Simplifying the theoretical treatment of wager verbs

IF 0.7 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Lisa A. Reed
{"title":"Simplifying the theoretical treatment of wager verbs","authors":"Lisa A. Reed","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2023-2007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Since at least Postal (1974. On raising. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press), English has been assumed to possess a class of verbs that does not syntactically tolerate an overt noun phrase in the “usual” subject position of an infinitival complement clause but will allow one if it has undergone passivization, Wh-formation, Heavy-NP Shift, etc. This class of verbs has been variously described as Derived Object Constraint (DOC) verbs (Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, Postal, Paul. 1993. Some defective paradigms. Linguistic Inquiry 24(2). 347–364), ECM-with-Focus verbs (Rooryck, Johan. 2000. Configurations of sentential complementation: Perspectives from Romance languages. London & New York: Routledge), and wager-class verbs (Pesetsky, David. 2019. Exfoliation: Towards a derivational theory of clause size. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Unpublished ms., Version 2.0. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004440 (accessed 26 April 2022)). Based on the author’s own judgments, supplemented by the results of an acceptability survey conducted at an American university, this paper makes the novel claim that an English verb class with these grammatical properties does not exist, a finding that significantly reduces the inventory of grammatical mechanisms needed to account for complementation types generally. In addition, this paper develops new accounts of two distributional characteristics of the wager verbs that certain other Raising to Object (RO)/Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) verbs do not exhibit. First, infinitival complements to wager verbs are argued to be aspectually linked to the matrix verb, while those of predict-type verbs are not. This explains a well-known stative restriction on complements to this verb class, which includes believe. Second, judgments of unacceptability previously attributed to Postal’s DOC or its counterpart in other theories are argued to result from three pragmatic usage preferences involving register and atypical degree that are encoded by the selection of the marked RO option with this verb class, preferences that play out differently for believe as opposed to wager verbs.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2023-2007","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Since at least Postal (1974. On raising. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press), English has been assumed to possess a class of verbs that does not syntactically tolerate an overt noun phrase in the “usual” subject position of an infinitival complement clause but will allow one if it has undergone passivization, Wh-formation, Heavy-NP Shift, etc. This class of verbs has been variously described as Derived Object Constraint (DOC) verbs (Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, Postal, Paul. 1993. Some defective paradigms. Linguistic Inquiry 24(2). 347–364), ECM-with-Focus verbs (Rooryck, Johan. 2000. Configurations of sentential complementation: Perspectives from Romance languages. London & New York: Routledge), and wager-class verbs (Pesetsky, David. 2019. Exfoliation: Towards a derivational theory of clause size. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Unpublished ms., Version 2.0. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004440 (accessed 26 April 2022)). Based on the author’s own judgments, supplemented by the results of an acceptability survey conducted at an American university, this paper makes the novel claim that an English verb class with these grammatical properties does not exist, a finding that significantly reduces the inventory of grammatical mechanisms needed to account for complementation types generally. In addition, this paper develops new accounts of two distributional characteristics of the wager verbs that certain other Raising to Object (RO)/Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) verbs do not exhibit. First, infinitival complements to wager verbs are argued to be aspectually linked to the matrix verb, while those of predict-type verbs are not. This explains a well-known stative restriction on complements to this verb class, which includes believe. Second, judgments of unacceptability previously attributed to Postal’s DOC or its counterpart in other theories are argued to result from three pragmatic usage preferences involving register and atypical degree that are encoded by the selection of the marked RO option with this verb class, preferences that play out differently for believe as opposed to wager verbs.
简化下注动词的理论处理
摘要至少自邮政(1974年。关于饲养。马萨诸塞州剑桥:麻省理工学院出版社),英语被认为拥有一类动词,在句法上不允许一个显性名词短语处于不定式补语从句的“通常”主语位置,但如果它经历了被动化、Wh形、重NP移位等,则允许一个。这类动词被不同地描述为派生对象约束(DOC)动词(Postal,Paul,1974)。关于饲养。马萨诸塞州剑桥:麻省理工学院出版社,邮政,保罗。1993年,一些有缺陷的范式。语言学探究24(2)。347–364),带焦点动词的ECM(Rooryck,Johan.2000。句子互补结构:从浪漫主义语言看。伦敦和纽约:Routledge),以及赌注类动词(Pesetsky,David,2019。剥离:走向子句大小的衍生理论。麻省理工学院。未发布ms,版本2.0。http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004440(2022年4月26日查阅))。基于作者自己的判断,并辅以美国一所大学进行的可接受性调查的结果,本文提出了一个新颖的主张,即不存在具有这些语法特性的英语动词类,这一发现显著减少了解释互补类型所需的语法机制清单。此外,本文还对下注动词的两个分布特征进行了新的阐述,这是其他某些向宾语(RO)/例外格标记(ECM)动词所没有表现出的。首先,下注动词的不定式补语被认为在方面上与矩阵动词相连,而预测型动词的补语则不然。这就解释了一个众所周知的对这个动词类的补语的静态限制,包括相信。其次,先前归因于Postal的DOC或其他理论中的对应物的不可接受性判断被认为是由三种语用用法偏好引起的,这三种偏好涉及语域和非典型程度,通过选择该动词类的标记RO选项来编码,与下注动词相比,相信动词的偏好表现不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Linguistic Review
Linguistic Review Multiple-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Linguistic Review aims at publishing high-quality papers in syntax, semantics, phonology, and morphology, within a framework of Generative Grammar and related disciplines, as well as critical discussions of theoretical linguistics as a branch of cognitive psychology. Striving to be a platform for discussion, The Linguistic Review welcomes reviews of important new monographs in these areas, dissertation abstracts, and letters to the editor. The editor also welcomes initiatives for thematic issues with guest editors. The Linguistic Review is a peer-reviewed journal of international scope.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信