Challenging discrete approaches to secondary-predicate constructions [Elektronische Ressource] : towards a non-discrete account of resultative, depictive and qualifying constructions in English / vorgelegt von Holger Saurenbach

Holger Drachmann

Informations

• Publié par: universitat_regensburg
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2005
• Nombre de lectures: 8
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 2 Mo

Extrait

Challenging Discrete Approaches to
Secondary-Predicate Constructions

Towards a Non-discrete Account of Resultative, Depictive and
Qualifying Constructions in English




Inaugural-Dissertation
zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde
der Philosophischen Fakultät IV
(Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaften)
der
Universität Regensburg



vorgelegt von
Holger Saurenbach
aus Amberg





Regensburg, Februar 2004



Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Edgar W. Schneider
Zweitgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Roswitha Fischer ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
Acknowledgements
*This project was inspired by Edgar W. Schneider's 1997 article "As as 'is': is as 'is'", which points out
many of the questions raised by secondary-predicate constructions in English and has paved the way
for my research into the subtleties and complexities of this intriguing aspect of English grammar. Prof.
Schneider's motivating remarks on my Zulassungsarbeit and on two talks given in his research collo-
quium have encouraged me to broaden the theoretical and empirical basis of my work, which has fi-
nally resulted in the present dissertation.
As is frequently the case with such large-scale projects, work on this dissertation has quickly
taken on a life of its own. While my Zulassungsarbeit constituted a critique of small-clause analysis
within a descriptive grammatical paradigm, the present book has become a much more comprehensive
critique of discrete grammatical approaches in general and an attempt to tackle secondary-predicate
constructions from the new angle of non-discrete syntax.
A project of this size is not possible without the help of other people. Julia Hofmann (University
of Oxford, England), Marguerita O'Neill (Institute of Technology Tralee, Ireland), Voicu Popescu
(Purdue University, USA) and Christoph Saurenbach (London School of Economics, England) have
my gratitude for helping me conduct evaluation tests with native speakers of English. I would also like
to thank Adrienne Bambach, Scott Brunstetter, Roger Miller and Ben Mui for giving their views on
the relative acceptability or unacceptability of quite a large number of English sentences. I am particu-
larly grateful to Augustus Cavanna, Jamie Kohen and Alison Thielecke, Lektoren at the University of
Regensburg, who volunteered for extended interviews on the meaning of functionally related sen-
tences.
My thanks also go to the generative grammarian Kleanthes K. Grohmann for answering some of
my questions on SC-theory and modern generative theory, as well as to the syntacticians Ray
Jackendoff and Adele Goldberg, who sent me the final draft of their article on the Resultative Con-
struction (due to appear in Language) and discussed their respective views on the role of constructions
with me.
I am also grateful to Thomas Hoffmann (University of Regensburg), who has read earlier drafts
of this dissertation and whose insightful comments have greatly improved the final version. Although
we do not always share the same opinions on syntactic theory, the lively debates we have had on vari-
ous syntactic problems have provided the present work with a lot of stimulating input. I also wish to
thank my wife Ursula for meticulously proofreading the manuscript and suggesting numerous stylistic
improvements. Needless to say, none of those mentioned here are responsible for any remaining mis-
takes, for which my computer is entirely to blame.
Thanks also to those people who were continually suprised that anyone could have such a big in-
terest in 'small' clauses. I must admit that I was surprised myself that my interest in secondary-
predicate constructions in particular and non-discrete syntax in general has not waned in the nearly
two years I have devoted to the Zulassungsarbeit and this dissertation, but has actually grown into
something like fascination. Even though it is still early days, I am sure that the non-discrete perspec-
tive will have a lot to contribute to enhancing our understanding of the complexities of syntax and
semantics.

* Work on this dissertation has been made possible by a Bavarian state scholarship (Gesetz zur Förderung des
wissenschaftlichen und künstlerischen Nachwuchses) between September 2002 and February 2004.
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
Table of Contents
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Data and methods 6
2.1 Data based on linguistic intuition.................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Data based on electronic corpora .................................................................................................. 7
2.3 A short outline of the statistical methods used.............................................................................. 9
2.4 Limits of corpus studies ................................................................................................................ 11
PART I: CHALLENGING SYNTACTICALLY DISCRETE APPROACHES TO ENGLISH
SECONDARY-PREDICATE CONSTRUCTIONS............................................................................ 13
3. A critique of syntactic discreteness................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Distributional mismatches as the stumbling block of discrete syntax........................................... 14
3.2 Constraints and representational levels — a way out for discrete syntax? ................................... 19
3.3 The non-discreteness paradigm of Construction grammar ........................................................... 23
3.4 The non-discrete perspective of the neurosciences....................................................................... 26
4. Challenging complex-transitive analyses of secondary-predicate constructions.......................... 30
4.1 Treatment of the [NP V NP XP]-pattern in descriptive grammars ................................................ 301 2
4.1.1 The models: transitive and copula clauses..... 30
4.1.2 The derivative structure: complex-transitive clauses............................................................ 35
4.1.3 Analytical problems of the complex-transitive complementation analysis .......................... 38
4.1.4 Problems of classifying complex-transitive complementation patterns................................ 45
4.1.5 Discarding the distinction between objects and predicative complements — a way out?.... 48
4.2 Treatment of the [NP V NP to be XP]-pattern in descriptive grammars ....................................... 501 2
4.3 Treatment of the [NP V NP as XP]-............................................ 581 2
5. Challenging small-clause analyses of secondary-predicate constructions .................................... 67
5.1 From Subject-to-Object Raising to Small-Clause Theory ............................................................ 67
5.2 Attempts to prove the existence of a black hole: are small clauses syntactic entities?................. 75
5.2.1 A critical look at constituency tests ...................................................................................... 75
5.2.2 A critical look at subject tests ............................................................................................... 86
5.3 Attempts to identify a black hole: what is the categorial status of small clauses?........................ 100
5.3.1 Some preliminaries: the categorial component of generative grammar................................ 100
5.3.2 Small clauses as quasi-clauses: is an SC a pure lexical projection? ..................................... 105
5.3.3 Small clauses as reduced clauses: do SCs contain functional projections? .......................... 111
5.3.4 Small clauses as IPs: do SCs contain an empty copula?........................................................ 115
5.3.5 Small cls CPs: are full and small clauses identical?................................................... 118
5.3.6 Small clauses as complex clauses: are some SCs larger than full clauses? .......................... 124
5.4 Problems of classifying small-clause patterns .............................................................................. 127
6. Challenging complex-predicate analyses of secondary-predicate constructions 133
6.1 Complex-predicate analyses in early descriptive and generative studies...................................... 133
6.2 Compyses in modern generative grammar ....................................................... 134
6.3 Compyses in Categorial Grammar.................................................................... 138
6.4 Evidence for complex predicates and attempts to cope with distributional mismatches .............. 140
7. Challenging Predication-theory analyses of secondary-predicate constructions ......................... 146
7.1 Semantic definition of predicative relations in Predication theory ............................................... 146
7.2 Treatment of depicti