Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1180492454> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 79 of
79
with 100 items per page.
- W1180492454 abstract "Constraints on pseudogapping constructions with doThis paper is part of a wider research project into the ways in which do functions in a variety of anaphoric structures, and the interaction between its particular semantics and its anaphoric potential. Here we focus on a subset of structures involving what generative syntacticians have named “pseudogapping” (cf. Levin 1986). The structures we are interested in are clauses in which a form of the verb do – sometimes in combination with an auxiliary – stands for a lexical verb in a preceding clause, as in:(1) PeopleinGreecedrinkmoreouzothantheydobrandy.(Levin1986:16)The constituent to the right of do, usually called a “remnant” (e.g. Lasnik 1999), semantically contrasts with a constituent in the antecedent clause.Linguists have very different acceptability judgements with respect to pseudogapping constructions (see Lasnik 1999: 152-53). The only way to circumvent this difficulty is to rely on corpus data. We have started searching the British National Corpus for relevant occurrences and have so far collected numerous instances where the remnant is a PP:(2) Such gestures appealed to many Romanians, as they did to Western observers anxious to see Ceaucescu as a “patriot” and reformer.(3) WeneverhadhuskiesonBirdIsland,butwedidontheotherbases.It is useful to note that the prepositional remnant in (2) repudiates an argument of appealed; whereas that in (3) contrasts with an adjunct to have. Now the very existence of (2)-(3) may appear to clash with the grammaticality judgments of a panel of informants we have consulted:(4) *JohnwenttoGermanyandMarydidtoAustria.Go (to) and other verbs such as leave (for) or live (in) take locative complements that behave more like arguments than like adjuncts. What (2) and (4) have in common is that the repudiated PP is an argument; but there is a relevant difference: the verb in (2) is (indirect) transitive. What (3) and (4) have in common is that the repudiated element is a locative complement; in (4), however, it is an argument while in (3) it is an adjunct. This suggests the following hypothesis: pseudogapping is blocked with a PP when the latter repudiates an argument of an intransitive verb.Although (3) and (4) seem to involve bona fide pseudogapping (cf. Lasnik 1999: 163), they are very close to Verb Phrase Ellipsis. Compare with:(5) There was a boy at school who was deaf, but he could read lips so we didn't have toshout. But I do with Mr Frost. He's always saying “What say, boy?”.The only difference here is that the element with which the remnant contrasts is not mentioned in the antecedent clause, but it is retrievable from the context: “with that boy”. If that difference turns out to be only secondary, there may actually be no clear-cut boundary between pseudogapping and certain forms of VPE.So far, we have found no reason to take issue with linguists who looked at pseudogapping independent of which auxiliary was used: the semantics of do has not proved to be a relevant parameter. Where its semantics does come in is in connection with examples like:(6) I called CCDO and told him I was going to post [the signs] around the neighborhood.He agreed to take some and canvas one section while I did the other.Here, it is difficult to decide if we are dealing with pseudogapping do or with lexical do used as a “general” verb in phrases such as do the living-room.ReferencesLasnik, H. 1999. “A Note on pseudogapping”. In Minimalist Analysis. Malden, Mass:Blackwell, pp. 151-74.Levin, N. 1986. Main Verb Ellipsis in Spoken English. New York: Garland.Souesme, J.-C. 1985. Do something et ses diverses realisations en anglais contemporain.Unpublished PhD thesis, Universite Paris 7." @default.
- W1180492454 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W1180492454 creator A5034976633 @default.
- W1180492454 creator A5062343270 @default.
- W1180492454 date "2007-07-04" @default.
- W1180492454 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
- W1180492454 title "Constraints on pseudogapping constructions with do" @default.
- W1180492454 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
- W1180492454 type Work @default.
- W1180492454 sameAs 1180492454 @default.
- W1180492454 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W1180492454 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W1180492454 hasAuthorship W1180492454A5034976633 @default.
- W1180492454 hasAuthorship W1180492454A5062343270 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C136197465 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C192209626 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C26022165 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C2776397901 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C2777056012 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C2779525943 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C2781256819 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C39890363 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C120665830 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C121332964 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C136197465 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C138496976 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C138885662 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C154945302 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C15744967 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C185592680 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C192209626 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C26022165 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C2776397901 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C2777056012 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C2779525943 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C2781256819 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C39890363 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C41008148 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C41895202 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C55493867 @default.
- W1180492454 hasConceptScore W1180492454C98184364 @default.
- W1180492454 hasLocation W11804924541 @default.
- W1180492454 hasOpenAccess W1180492454 @default.
- W1180492454 hasPrimaryLocation W11804924541 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W1175391008 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W147136189 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W1525940556 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W1619872451 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W1645609638 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W1991076539 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W2078530086 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W2186308130 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W2317298668 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W2500555027 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W2523301506 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W284274119 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W2939225352 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W308122504 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W314494392 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W337737614 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W40562253 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W83390617 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W2509038386 @default.
- W1180492454 hasRelatedWork W2531131742 @default.
- W1180492454 isParatext "false" @default.
- W1180492454 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W1180492454 magId "1180492454" @default.
- W1180492454 workType "article" @default.