a. b.  d. e. f. g. h. i.

Come to our wine-and-cheese party. She eats only bread-and-butter. Could you pass me the salt-and-pepper please? I'll need some oil-and-vinegar. There was no give-and-take. It was touch-and-go. She charged them for room-and-board. The traveled by horse-and-buggy. They invited lots of boys-and-girls.

6.6.2.3.3. Number integration Full clause-integration also involves the feature of number. To illus­ trate this, consider the freedom of semi-integrated conjunction of singular and plural NPs that retain their separate articles: (100) a. b. c. d.

We We We We

saw saw saw saw

some boys and some girls a boy and a girl some boys and a girl a girl and some boys

When only a single article is retained in fully-integrated NP conjunction, however, constraints begin to appear: (101) a. b.  d.

We saw some boys and girls *We saw some boys and girl *We saw a boy and girl *We saw some boy and girl

The unacceptabiHty of (101c) is readily understood if one assumes that fully integrated conjoined singular NPs, such as 'boy and girl', have in fact become a non-singular noun, thus incompatible with the singular article 'a'. 25 But since 'some' is a plural article, one would have expected (101b) and (101d) to be acceptable. The fact that they are not suggests that 'some' can only be used when both conjoined NPs are independently plural, i.e.

NOUN PHRASES

283

compatible in their number. 6.6.2.3.4. Adjective integration A reminiscent gradation in the degree of syntactic integration of NP conjunction can be shown with modifying adjectives. Thus compare: (102) a. Un-integrated: They were looking for tall boys, and they were (also) looking for tall girls. b. Semi-integrated: They were looking for tall boys and tall girls.  Fully integrated: They were looking for tall boys and girls. Once again, one would suspect that the semi-integrated NP in (102b) repre­ sents a conjunction of two NPs, while the fully integrated (102c) represents a conjunction of two nouns. The two are thus represented by the respective tree diagrams: (103) Semi-integrated:

(104) Fully integrated:

284

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Constraints on number can be shown here as well. Thus compare: (105) They were looking for... a. tall boys and tall girls. b. *tall boy and girls. c. *tall boys and girl. d. *tall boy and girl. 6.6.2.4. Multiple conjunction, disjunction, and event integration Most commonly when more than two NPs are conjoined, only one con­ junction word — 'and' — is used, preceding the last NP in the sequence, as in: (106) They saw Joe, Bill and Sally. A less common option is also available, however, of inserting the conjunc­ tion word between all NPs in the sequence. This option seems to be more natural with the disjunctions 'or' and 'nor', where one can see a contrast between the use of a single conjunction, as in (106), and multiple conjunc­ tions. Much like in the case of prepositions, determiners and modifying adjectives, the multiple use of the conjunction (or disjunction) word tends to signal a lower degree of event integration; while the use of a single con­ junction (or disjunction) word tends to signal maximal event integration. Thus compare: (107) a. Semi-integrated: Either John or Mary or Paul will come. b. Fully integrated: Either John, Mary or Paul will come. (108) a. Semi-integrated: Neither hail nor snow nor high water will stop them. b. Fully integrated: Neither hail, snow or high water will stop them. By separating the NPs more clearly at the code level, the use of multiple conjunction words thus underscores the separateness of those NPs and of the sub-events associated with them. Separateness if of course more inherent in the logical meaning of ex­ clusive disjunction, which signals that two or more events with two or more disjoined NPs are exclusive of each other, and thus could not have both occurred. 26 But a similar effect may be shown with the conjunction 'and'.

NOUN PHRASES

285

When only two NPs are conjoined, the clause-initial 'both' creates the same effect of lower event-integration as is created by 'either' or 'neither' in the case of disjunction 'or'. Thus compare: (109) a. Fully integrated: Mary and John will come. (> more likely together) b. Semi-integrated: Both Mary and John will come. ( > more likely separately) (110) a. Fully integrated: You can have tea or coffee. (> possibly both, i.e. inclusive) b. Semi-integrated: You can have either tea or coffee. (> you must choose, i.e. exclusive) Similarly: (111) a. Fully integrated: He is coming for two or three weeks b. Semi-integrated: He is coming for either two or three weeks In the fully integrated (111a), 'two-or-three' is a unitary compound. In the semi-integrated (111b), 'two' and 'three' are more clearly exclusive of each other. When more than two NPs are conjoined with 'and', 'both' cannot be used any more, since it is semantically restricted to 'two'. But the same effect of semi-integration can be achieved by the multiple use of 'and'. Thus compare: (112) a. Fully integrated: I saw John, Bill and Mary. (> more likely as a group) b. I saw John and Bill and Mary. (> more likely individually) The multiple use of conjunction words illustrate a general principle that we will meet repeatedly throughout our survey:27

286

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(113) The isomorphism of code-separation and meaning-separation: "The more separate two events are from each other semantically, the more will they be separated syntacti­ cally, by pauses or intervening morphemes". 6.6.2.5. Plurality, verb agreement and group nouns One important device used to code the degree of integration of events with shared equi-role — thus conjoined — participants is number agreement on the verb. We have already noted above that conjoined NPs, even in semi-integrated conjunctions, are by definition plural. We also noted earlier that the verb in English, in the third person in the habitual tense-aspect, must agree with the number of its subject NP. The norm is then that conjoined subject NPs display the agreement pattern of plural subjects. That is: (114) a. Singular subject: Mary work-s. b. Plural subject: The women work.  Conjoined subjects: Mary and Joe work. But this generalization is subject to certain refinements which concern inher­ ently plural nouns such as 'team', 'crowd', 'audience', 'group', etc. Such group nouns can be viewed from two distinct perspectives: First, as a collec­ tion of individuals. Or second, as a single unified group. This distinction is coded as a variation in their number agreement. Typical examples of this are: (115) a. The majority are against it, each one of them will say so. b. The majority is against it, and intends to impose its will. (116) a. The team are bickering; they hate each other. b. The team is winning, it's in good shape. (117) a. The crowd were all running in different directions, they were screaming. b. The crowd was in an ugly mood; it was ready to explode.

NOUN PHRASES

287

(118) a. The faculty were never consulted, they were all simply ignored. b. The faculty was never consulted, it never is around here. Group nouns can also be created via NP conjunction, and then display the very same distinction, as in: (119) a. Sally and Joe are a perfect team. b. Sally and Joe is the winning team. (120) a. Peter, Paul and Mary are trying to get back together, they've been split since 1963. b. 'Peter Paul and Mary' is a folk group that was real big in the '60s. 6.6.3.

Complex NPs arising through nominalization

6.6.3.1. Preamble One distinct type of complex noun phrase arises through the process of nominalization. As a syntactic (rather than lexical) process, nominalization may be defined as follows: (121) Syntactic nominalization: Nominalization is the process via which a prototypical verbal clause, either a complete one (including the sub­ ject) or a verb phrase (excluding the subject), is converted into a noun phrase. Most commonly, a verbal clause is nominalized when it occupies a pro­ totypical nominal — noun, NP — position within another clause. The most prototypical nominal positions in the clause are those of subject, direct object, and indirect object. Noun phrases arising through nominalization are often complex. Their complexity reflects, by and large, the complexity of the clauses from which they arise. Within the nominalized NP, the erstwhile verb invariably occupies the head noun position. In the narrower — lexical — sense, the nominalization may be defined as: (122) Lexical nominalization: Nominalization is a process whereby a verb or adjective is converted into a noun.

288

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

While the verb becomes the head noun in the nominalized NP, the various other elements of the erstwhile clause — subject, object, indirect object, adverbs or verbal complements — become various noun modifiers. 6.6.3.2. The finite-clause prototype In a typical simple clause in English, the subject and direct object roles are not marked morphologically, but rather are marked by their position relative to the verb — S-V-O. Indirect objects are marked by prepositions, and the verb is marked by tense-aspect-modality markers and various auxiliaries. This situation may be considered the prototype of the finite clause. In terms of its grammatical structure, the finite clause is the norm for independent simple verbal clauses. The process of syntactic nominalization may be viewed as the various adjustments in the grammatical structure of the finite clause, adjustments that transform the clause toward another well-known prototype, that of the noun phrase. Typical noun phrases are marked by various determiners and modifiers. When a verbal clause is adjusted toward the NP prototype via nominalization, it becomes a non-finite clause, or at least a less-finite one. This adjustment is seldom complete, especially when the original finite clause was itself complex. 6.6.3.3. From the finite toward the non-finite prototype The major structural adjustments associated with converting a finite verbal clause into a non-finite nominalized clause are: (123) Structural adjustments of a finite verbal clause toward a non-finite nominalized clause: a. From verb to head noun: The erstwhile verb becomes the head noun of the nominalized clause. b. From verbal to nominal morphology: The erstwhile verb loses its verbal inflections (tenseaspect-modality, verb agreement) and instead acquires noun-like morphology (determiners, modifiers).  Nominal case marking: The case-marking of the subject and direct object is often modified, most commonly toward genitive (pos­ sessive) case.

NOUN PHRASES

289

d. Determiners. Both the subject and object may be converted into pos­ sessive determiners, i.e. modifiers within the NP. In addition, the whole nominalized NP may acquire a definite or an indefinite article. e. From adverbs to adjectives: Manner adverbs in the finite clause are converted into corresponding adjectives that now modify the head noun in the nominalized NP. We will discuss these adjustments in order. 6.6.3.4. From verbal to nominal morphology Nominal forms of English verbs come in a large variety. The variety, however, is far from chaotic. Rather, the various types seem to fall into a coherent scale of finiteness. Near the top of the scale are two semi-finite forms, the perfect-participle and the progressive participle. Both retain some tense-aspect marking while dispensing with verb agreement. Further below are the two infinitive forms, one marked with the preposition to, the other with the suffix -ing. Finally, at the least-finite bottom of the scale are lexical nominalizations. As illustration of the fíniteness scale, consider:28 (124) The fíniteness scale: a. Finite verb form: She knew him b. Perfect participle: Having known him (for years, she was worried).  Progressive participle: Knowing him (, she decided to skip it). d. to-infinitive: To know him (is to like him). (She wanted) to know him (better). e. -ing-infinitive: Her knowing him (wasn't much help either). (She ended up) knowing him (better). f. Lexical nominal: Her knowledge of him (was rather skimpy). The less-finite forms in (124b-e) are uniform for all English verbs. The lexical-nominal form (124f), on the other hand, is highly idiosyncratic and

290

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

unpredictable. Several nominalizing suffixes can apply only to Romancederived or more abstract verbs. Typical examples of those are: (125) a. b.  d. e. f.

her refusal to leave his rejection of the job offer the detention of political prisoners her knowledge of the subject some adjustment in cost of living his grim intent to succeed

For other English verbs, the lexical-nominal form is morphologically unmarked. That is, it resembles the bare-stem form of the verb. Typical examples of this are: (126) a. b. c. d. e.

Bill's murder (> Someone murdered Bill) the search for their mother (> They searched for their mother) some interest in the subject (> X was interested in it) a turn to the right (> X turned to the right) a change for the better (> Things changed)

As noted earlier above, the nominalized predicate may be an adjective rather than a verb, as in: (127) a. b.  d.

her illness (> She was ill) his civility to employees (> He was civil to employees) the length of our vacation (> Our vacation is long) their absence from the meeting (> They were absent)

Finally, the lexical-nominal form of many English verbs is marked by the same -ing suffix that also marks the progressive-participles and -inginfinitive forms. Thus compare: (128) a. Progressive participle: Breaking his fall, he crashed through the canopy b. -ing infinitive: He liked breaking the rules c. -ing lexical nominal: His breaking of all rules was legendary The more finite participle form in (128a) gives the sense of both simul­ taneity and the progressive aspect. Neither are implied by the infinitive in (128b). They are not implied either by the lexical-nominal (128c), in which both subject and object are coded as genitive modifiers.

NOUN PHRASES

291

6.6.3.5. Subject and object case-marking In the least-finite — most nominal — clauses, such as (124f) above, both the subject and direct object are coded as genitive ('possessive'). They are thus transformed into, respectively, a pre-nominal genitive determiner and a post-nominal genitive modifier of the de-verbal head noun. This is obviously a strong deviation from the normal case-marking strategy of Eng­ lish, where the subject and object are morphologically unmarked. And such a deviation has the potential of creating communicative problems in the interpretation of case-roles. This potential is countered in English by the double-genitive strategy in nominalized transitive clauses. In following this strategy, the subject-agent of the transitive clause claims the pre-nominal — Germanic — genitive determiner role, while the object-patient claims the post-nominal — Norman — genitive modifier role. As illustrations, con­ sider: (129) a. The enemy's destruction of the city b. Her knowledge of math  Saddam's occupation of Kuwait When a semantically-transitive verb has an unexpressed subject-agent, three distinct nominalization strategies are possible. First, the object may retain a post-nominal genitive modifier position, as in: (130) a. The destruction of the city b. Knowledge of math  The occupation of Kuwait Alternatively, the transitive subject-agent may be expressed as agent of passive,29 marked with the preposition 'by', as in: (131) a. The destruction of the city by the enemy b. The occupation of Kuwait by Saddam Finally, the patient-object may take the pre-nominal genitive position, with the transitive subject-agent again optionally expressed as agent-of-passive, as in: (132) a. b.  d.

The city's destruction (by the enemy) Kuwait's occupation (by Saddam) His admission into the Bar (by the governing Board) Their defeat (by the Kurds)

292

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

When the nominalized clause codes a generic event with a generic sub­ ject and non-referring object, the patient cannot claim the pre-nominal genitive position, but only the post-nominal position. Thus compare: (133) a. b.  d. e. f.

Knowledge of math (by the candidate) is required. *Math's knowledge (by the candidate) is required. The shooting of prisoners (by guards) is prohibited. *Prisoners' shooting (by guards) is prohibited. The burning of coal (by authorized personnel) may proceed. *CoaI's burning (by authorized personnel) may proceed.

When the nominalized clause is intransitive and thus lacks a direct object, the subject may occupy either the pre-nominal or post-nominal genitive position. Thus consider: (134) a. b.  d.

the city's growth the growth of the city Paul's escape to Malta the escape of Paul to Malta

But while theoretically possible, the post-nominal placement of intransitive subjects in nominalized clauses is severely constrained. For example, sub­ ject pronouns can occupy only the pre-nominal genitive position: (135) a. b.  d. e. f.

its growth (> It grew) *the growth of it her work with Walter (> She worked with Walter) *the work of her with Walter his coming home ( > He came home) *the coming of his home

Not all morphological types of nominahzation in English yield the same case-marking of subject and object. In the more finite nominahzation with -ing, the subject (if expressed) is indeed marked as genitive deter­ miner, but the object retains its finite-clause object form, as in: (136) a. b.  d. e.

His destroying the city (was a shock) Her leaving him for Harvey (was unexpected) His having left the house (created quite a stir) Sacking the city (, they then departed) Having sacked the city (, they returned home)

NOUN PHRASES

293

And, in the even more finite to-infinitive nominalization, neither the sub­ ject nor the object can take a genitive form. The object retains its normal object form of finite transitive clause. And the subject (if present) is marked with the preposition 'for', as in: (137) a. b. c. d.

(They wanted) to build the house. (She told him) to build the house. For him to build the house (was a mistake). (All she wanted was) for him to build the house.

6.6.3.6. Indirect objects in nominalized clauses Indirect objects in nominalized clauses tend to retain their original case-marking and post-verbal position. Thus consider: (138) a. his objection to the proposal (> He objected to the proposal) b. her departure from the university (> She departed from the university  throwing him into the water (> She threw him into the water) d. success through intimidation (> They succeed through intimidation) e. trapping coyotes with metal traps (> They trap coyotes with metal traps) A special restriction applies to non-patients that occupy the directobject role. Such objects seem to reject altogether participation in any type of nominalization that would mark them as post-nominal genitive. In the main clause, such objects may take either the direct or indirect object role, as in: (139) Finite main clause: a. Patient as direct object: They gave money to many charities. b. Dative as direct object: They gave many charities money In nominalized clauses, when the patient is coded as direct object, it can be marked as genitive, as in:

294

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(140) Nominalized clause: a. Patient marked as object: Giving money to charity (is encouraged). b. Patient marked as genitive: The giving of money to charity (is encouraged). The non-patient ('dative', 'recipient'), on the other hand, cannot take the genitive form in nominalized clauses: (141) Nominalized clause: a. Dative marked as object: Giving charities all that money (was a mistake). b. *Dative marked as genitive: *The giving of charity money is encouraged And similarly: (142) Nominalized clause: a. Patient marked as object: Showing exhibits to special customers (is OK). b. Patient marked as genitive: The showing of exhibits to special customers (is OK). c. Dative marked as object: Showing special customers the exhibit (is OK). d. *Dative marked as genitive: *The showing of special customers the exhibit (is OK). One may look at this restriction as a remedial strategy designed to pre­ vent semantic role confusion. The of-genitive form can only mark a patient direct-object. Non-patient objects may occupy the direct-object grammati­ cal role in both main-finite and nominalized clauses. The of-genitive form in nominalized clauses, however, is reserved for patient objects.30 6.6.3.7. Determiners in nominalized clauses As noted earlier above, one strong morphological characteristic of pro­ totype NPs is the presence of determiners, of the kind that mark distinc­ tions of reference, definiteness and topicality. One of the clearest indica­ tions of the highest degree of non-finiteness — or nominality — of a nominalized clause would then be the appearance of various determiners before the de-verbal head noun. When the subject-agent is present in the least-finite nominalized clause, it claims the pre-nominal genitive deter­ miner position. But when the transitive subject-agent is unexpressed, or

NOUN PHRASES

295

when it is expressed as a post-nominal of-genitive, a highly nominalized clause may display various other determiners. Taking the presence or absence of determiners as an indicator, at least three levels of non-finiteness — or nominality — can be observed in nominalized clauses in English: (143) to-infinitive: a. For him to arrive early (would be a mistake). b. To arrive early (would be a mistake). (144) -ing infinitive: a. Arriving early (was not what she had in mind). b. Arriving early (, she took a seat and waited). (145) Lexical nominalizations: a. Her early arrival (was unexpected). b. The arrival of the Argonauts (was unexpected).  This early arrival of his (is unexpected). d. Early arrival of guests (is anticipated). e. An early arrival (would embarrass them). f. An early arrival (was their one mistake). g. Some early arrivals (are anticipated). The range of determiners found in the least-finite lexical nominalizations in (145) includes referring definite determiners in (145a,b,c), a generic zero determiner in (145d), the non-referring indefinite 'an' in (145e), the refer­ ring indefinite 'an' in (145f), and a non-referring plural indefinite 'some' in (145g). The appearance of plural markers on the de-verbal head noun (145g) and of a plural determiners is another indication of a high degree of nominality of lexical-nominal clauses. 6.6.3.8. Adverbs as adjectives in nominalized clauses Another systematic adjustment in transforming the finite clause into a nominalized clause involves the fate of manner adverbs. In English, with its considerable array of derivational morphology, these adverbs become mod­ ifying adjectives in the nominalized clause. Typical examples of this are:

296

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(146) a. The enemy rapidly destroyed the city = = = > The enemy's rapid destruction of the city b. She quickly departed = = = > Her quick departure c. He formerly worked on the docks = = = > His former work on the docks d. She rendered the song faithfully = = = > Her faithful rendition of the song e. They were totally defeated = = = > Their total defeat Many types of adverbs have no corresponding adjectives in English. Such adverbs often retain their adverbial form — and their syntactic posi­ tion — in the nominalized clause. However, they can only appear in lessnominal clauses, such as -ing-infinitives. Thus compare: (147) a. He will arrive tomorrow = = = > his arriving tomorrow *his tomorrow arrival b. He arrived on time = = = > his arriving on time *his on time arrival  She knew the country well = = = > her knowing the country (so) well *her (so) well knowledge of the country d. He grinned like a maniac = = = > his grinning like a maniac *his like a maniac grin Whenever a semantically equivalent adjective form can be found, however, lexical nominalization is unproblematic. Thus compare: (148) a. her good knowledge of the country (*her well knowledge of the country  his maniacal grin (*his like a maniac grin) d. their feline motion (*their like a cat motion) e. his leonine growl (*his like a lion growl)

NOUN PHRASES

297

As noted earlier, many verbs in English use the -ing-marked form to code the verb in both participle-infinitive and lexical-nominal clauses. The two forms can be easily differentiated by the form and position of the adverb-adjective, as well as by the of-genitive marking of the object. Thus compare: (149) They accidentally shot two reporters = = = > a. Infinitive: their accidentally shooting two reporters b. Nominal: the accidental shooting of two reporters (150) They surrendered voluntarily = = = > a. Infinitive: their surrendering voluntarily b. Nominal: their voluntary surrender (151) They shot Prince John in cold blood = = = > a. Infinitive: their shooting Prince John in cold blood b. Nominal: the cold-blooded shooting of Prince John The transformation of the syntactic structure of clauses via nominalization, from a prototype finite verbal clause into a prototype non-finite nom­ inal phrase, is represented in the two tree diagrams below. (152) Finite verbal clause:

298

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

(153) Non-finite nominal phrase:

The existence of a systematic gradation in degree of finiteness among the various types of nominalized clauses can also be seen in the grammar of ver­ bal complements (chapter 7) and adverbial clauses (chapter 13). 6.6.4. Noun complements So far, we have only dealt with simple nominalized clauses i.e. clauses whose participants were either subjects, direct objects, indirect objects or adverbs. Such clauses are relatively easy to transform syntactically into noun phrases, by: (a) Making the verb into head noun. (b) Marking the subject and object as possessive determiners or modifiers. (c) Letting the indirect object retain its morphology and syn­ tactic position. (d) Changing verb-modifying adverbs into noun-modifying adjectives. (e) Introducing determiners and plural markers when appro­ priate. Even so, nominalization introduces into the noun phrase some elements that are less-than-prototypically nominal. Direct objects in less-finite nominalizations, and indirect objects invariably, retain their original form and syntactic position. As NPs or PPs following the head noun, nei­ ther are prototypical features of a noun phrase.

NOUN PHRASES

299

When the main verb in the nominalized clause is of a type that requires a verbal — clausal — complement, that complement accompanies the verb through the nominahzation with very little structural change, much like an indirect object. A verbal complement thus becomes another non-prototypi­ cal element in the de-verbal noun phrase, a potentially large post-nominal modifier, now re-christened as noun complement. As illustration of some such noun complements and their finite-clause sources, consider: (154) a. He wanted to leave home = = = > his wanting to leave home b. He let go of the knife = = = > his letting go of the knife  They attempted to cross back = = = > their attempt to cross back d. She made him wash the floor = = = > her making him wash the floor e. She told him to shape up = = = > her telling him to shape up f. She did it to save Joe = = = > her doing it to save Joe g. She wished that he would come back = = = > her wish that he would come back h. He discovered that she was blind = = = > his discovery that she was blind i. He shouted: "Watch out!" = = = > His shouting: "Watch out!" To understand the peculiar grammatical behavior of most post-nomi­ nal modifiers, one must understand their relationship to finite verbal clauses. In the case of post-nominal possessive phrases, we have seen how some of them arise via nominahzation from subjects and objects of finite clauses. In the same vein, all noun complements arise from verbal comple­ ments of finite clauses, a subject that will be discussed in considerable detail in chapter 7.

300

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

NOTES 1) We count zero anaphors as pronouns. 2) As noted in chapter 5, when pronouns and names are used, they depend for their seman­ tic contents (i.e. whether they are animate, human, concrete etc.) on an antecedent noun in the preceding discourse, or on some other previous knowledge-base that guarantees their identifiability. 3) In principle, several REL-clauses may modify the same head noun, as in e.g. The guest who came late who was wearing a trench-coat'. Logically, such double modification makes sense if (i) more than one guest came late but (ii) only one of the late guests was wearing a trenchcoat. While logically possible, it is not clear that such a complex strategy is used to any signifi­ cant degree in natural communication, where less-complex alternatives that can accomplish the same communicative goal are readily available. For further discussion see chapter 9. 4) Currently, of this group the de-stressed 'some' is a plural indefinite article. But a destressed 'one' was the historical source of the indefinite article 'a(n)'. 5) While the modal 'could' carries some semantic contents, the perfect auxiliary 'have' is purely grammatical, and it may be that restricting it with 'only' serves no semantic purpose. It is true, however, that without 'only' have can certainly carry contrastive stress, as in: 'I HAVE done it!' (> rather than what you suggest, that I HAVENT yet). 6) John Haiman (in personal communication) notes that (12c,e,f) indeed all have acceptable interpretations. Those correspond roughly to the contractions: (12)  (The) only (thing is), she could have said this. e. (The) only (thing is), she could have said this. f. (The) only (thing is), she could have said this. It is not clear, however, whether 'only1 — in either the contracted or full-fledged (12c,e,f) — takes the stressed constituents under its scope at all. 7) Cited from a column by James Kilpatrick, "Perhaps these sentences have driven you only crazy", in The Register-Guard, Eugene, OR (2-24-91, p. 6F). 8) Often both orders are possible, provided the combination is construed from the opposite perspective. Further, the constraints on rigid ordering of pre-nominal adjectives are less strin­ gent when the adjectives are non-restrictive (see further below). Non-restrictive modification is characteristically indicated by comma intonation breaks between the adjectives, as in: a. a large, red bird b. a red, large bird  a white, shingled roof d. a shingled, white roof e. a beautiful, long house f. a long, beautiful house 9) Strictly speaking, 'dog' in 'bird-dog' carries a secondary stress. English vowels can carry one of three significant degrees of stress — primary, secondary, and no stress. 10) As noted in chapter 2, compounding is a major lexical derivation pattern in English. The transition, for each compound, from the status of a modifier-noun construction — with both words stressed — to the status of compound noun (with only the first word stressed) is a gradual, culturally-dependent historical process.

NOUN PHRASES

301

11) The female black-bird is actually brown. 12) A long-house is a type of communal dwelling used by several Amerindian peoples in the Pacific North-West, as well as by many indigenous peoples in the Papuan-Melanesian cultural basin. 13) For nominalizations, see section 6.6.3., below. 14) For nominalizations, see section 6.6.3., below. 15) These 'of-NP' possessive modifiers arise via nominalization, cf. (47d) above; see also sec­ tion 6.6.3. further below. 16) At least for some speakers, the rule here is roughly this: Use 'out of when a whole body physically exits. Use 'out' when a more abstract entity — 'vision', 'attention' — moves in an out­ ward direction. 17) The well-known counter-examples all involve contexts where the name is in some way not unique, as in: 'Oh, I don't mean this Joe, I meant that one'. 'That Paris you used to know was so different from the Paris we know now'. 18) Examples of this kind are heard in young children's speech, no doubt representing attempts to extend the pattern by analogy. 19) This analysis is characteristic of early Transformational Grammar, see Chomsky (1957). 20) See Givón (1970). 21) For reciprocal constructions, see chapter 8. 22) See chapter 7. 23) See Givón (1988). 24) See Gernsbacher et al (1989). 25) The non-singular status of conjoined NPs is also supported by their subject agreement, see section 6.6.2.5., below. 26) Disjunction in logic is typically inclusive, so that if both "P" and "Q" are true, not only is "P and Q" true, but also "P or Q". The use of a more inclusive 'or' is also found in English, as in expressions such as "Would you like tea, coffee or milk?" 27) In other contexts, this principle is known as the proximity principle; see chapter 7. 28) See Ross (1972, 1973). 29) See chapter 8. 30) A more theoretical implication here is, of course, that the assignment of the grammatical case 'genitive' is not determined by purely syntactic considerations', but retains some sensitivity to semantic roles.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Α., S. Garrod and A. Sanford (1983) ' T h e accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episodic shifts in narrative text1', Quarterly J. of Experimental Psychology, 35.A Anon (1828) The Harem Omnibus, Los Angeles: Holloway House Publish­ ing Co. [1967 edition] Aristotle, De Partibus Animalium, in R. McKeon (ed., 1941), The Basic Works of Artistotle, NY: Random House Aristotle, De Sophisticis Elenchis, in R. McKeon (ed., 1941) The Basic Works of Aristotle, NY: Random House Ashcraft, M.H. (1989) Human Memory and Cognition, Glenville, 111.: Scott, Foresman & Co. Austin, J. (1962) How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: Clarendon Press Barthelme, D. (1981) 'The Emperor", The New Yorker, 1-26-81 Berko, J. (1961) 'The child learning of English morphology", in S. Saporta (ed.) Psycholinguistics, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Bolinger, D. (1967) "Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication", Lingua, 18.1 Bolinger, D. (1978) "Yes no questions are not alternative questions", in H. Hiz (ed.) Questions, Dordrecht: Reidel Bolinger, D. (1985) "The inherent iconism of intonation" in J. Haiman (ed.) ¡conicity in Syntax, TSL # 6 , Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Bolinger, D. (1991) 'The role of accent in extraposition and focus" (ms) Bonner, J.T. (1988) The Evolution of Complexity by Means of Natural Selection, Princeton: Princeton University Press Bowerman, M. (1983) "Starting to talk worse: Clues to language acquisi­ tion from children's late speech errors", in S. Strauss (ed.) U-Shaped Behavioral Growth, NY: Academic Press Bresnan, J. and S. Mchombo (1987) "Topic, pronoun and agreement in ChiChewa", Language, 63.4

304

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Brown, D. (1986) Grammar and Gender, New Haven: Yale University Press Brown, P. and S. Levinson (1978) "'Universals in language usage: Polite­ ness phenomena", in E. Goody (ed.) Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bybee, J. (in press) 'The semantic development of past tense modals in Eng­ lish", in J. Bybee and S. Fleischman (eds) Mood and Modality, Amster­ dam: J. Benjamins (in press) Bybee, J. W. Pagliuca and R. Perkins (1983) The Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect and Modality (ms) Carnap, R. (1959) The Logical Syntax of Language, Patterson, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. Chafe, W. (1976) "Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view", in C. Li (ed., 1976) Chafe, W. (1987) "Linking intonation units in spoken English", in J. Haiman and S. Thompson (eds) Clause Combining in Grammar and Dis­ course, TSL #18, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Chafe, W. and J. Nichols (eds, 1986) Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Chen, P. (1986) "Discourse and particle movement in English", Studies in Language, 10.1 Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structure, The Hague: Mouton Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge: MIT Press Chomsky, N. and M. Halle (1968) The Sound Pattern of English, NY: Harper and Row Coates, J. (1983) The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries, London: Croom Helm Cole, P. and J. Morgan (eds, 1975) Speech Acts, Syntax and Semantics 3, NY: Academic Press Cooreman, A. (1982) "Topicality, ergativity and transitivity in narrative discourse: Evience from Chamorro", Studies in Language, 6.3 Cooper, W. and J.R. Ross (1975) "World order", in Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, University of Chicago, Chicago Linguis­ tics Society Crouch, J.E. (1978) Functional Human Anatomy, 3rd edition, Philadel­ phia: Lea and Febiger

BIBLIOGRAPHY

305

Davison, A. (1975) 'Indirect speech acts and what to do with them", in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds, 1975) Dik, S. (1978) Functional Grammar, Amsterdam: North Holland Dixon, R.M.W. (1982) Where Have All the Adjectives Gone?, Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter Duranti, A. and E. Ochs (1979) "Left dislocation in Italian conversation", in T. Givón (ed., 1979b) Fleischman, S. (1989) "Temporal distance: A basic linguistic metaphor", Studies in Language, 13.1 Foley, W. and R. van Valin (1984) Functional Syntax and Universal Gram­ mar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Fox, A. (1983) "Topic continuity in Early Biblical Hebrew", in T. Givón (ed., 1983a) Fox, B. and S. Thompson (1990) "Information flow and conversation: Relative clauses in English", Language 66.2 Fox, R. (1985) "Existential clauses in written English discourse", Univer­ sity of Oregon, Eugene (ms) Frege, G. (1952) Philosophical Writing, London: Blackwell García, E. (1967) "Auxiliaries and the criterion of simplicity", Language, 43.4 Gary, N. (1976) "A discourse analysis of certain root transformations in English", University of California, Los Angeles (ms) Gernsbacher, M.A. (1990) Language Comprehension as Structure Building, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Gernsbacher, M.A., D. Hargreaves and M. Beeman (1989) "Building and accessing clausal representations: The advantage of first mention vs. the advantage of clause recency", J. of Memory and Language, 28 Givón, T. (1970) "Notes on the semantic structure of English adjectives", Language, 46.4 Givón, T. (1979a) On Understanding Grammar, NY: Academic Press Givón, T. (ed. 1979b) Discourse and Syntax, Syntax and Semantics 12, NY: Academic Press Givón, T. (ed., 1983a) Topic Continuity in Discourse: Quantitative CrossLanguage Studies, TSL # 3 , Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Givón, T. (1983b) "Topic continuity in spoken English", in T. Givón (ed., 1983a)

306

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Givón, T. (1984a) Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, vol. I, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Givón, T. (1984b) "Direct object and dative shifting: Semantic vs. pragma­ tic case", in F. Plank (ed.) Objects, NY: Academic Press Givón, T. (1985) "Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syn­ tax", in J. Haiman (ed., (1985) Givón, T. (ed. 1985) Quantified Studies in Discourse, Text, 5.1/2 Givón, T. (1988) "The pragmatics of word-order flexibility: Predictability, importance and attention", in E. Moravcsik et al (eds) Studies in Syntac­ tic Typology, TSL #17, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Givón, T. (1989) Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Givón, T. (1990) Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, vol. II, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Givón, T. (1991a) "Markedness in grammar: Distributional, communica­ tive and cognitive correlates of syntactic structure", Studies in Language, 15.2 Givón, T. (1991b) "Serial verbs and the mental reality of "event", in B. Heine and E. Traugott (eds, 1991) Givón, T. and L. Yang (1991) "The rise of the English GET-passive", in B. Fox and P. Hopper (eds), Voice: Form and Function, TSL #27, Amster­ dam: J. Benjamins Goodwin, C. (1981) Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers, NY: Academic Press Gordon, D. and G. Lakoff (1971) "Conversational postulates", CLS Φ7, Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago Gould, S.J. (1980) The Pandas Thumb, NY: Penguin Grafton, S. (1982) A is for Alibi, NY: Bantam Green, G. (1975) "How to get people to do things with words: The whimperative question", in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds, 1975) Grice, H.P. (1968/1975) "Logic and conversation", in P. Cole and J. Mor­ gan (eds, 1975) Gruber, J. (1967a) "Topicalization in child language", Foundations of Lan­ guage, 3 Gruber, J. (1967b) Functions of the Lexicon in Formal Descriptive Gram­ mars, Santa Monica, CA: Systems Development Corp. Haberland, H. (1985) "Review of Klaus Heinrich's Dehlemere Vorlesungen I", J. of Pragmatics, 9

BIBLIOGRAPHY

307

Haiman, J. (1985) Natural Syntax, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Haiman, J. (ed., 1985) iconici ty in Syntax, TSL # 6 , Amsterdam: J. Benja­ mins Haiman, J. (1992) "Grammatical signs of the divided self: A study in lan­ guage and culture", Macalester College (ms) Hamburger, C. and S. Crain (1982) "Relative acquisition", in S.A. Kuczaj (ed.) Language Development: Syntax and Semantics, Hillsdale, NJ; Erlbaum Harris, Z. (1956) "Co-occurrence and transformations in linguistic struc­ ture", Language, 33.3 Hayashi, L. (1989) "Conjunctions and referential continuity", University of Oregon, Eugene (ms) Heine, B. (1992) "Agent-oriented vs. epistemic modality: Some observa­ tions on German modals", paper given at the Symposium on Mood and Modality, UNM, Albuquerque, May, 1992 (ms) Heine, B. and E. Traugott (eds, 1991) Approaches to Grammaticalization (2 vols), TSL #19, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Heine, ., U. Claudi and F. Hünnemeyer (1991) Grammaticalization.  conceptual Framework, Chicago: University of Chicago Press Herold, R. (1986) "A quantitative study of the alternation between the BEand GET-passives", paper read at the XVth NWAVE Conference, Stan­ ford University, October 1986 (ms) Hillerman, T. (1990) Coyote Waits, NY: Harper Paperbacks Hopper, P. (1979) "Aspect and foregrounding in discourse", in T. Givón (ed., 1979b) Hopper, P. and S. Thompson (1980) "Transitivity in grammar and dis­ course", Language, 56.4 Hopper, P. and S. Thompson (1984) "The discourse basis of lexical categories in universal grammar", Language, 60.4 Hyman, L. (1975) "On the change from SOV to SVO: Evidence from Niger-Congo", in C. Li (ed) Word Order and Word Order Change, Austin: University of Texas Press James, P.D. (1967) Unnatural Causes, NY: Warner Books James, P.D. (1975) The Black Tower, NY: Warner Books Jespersen, O. (1921/1964) Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin, NY: Norton Jespersen, O. (1924) The Philosophy of Grammar, NY: Norton [1965 ppbk edition]

308

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Jespersen, O. (1938) Growth and Structure of the English Language, Chicago: University of Chicago Press Keenan, E.L. (1969) A Logical Base for a Transformational Grammar of English, PhD dissertation, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania (ms) Keenan, E.L. (1975) "Some universals of passive in relational grammar", CLS #11, Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago Kemmer, S. (1988) The Middle Voice: A Typological and Diachronic Study, PhD dissertation, Stanford University (ms) Kemmer, S. (1989) "Reciprocal marking", in D. Payne et al (eds) Papers from the Fourth Pacific Linguistics Conference (PLC-4), Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Kiparsky, P. and C. Kiparsky (1968) "Fact", in M. Bierwisch and K.E. Heidolph (eds) Progress in Linguistics, The Hague: Mouton Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1980) Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: Uni­ versity of Chicago Press Lakoff, R. (1971) "Passive resistance", CLS # 7 , University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society L'Amour, L. (1962) Shalako, NY: Bantam L'Amour, L. (1965) Under the Sweetwater Rim, NY: Bantam Leonard, E. (1977) Unknown Man #89, NY: Avon Books Leonard, E. (1990) Get Shorty, NY: Dell Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Li, C.N. (ed., 1976) Subject and Topic, NY: Academic Press Lindner, S. (1982) A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of Verb-Particle Construc­ tions with Up and Out, PhD dissertation, U.C. at San Diego (ms) McCawley, J.D. (1988) The Syntactic Phenomena of English, 2 vols., Chicago: University of Chicago Press MacDonald, J.D. (1974) The Dreadful Lemon Sky, Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcet Marchand, H. (1965) The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation, University of Alabama Press Mayr, E. (1974) "Behavior programs and evolutionary strategies", in E. Mayr (1976) The Evolution and Diversity of Life, Cambridge: Harvard University Press McKeon, R. (ed., 1941) The Basic Works of Aristotle, NY: Random House [22nd edition, 1970]. McMurtry, L. (1963) Leaving Cheyenne, NY: Penguin Books McNeill, D. (1970) The Acquisition of Language, NY: Harper & Row

BIBLIOGRAPHY

309

Ochs, E. (1979) "Planned vs. unplanned discourse", in T. Givón (ed., 1979b) Odlin, T. (1992) "A cross-linguistic comparison of cleft sentences in ESL", paper given at the Conference on Cognition and Second Language Acquisition, University of Oregon, Eugene, February, 1992 (ms) Orwell, G. (1945) Animal Farm, NY: Penguin Classics Palmer, F.R. (1979) Modality and the English Modals, London: Longmans Palmer, F. (1986) Mood and Modality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Pearson, T.R. (1985) A Short History of a Small Place, NY: Ballantine Posner, M.I. and C.R.R. Snyder (1974) ''Attention and cognitive control", in R.L. Solso (ed.) Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Postal, P. (1974) On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and its Theoretical Implications, Cambridge: MIT Press Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (1985) A Comprehen­ sive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longmans Ramsay, V. (1987) ' T h e functional distribution of pre-posed and postposed 'if and 'when' clauses in written discourse", in R. Tomlin (ed., 1987) Ransom, E. (1986) Complementation: Its Meanings and Forms, TSL #10, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Ross, J.R. (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax, PhD dissertation, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. (ms) Ross, J.R. (1972) "The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort", CLS #8, Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society Ross, J.R. (1973) "Nouniness", in D. Fujimura (ed.) Three Dimensions of Linguistics, Tokyo: TEC Corp. Rude, N. (1985) Studies in Nez Perce Grammar and Discourse, PhD disser­ tation, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms) Russell, B. (1919) Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, London: Allen and Unwin Sadock, J. (1970) "Whimperatives", in J. Sadock and A. Vanek (eds) Studies Presented to R.B. Lees, Edmonton: Linguistic Research Sadock, J. and A. Zwicky (1985) "Speech act distinctions in syntax", in T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. I, Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press Sapir, E. (1921) Language; reprinted 1949, NY: Harcourt, Brace & Co., Harvest books

310

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Schachter, P. (1971) "Focus and relativization", Language, 47 Schank, R. and R. Abelson (1977) Scripts, Goals, Plans and Understand­ ing, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Schneider, W. and R.M. Shiffrin (1977) "Controlled and automatic human information processing, I: Detection, search and attention", Psychologi­ cal Review, 84 Schnitzer, M.L. (1989) The Pragmatic Basis of Aphasia, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Searle, J. (1970) Speech Acts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Searle, J. (1975) "Indirect speech acts", in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds, 1975) Squire, L. R. (1987) Memory and Brain, Oxford: Oxford University Press Stockwell, R.P., P. Schachter and B.H. Partee (1973) The Major Syntactic Structures of English, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Strawson, P. (1950) "On referring", Mind, 59 Sun, C.F. and T. Givón (1985) "On the so-called OV word order in Manda­ rin Chinese: A quantified text study and its implications", Language, 61.2 Syder, F. and A. Pawley (1974) "The reduction principle in conversation", Auckland, N.Z.: Anthropology Dept., Auckland University (ms) Thompson, S. (1985) "Grammar and written discourse: Initial vs. final pur­ pose clauses in English", in T. Givón (ed., 1985) Tomlin, R. (ed., 1987) Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, TSL #11, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Trout, K. (1974) Venus on the Half Shell, NY: Dell Visser, F. Th. (1973) An Historical Syntax of the English Language, part III, 2nd half, Syntactic Units with Two and With More Verbs, Leiden: E.J. Brill Walker, C.H. and F.R. Yekovich (1987) "Activation and use of scriptbased antecedents in anaphoric reference", J. of Memory and Language, 26 Wallace, A.F.C. (1961) Culture and Personality, NY: Random House Wierzbicka, A. (1987) "Boys will be boys", Language, 63.1 Wittgenstein, L. (1918) Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, tr. by D.F. Pears and B.F. McGuinness, NY: The Humanities Press [1966] Wittgenstein, L. (1953) Philosophical Investigations, tr. by G.E.M. Anscombe, NY: Macmillan Wright, S. and T. Givón (1987) "The pragmatics of indefinite reference", Studies in Language, 11.1

INDEX

A ability 172, 173, 174 abstract 55, 56 access (to subjecthood) 93 accomplishment 131 action(s) 90 action verb 105 activation 244 active 93, 94 active clause(s) 27 active verb(s) 150 adjectival phrase 248, 256, 261 adjective(s) 55, 62, 76, 256, 257, 295 adjectives, derived 64 adjectives, relative order of 257 adjective integration 283 adverb(s)51,76, 261 272,295 adverbial clause(s) 177 aesthetic functions 21 affected 122 affectedness 100, 114 affirmative (clause) 27 affix(es) 48, 50 age 9 agent 90, 91,92,93, 105 agent of passive 291 agentivity 100 anaphoric pronoun(s) 228, 235, 236, 269 anaphoric reference 239 Anglo-Saxon 45 animate 56 anteriority 162 antipassive 116 antonymic pairs 64, 65

arbitrary code 25 Aristotle 2, 85 article(s) 60, 80 aspect 68, 147, 152 aspectual (verbs) 131 aspectuality (adverbs) 74 aspectuals (progressive) 158 associative 91, 92, 93, 115, 119, 124 attitude, speaker's 169 attended processing 4 automated processing 4 auxiliaries 81 auxiliary 97, 149, 150 aversion verbs 134  background information 181 behavioral program, closed 4 behavioral program, open 4 benefactive 91, 92, 93, 121, 124 bi-transitive verbs 120 Bonner, J.T. 12 Bopp, F. 5 bound morphemes 48, 50, 58 bounded (aspect) 90, 153, 154 bounded past 153, 155 Bybee, J. 210  Carnap, R. 246 case-marking 291 case-role integration 277 cataphoric reference 239 category labels 29, 31 cause 110

312

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

certainty 172 change of state 90, 103 Chomsky, N. 38, 39, 84, 145, 301 class size 48 classifiers (semantic) 60 clausal subject(s) 127 clause(s) 21, 89 clause integration 278 clause type 89 clause chain 244 co-referent 129 co-subjecthood 119 code transparency 8 coding devices 26 cognate objects 112 cognition (verbs) 133, 176 cognition-utterance verb(s) 218 cognitive 244 cognitive complexity 178 cognitive operations 244, 245 coherence 21, 41, 156 coherent communication 6, 22 coherent discourse 36 coherent text 22 command 177, 217 communication 36 communicative code 25 communicative compromise 31 communicative contract 232 communicative function(s) 5 communicative strategies 3 compact (aspect) 153 comparative 66 competition 26, 30 competition (subjecthood) 93 complement (verbal) 104 complex clause(s) 26, 35 complex locative(s) 264 complex noun phrase(s) 271, 287 complex preposition(s) 265, 267 compounding 62, 258 compounding adjective(s) 260 concept(s) 22, 41 conceptual lexicon 43

concrete(ness) 55, 56 conditional (clause) 217 conjoined noun phrases 273, 277 conjunctions 78 connectives (inter-clausal) 78 constituency 29 constituent negation 204 consituent structure 96 context(s) 3, 13 continuous (aspect) 158 contrastive quantifier(s) 253 contrastive scope 252 contrastive stress 197, 251 copula 101, 103 copular verb(s) 101 count (nouns) 57 countability 56, 57 counter-fact (modaity) 175 counter-norm 178 counter-sequentiality 163 cultural universe 22 cultural world-view 44, 45, 232 D dative 91, 92, 93, 101, 105, 118, 121 dative object(s) 110 dative subject(s) 109 declarative (clause) 27 deep structure 30, 32, 34, 35, 232 definite(s) 80 definite(s), culturally-based 233 definite(s), frame-based 234 definite(s), generically-shared 234 definite(s), situation-based 232 definite(s), text-based 234 definite article(s) 255 definite noun phrases 235 definite quantifiers 249 definiteness 213, 242, 244, 232 definiteness, sources of 232 demonstrative(s) 80, 238, 255 denotation 213 dependent (clause) 28 derivational morphology 60, 67, 70

INDEX derivational morphemes 47, 58 descriptive grammar 5, 7 determiner(s) 29, 80, 247, 248, 255, 294 determiner integration 279 diachronic 9 dialect(s) 19 difficulty 128 diffuse (aspect) 153 direct object 58, 95, 112, 115, 125, 132 direct quote 136 discourse 21, 23, 41, 92 discourse coherence 23, 25 discourse context 27, 36, 155 discourse distribution 178 discourse pragmatics 26, 247 discourse-pragmatic function 27 disjunction 284 dissuasion (verbs) 133 diversity, cross-language 4 double genitive 291 double negation 207 dummy pronoun 127 dummy-subject verbs 100, 101 dummy-subject adjectives 101 E economy (of processing) 8 educated grammar 15 emphatic denial 204 entities 22 epistemic 128 epistemic adverb(s) 74, 135, 171 epistemic attitude 135, 169 epistemic certainty 176 epistemic modalities 169 ethnic minorities 18 evaluative 128, 176 evaluative adjectives 63 evaluative adverbs 75, 171 evaluative attitude 169 event(s) 22, 54, 90 event integration 278, 284 excess structure 37 exchange verbs 123 exclusive disjunction 284

313 exhortation 177 existence 213 expressive power 8 extension 213 external world 22 F fact (modality) 216 factive 135 finite clause(s) 288 finite main clause(s) 293 Fleischman, S. 210 focus clauses 177 focused negation 197, 198 foreign talk 19 formal register 17 frames 279 frames (contextual) 26 free morpheme(s) 51 Frege, G. 85 French 45 frequency adverbs 73 frequency distribution 13, 53, 179, 180 friction 26 Frisian 45 function 1, 30 functional reassignment 3 functions (of language) 21 future 148, 149, 171 future perfect 162, 165, 166 future progressive 153 G García, E. 209 generality 57 generic subjects 242 genitive 264, 291 genitive determiner 291 genitive modifier 291 geographic dialects 19 Germanic 45, 49 Gernsbacher, M. 301 globally accessible 241 globally important 240 grammar 1, 43, 45

314

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

grammarian(s) 1 grammatical constraints 92 grammatical change 49 grammatical morpheme(s) 47, 58, 59 grammatical morphology 59, 66, 68 grammatical object 95 grammatical role(s) 57, 89, 92 grammatical strategies 4 grammatical subject 94 grammatical vocabulary 46 grammaticalization 144 group nouns 286 H habitual (aspect, tense) 150, 151, 152, 171,218 habitual, simple 157 habitual past 161 habitual progressive 157 Haiman, J. 209 Harris, Z. 38 head noun(s) 58, 97, 247 Heine, B. 209 historic time 8 historical origin 49 Hopper, P. 84, 144 human 56 I identity 102 idiomatic 267 immediate (aspect) 166, 167 inanimate 56 inceptive (aspect) 159 incorporated patients 114 indefinite 80 indefinite article(s) 220, 255 indefinite determiner(s) 219 indefinite quantifier(s) 250 indirect object(s) 58, 92, 95, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121,293 indirect quote 136 individual style 20 individuation 56, 57 infinitive 289, 295

infinitive verb 132 inflection(s) 147 informal register 17 information 21, 22, 41 information verbs 136 inherent quality 101, 102 instrument 91, 92, 93, 111, 124 instrumental 122 intent 172 intentional 131 inter-personal functions 21 interjection(s) 81 internal world 22 intransitive 119 intransitive verb(s) 105, 116 intransitive clause(s) 100 irrealis (modality) 170, 172, 176, 216, 217,219 irrealis assertion 170, 216, 217, 219 irregular past-tense 149 J Jespersen 52, 210 Johnson, Dr. S. 10  Kant 38 Kiparski, C. 145 Kiparski, P. 145 L Lakoff, G. 145 language acquisition 46 Latin 45 law of the excluded middle 187 lexical semantics 247 lexical vocabulary 46 lexical words 46 lexicon 43 Lindner, S. 145 linear order 29 locally important 240 location 124 locative 91, 92, 93, 112, 117, 122 logic 187

315

INDEX

M main clause 27 manipulation, attempted 133 manipulation, successful 133 manipulation verb(s) 132, 176, 218 manner 124 manner adverb(s) 254, 71 Marchand, H. 85 marked 178 markedness 179 mass (nouns) 56, 57 meaning 2 1 , 22, 30, 40 memory search 244 meta-functional requirements 37 metaphoric 118 metaphoric extension 109 Middle English 8 modal(s) 172, 173, 174 217 modal auxiliaries 76, 149, 150 modality 68, 147, 169 modality, cognitive 180 modality, grammatical distribution of 170 modality verb(s) 129, 130, 176, 217 Modern English 9 modifier(s) 58, 247 modifying adjective(s) 272 morphemes 41 morphemic status 50 morphological criteria 51 morphology 92 motion 120 Müller, M. 11 multiple conjunction 284 multiple membership (of verbs) 137 N name(s) 29, 98, 240, 248, 269 natural classes 52 necessity 172 negation 68, 147, 187, 188 negation, and social interaction 193 negation, as speech-act 190 negation, in discourse 190 negation, inherent 202 negation, levels of 203

negation, morphological 202 negation, morpho-syntax of 199 negation, scope of 195 negation, syntactic 203, 204, 206 negation, syntax of 201 negative assertion 170, 216, 217, 219 negative clause(s) 28 negative events 191 negative factive 135 negative polarity 203 negative pronouns 206 nominal morphology 288, 289 nominal predicate 92, 95, 102, 125 nominalization 287, 298 nominalization, lexical 287, 289 nominalization, syntactic 287 nominalized clauses 178, 293, 294, 295 non-declarative, clause 28 non-declarative, speech-acts 176 non-fact (modality) 216 non-factive 218 non-finite (clause) 288 non-human 56 non-implicative 217, 218 non-lexical morphemes 48 non-referring 80, 102, 215, 216 non-referring, anaphoric prnouns 228 non-referring, articles 255 non-referring, determiners 218, 220 non-restrictive, modifiers 267, 268, 269 norm 178 noun(s)29, 5 1 , 5 4 , 55, 247 noun complement(s) 249, 298 noun compound(s) 258 noun modifier(s) 98 noun phrase(s) 58, 97, 102, 247, 248, 288 noun-phrase conjunction 275 noun-phrase negation 197, 205 number integration 282 numeral(s) 81,250 numerical scope 252  object 29, 35, 92, 106 object pronoun 79

316 Obligation 76, 172, 173, obligatory constituent(s) 96 Old English 8, 45 ontology (of negation) 191 optional constituent(s) 96 optional direct object 124 oral language 13 ordinal(s) 81 ordinal adjective(s) 268 organism, biological 2 Ρ Palmer, F. 210 paragraph 244 paraphrase 34 parenthetical 271 parsing 28, 96 participant(s) 90 participial (clauses) 177 partitive 249 parts of speech 41 passive 93, 94 passive clause 28 passive morphology 68 past 148, 151, 171 past perfect 162, 163, 165 past progressive 153 patient 91, 92, 93, 101, 118 patient of change 106 patient of state 105 patient subject 110, 111 patienthood 119 Peirce 38 perception verbs 133, 135, 176 perfect (aspect) 161, 162, 171 perfectivity 100, 163, 180 performative force 175 permission 172, 173, 174 phrasal semantics 247 phrase(s) 97 phrase structure (rules) 142 pidgin (language) 46 plural 59, 248 plurality 286 polarity of adjectives 64 population, mean 53

ENGLISH GRAMMAR possession, verbs of 115 possessive 264 possessive construction(s) 77 possessive determiner(s) 268 possessive modifier 266 possessive phrase(s) 264 possessor 60, 248 possessor pronoun 79, 81 post-moninal (modifiers) 248 power 17 pragmatic importance 230, 231 pragmatist 38 pre-nominal genitive 291 pre-nominal modifiers 248, 249 predicate 101 predicate noun 58 preference 172, 176 preference verbs 134 prefix(es) 48, 51 prepositional phrase(s) 72, 117 preposition(s) 59, 77 prepositions, incorporated in verbs 138 prescriptive grammar 5 present (tense) 148, 150, 151, 171 present perfect 162, 165, 166 present progressive 153, 157 prestige 17 presupposed background 188 presupposed information 181 presupposition 170, 177, 195, 216, 217, 219 prevention verbs 133 primary word-stress 259 probability 172, 173, 174 process 103 process copula 104 process verb 106 progressive (aspect) 150, 151, 153, 154 progressive auxiliary 149, 150 pronoun(s) 60, 79, 98, 248 pronouns, indefinite 222 pronouns, non-referring 222 proposition(s) 22, 23, 41 propositional frame 89, 90, 169 propositional information 25 propositional meaning 30, 36

INDEX propositional modalities 23 prototype(s) 52, 53, 91, 99, 100, 106, 117, 120 288 proximity 154 pseudo-possessive(s) 264 Q qualities 22 quality 90 quantifier(s) 81, 248, 249,261 question(s) (WH) 177 question(s) (yes-no) 177 R Ransom, E. 210 Real World 213, 214 realis (modality) 170 realis assertion 216, 217, 219 reciprocal (verbs) 115, 119 reference 57, 213, 216, 242, 244 reference, continuous 236 reference, frame-based 234 reference, gradation 224 reference, negative scope 224 reference, plurality 225 reference, pragmatics of 226, 230, 231 reference, text-based 234, 235 reference, switch 236 referential accessibility 232 referential coherence 213 referential intent 215 referring 102,215,216,218 regional dialects 19 relation(s) 22, 30 relative clause(s) 177, 248 relative importance 275 relevance 164, 181, 182 remote (aspect) 167 remoteness 154 repetitive (aspect) 158 request 177 restrictive modifiers 267, 268, 269 Romance 46 Ross, J.R. 301 rules of grammar 2, 3, 52 Russell B. 246

317 S Sapir 53 scattered noun phrases 270 scholarly jargon 15 scope, of quantifiers 251, 254 script(s) 279 semantic amalgamation 247 semantic ambiguity 31 semantic criteria 51 semantic features 43 semantic fields 43 semantic reference 230 semantic rigidity 25 semantic roles 90, 91 semantic structure 30 sentence 29 sequential 156 sequentiality 155, 181 simple clause(s) 26, 27, 89 simple clauses, classification 99 simple clauses, structure 143 simple past 163, 165 simultaneity 155 simultaneous 156 social status 17 society of intimates 13 society of strangers 13 socio-cultural function(s) 21 sounds 25 speaker's intent 231 speech community 7, 44, 233 speech-act(s) 175 spoken language 13 state(s) 22, 54, 90, 101 stative copula 104 stative verb(s) 150, 151 status 17 stems 50 stress 48 stressed pronouns 235, 236 structural complexity 178 structure 1, 30 subject 29, 58, 92, 105, 106 subject agreement 68 subject continuity 236, 237 subject pronoun 79

318

ENGLISH GRAMMAR

subject switch 236, 237 subjecthood 93 subordinate (clause) 28 subordinator(s) 78 success 131 suffix(es) 48, 51 superlative 66 surface structure 30, 32, 34 synchronic 9 syntactic criteria 51 syntactic description 27 syntactic position 57 syntax 25, 26 Τ tautology 190 temporal 55, 56 temporary state 101, 102, 103 tense 68, 147, 148 tense-aspect 171 tense-aspect-modality, cognitive aspects of 178 tense-aspect-modality, communicative aspects of 178 tense-aspect-modality, syntax of 182, 183, 184, 185 terminative (aspect) 160 text-node 244, 245 thematic break 163 thematic contrast 238 thematic parallel 238 theme (and variations) 27 Thompson, S. 84, 144 time 124, 148 time adverbs 73 tokens (reference) 243 topic identification 213 topic worthiness 277 topical 122 topical referent 244 topicality 92 transformational grammar 27 transformations 38 transitive 119 transitive clause(s) 99, 100

transitive verb(s) 106, 108 transitivity 115 tree diagrams 28, 96 truth 42 types (reference) 243 U unbounded (aspect) 90, 153 uneducated grammar 15 unindividuated 56 universe of discourse 214 unmarked 178 unstressed pronouns 235, 236 utterance verbs 133, 176 V verb(s)29, 51,55,68, 97, 98, 106 verb agreement 286 verb(s), classification 99 verb(al) complements 126, 127,176, 299 verb phrase 29, 97, 98 verb-phrase negation 196, 198 verb types 89 verbal clauses 89 verbal frame 124 verbal inflection(s) 147 vestigial organ 3 Visser 210, 212 vocabulary 41 W Wallace, A.F.C. 84 Wittgenstein 38, 44, 84 word(s)21,22,41 word class(es) 51 word classe(s), minor 77 word-order 89, 92, 96 word size 4 written language 13 written register 15, 254 Y yes/no question 217 Ζ zero anaphora 235