Reclaiming Control as a Semantic and Pragmatic Phenomenon

| Université Laval
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027256560 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027269478 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
This monograph is part of a growing research agenda in which semantics and pragmatics not only complement the grammar, but replace it. The analysis is based on the assumption that human language is not primarily about form, but about form-meaning pairings. This runs counter to the autonomous-syntax postulate underlying Landau (2013)’s Control in Generative Grammar that form must be hived off from meaning and studied separately. Duffley shows control to depend on meaning in combination with inferences based on the nature of the events expressed by the matrix and complement, the matrix subject, the semantic relation between matrix and complement, and a number of other factors.

The conclusions call for a reconsideration of Ariel (2010)’s distinction in Defining Pragmatics between semantics and pragmatics on the basis of cancelability: many control readings are not cancelable although they are pragmatically inferred. It is proposed that the line be drawn rather between what is linguistically expressed and what is not linguistically expressed but still communicated.
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 251]  2014.  x, 246 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Preface
ix–x
Chapter 1. Linguistic semantics and pragmatics – what is said and what is not
1–12
Chapter 2. The phenomenon of control
13–29
Chapter 3. The meaning of the to-infinitive and of the gerund-participle
31–38
Chapter 4. Control with the infinitive and gerund-participle in subject function
39–48
Chapter 5. Control with the infinitive and gerund-participle as direct complement of another verb
49–76
Chapter 6. Control in structures with non-finite verb forms in both subject and complement functions
77–91
Chapter 7. Control in adjective + to-infinitive constructions
93–106
Chapter 8. Control in verb + NP + to-infinitive constructions
107–113
Chapter 9. Control in verb + to + gerund-participle vs. verb + to + infinitive constructions
115–131
Chapter 10. Control in constructions composed of matrix verb + deverbal noun
133–151
Chapter 11. Particular issues raised by other approaches to control
153–207
Chapter 12. Control in French
209–227
Conclusion: Human language as the place where mind meets matter
229–233
References
235–242
Subject index
243–246
“Patrick Duffley’s Reclaiming Control as a Semantic and Pragmatic Phenomenon is an excellent piece of research which is part of a growing research agenda where semantic and pragmatic accounts not only complement the grammar, but actually replace it. It successfully covers a vast and complex range of empirical data, yet manages to offer a simple, highly commonsensical analysis for a phenomenon that has preoccupied many linguists for many years.”
“Professor Duffley’s new book advances our understanding of control in a significant way. The book covers an impressively large number of control constructions and the author opens up new perspectives on the question by using electronic corpora, thus bringing to light previously unknown data.”
“This book provides an insightful and thorough analysis of one of the most discussed phenomena in modern Linguistics. Duffley clearly demonstrates that a combination of semantic and pragmatic considerations convincingly explains the various properties of control constructions. Beyond its importance to the study of control, this book will be valuable to any linguist interested in the semantic and syntactic behavior of grammatical constructions.”
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Duffley, Patrick J.
2018.  In Changing Structures [Studies in Language Companion Series, 195],  pp. 15 ff. Crossref logo
Fonteyn, Lauren
2016. From nominal to verbal gerunds. Functions of Language 23:1  pp. 60 ff. Crossref logo
JANKE, VIKKI & LAURA R. BAILEY
2017. Effects of discourse on control. Journal of Linguistics 53:3  pp. 533 ff. Crossref logo
Kaunisto, Mark & Juhani Rudanko
2019.  In Variation in Non-finite Constructions in English,  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References

Achard, Michel
1998Representation of Cognitive Structures, Syntax and Semantics of French Sentential Complements. Cognitive Linguistics Research Series 11. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001“The Syntax of French Raising Verbs.” In Conceptual and Discourse Factors in Linguistic Structure, ed. by Alan Cienki, Barbara J. Luka, and Michael B. Smith, 1-26. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2007“Complementation.” In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuyckens, 782-802. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira
2008Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arseneau, Maryse
2009The Infinitive and the Gerund-participle as Complements of Verbs of Risk. M.A. thesis, Université Laval.Google Scholar
Azar, Betty Schrampf
1981Understanding and Using English Grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon
1982 “Purpose Clauses and Control.” In The Nature of Syntactic Representation, ed. by Jacobson, Pauline, and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 35–57. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent
2001“You don’t say?” Syntheses 128: 15-44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bardzokas, Valandis
2012Causality and Connectives. From Grice to Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barrie, Michael
2008 “Control and wh-infinitivals.” In New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, ed. by Davies, William D., and Stanley Dubinsky, 263–279. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Baschung, Karine
1996“Une approche lexicalisée des phénomènes de contrôle. ” Langages 122: 96-122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998“Le contrôle revisité, y a-t-il une différence entre verbes ‘à contrôle’ et verbes ‘à montée’?” Journal of French Language Studies 8: 1-27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berrendonner, Alain, and Marie-José Reichler-Béguelin
1989 “Décalages. Les niveaux de l’analyse linguistique.” Langue Française 8: 99-125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, David
1989Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Lois, Jo Tackeff, and Margaret Lahey
1984 “Learning to in Complement Constructions.” Journal of Child Language 11: 391-406. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein
2003“Reply to ‘Control is not Movement’.” Linguistic Inquiry 34: 269-280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004“Movement Under Control.” Linguistic Inquiry 35: 431-452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric
2006Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein
2006“Control in Icelandic and Theories of Control.” Linguistic Inquiry 37: 591-606. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008“On (non-)Obligatory Control.” In New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, ed. by William D. Davies, and Stanley Dubinsky, 251-262. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein, and Jairo Nunes
2010Control as Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1974“John’s easiness to please.” In Special Issue of IRAL on the Occasion of Bertil Malmberg’s 60th Birthday, ed. by Gerhard Nickel, 17-28. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Google Scholar
Boutault, Joasha
2011A tough nut to crack, a Semantico-syntactic Analysis of TOUGH-constructions in Contemporary English.” Syntaxe and Sémantique 12: 95-119.Google Scholar
Bowers, John
2008“On Reducing Control to Movement.” Syntax 11: 125-143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
British National Corpus 1995 Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew
2007Syntax, A Generative Introduction, 2nd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Carroll, John B.
1971“Currrent Issues in Psycholinguistics and Second Language Teaching.” TESOL Quarterly 5: 101-114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn
1991“Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-theoretic Semantics.” In Pragmatics. A Reader, ed. by Steven Davis, 33-51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2002Thoughts and Utterances, The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1985“Linguistic Differences Produced by Differences between Speaking and Writing.” In Literacy, Language, and Learning, ed. by David Olson, Andrea Hildvard, and Nancy Torrence, 105-123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, Siobhan
2011Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
1988Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
1989“Structured Meanings, Thematic Roles and Control.” In Properties, Types and Meaning II, ed. by Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara Partee, and Raymond Turner, 131‑166. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1957Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1965Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1981Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
COCA, Corpus of Contemporary American 2008 Compiled by Mark Davies, Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
Collins Cobuild English Dictionary 1995 New York: Harper and Collins.Google Scholar
Combettes, Bernard
1998Les constructions détachées en français. Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1976Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1985“Reflections on Subject and Object Control.” Journal of Semantics 4: 47-65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff
2001“Control is not Movement.” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 493-512. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W.
1997Principles and Parameters, an Introduction to Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark
2013“Recent Shifts with Three Nonfinite Verbal Complements in English.” In The Verb Phrase in English, ed. by Bas Aarts et al., 46-67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Wayne A.
1998Implicature, Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dickens, Charles
1967[1850]. David Copperfield. London: Heron.Google Scholar
Dowty, David Roach
1985“On Recent Analyses of the Semantics of Control.” Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 291-331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David
1991“Thematic Proto-roles and Argument Selection.” Language 67: 547-619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald
1984Le dire et le dit. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J.
1992The English Infinitive. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1999 “The Use of the Infinitive and the -ing after Verbs Denoting the Beginning, Middle and End of an Event.” Folia Linguistica 33: 295–331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J., and Jean-François Joubert
1999 “The Gerund and the Infinitive with the Verbs intend, mean, propose and their Close Synonyms.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 44: 251-266.Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J.
2003“The Gerund and the to-infinitive as Subject.” Journal of English Linguistics 31: 324-352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006The English Gerund-participle. A Comparison with the Infinitive. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J., and Rafika Abida
2009“Complementation with Verbs of Choice in English.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 54: 1-26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J., and Maryse Arseneau
2012“Tense and Control Interpretations in Gerund-participle and to-infinitive Complement Constructions with Verbs of Risk.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57: 31-50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J., and Carleen Gruntman
2012 “Appearances can be Deceptive, Especially when Polysemy is Concerned.” Paper Presented at the 4th United Kingdom Cognitive Linguistics Conference . London, UK.
Egan, Thomas
2008Non-finite Complementation, a Usage-based Study of Infinitive and -ing Clauses in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Español-Echevarría, Manuel
2000“The Interaction of Obligatory and Nonobligatory Control in Rationale Clauses.” In Proceedings of the 19th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Roger Billerey, and Brook Danielle Lillehaugen, 97-110. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka
1988“On Obligatory Control.” Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 27-58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Patrick
1995“Lexical Binding.” Linguistics 33: 939-80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita
2011“Pragmatics as a Linguistic Concept.” In Foundations of Pragmatics, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz, and Neal R. Norrick, 23-50. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., and Beryl T.S. Atkins
1992“Towards a Frame-based Lexicon, the Semantics of risk and its Neighbours.” In Frames, Fields and Contrasts, New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization, ed. by Adrienne Lehrer, and Eva Feder Kittay, 75-102. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fowler, Henry Watson, and Francis George Fowler
1931The King’s English, 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald
1979Pragmatics, Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1980“The Binding Hierarchy and the Typology of Complements.” Studies in Language 4: 333-377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Syntax: an Introduction, Volume II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995Constructions: a Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1997“Projections, Heads, and Optimality.” Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373-422.Google Scholar
Guillaume, Gustave
1984Foundations for a Science of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990Leçons de linguistique de Gustave Guillaume 1943-1944. Série A. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval and Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude
1974“Les pronoms logophoriques.” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 69: 287-310.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
1985 Natural Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K., and J.R. Martin
1993Writing Science, Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hamawand, Zeki
2002Atemporal Complement Clauses in English. A Cognitive Grammar Analysis. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1989“From Purposive to Infinitive – a Universal Path of Grammaticalization.” Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 287-310.Google Scholar
Hayase, Naoko
2011“The Cognitive Motivation for the Use of Dangling Participles in English.” In Motivation in Grammar and the Lexicon, ed. by Klaus-Uwe Panther, and Günter Radden, 89-106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hewson, John
1992“The Ideal Sentence as a Linguistic Datum.” Journal of Pragmatics 18: 579-589. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, Glyn
2009 “ Tough-constructions and their Derivation.” Linguistic Inquiry 40: 535–566.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2010“The Force Dynamics of English Complement Clauses, a Collostructional Analysis.” In Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics, Corpus-Driven Approaches, ed. by Dylan Glynn, and Kerstin Fischer, 155-178. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hirtle, Walter H.
1995“The Simple Form again: an Analysis of Direction-giving and Other Uses.” Journal of Pragmatics 24: 265-281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007aLessons on the English Verb. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
2007bLanguage in the Mind. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert
1999“Movement and Control.” Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69-96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum
2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael
2011The Grammar of Polarity, Pragmatics, Sensitivity, and the Logic of Scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline
1992“Raising without Movement.” In Control and Grammar. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 48, ed. by Richard K. Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James Higginbotham, 149-194. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1924/1992. The Philosophy of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1927A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part II. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
1940A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part V. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jordan, Michael. P.
1999“‘Unattached’ Clauses in Technical Writing.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 29: 65-93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold
1977Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Kawasaki, Noriko
1993Control and Arbitrary Interpretation in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne, and Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot
1996“The Semantics of ‘Empty Prepositions’ in French.” In Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods, ed. by Eugene Casad, 347-388. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth
1986“Ambiguity and the Semantics-pragmatics Distinction.” In Meaning and Interpretation, ed. by Charles Travis, 77-103. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1988“Grammar and Conversational Principles.” In Linguistics, The Cambridge Survey, Volume 2, ed. by Frederick Newmeyer, 139-163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd
1991Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English. Problems of Control and Interpretation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, Béatrice
1987“The Complementation of Aspectual Verbs in French.” Language 63: 278-298. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan
2000Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004“The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811-877. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010“The Explicit Syntax of Implicit Arguments.” Linguistic Inquiry 41: 357-388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Control in Generative Grammar. A Research Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Robert Fiengo
1974Complement Object Deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 535–571.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, and Tsuyoshi Ono
2010“Recursion in Conversation, What Speakers of Finnish and Japanese know how to do.” In Recursion and Human Language, ed. by Harry van der Hulst, 69-92. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N.
2004Meaning and the English Verb, 3rd edition. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Le Flem, Daniel C.
1987De + infinitif: préposition ou complémentiseur?” Langues et linguistique 13: 121-145.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1987“Pragmatics and the Grammar of Anaphora: a Partial Pragmatic Reduction of Binding and Control Phenomena.” Journal of Linguistics 23: 379-434. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Presumptive Meanings: the Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou
2005The Rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin
2000 “OT Semantics and Control.” Rutgers Optimality Archive 411. http/​/roa​.rutgers​.edu​/files​/411​-0800​/roa​-411​-lyngfelt​-3​.pdfGoogle Scholar
2002Kontroll i svenskan. Den optimala tolkningen av infinitivers tankesubjekt. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensia.Google Scholar
2009“Control Phenomena.” In Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics, ed. by Frank Brisard, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren, 33-49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian
1990Infinitival Complement Clauses in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita
1983“On Control and Control Theory.” Linguistic Inquiry 14: 421-446.Google Scholar
Martinich, Aloysius P., and Avrum Stroll
2007Much Ado About Nonexistence, Fiction and Reference. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Martinich, Aloysius P.
2010“The Total Content of What a Speaker Means.” In Meaning and Analysis. New Essays on Grice, ed. by Petrus Klaus, 252-267. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H.
1981Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McArthur, Tom
1992The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2009“Re(e)volving Complexity: Adding Intonation.” In Syntactic Complexity, Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-cognition, Evolution, ed. by Talmy Givón, and Masayoshi Shibatani, 53-80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Raymond
1989Grammar in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nanni, Deborah L.
1980“On the Surface Syntax of Constructions with easy-type Adjectives.” Language 56: 568-581. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick
2002“Uniformitarian Assumptions and Language Evolution Research.” In The Transition to Language, ed. by Alison Wray, 359-375. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Klaus-Michael Köpcke
1993“A Cognitive Approach to Obligatory Control Phenomena in English and German.” Folia Linguistica 27: 57-106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe
1997“An Account of Implicit Complement Control in English and German.” In Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning, ed. by Marjolijn Verspoor, Kee Dong Lee, and Eve Sweetser, 417-432. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008“Relating Participants across Asymmetric Events: Conceptual Constraints on Obligatory Control.” In Asymmetric Events, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 209-225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M.
1970“The Two Verbs begin.” In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, ed. by Roderick A. Jacobs, and Peter S. Rosenbaum, 107-119. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl
1959The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul H.
2005What is Meaning?. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M.
1970“On Coreferential Complement Subject Deletion.” Linguistic Inquiry 1, 439‑500.Google Scholar
1974On Raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew
1997Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François
2004Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reichler-Béguelin, Marie-José
1995a“Les problèmes d’emploi du gérondif et des participiales en français contemporain.” In Le Français Langue Étrangère à l'université: théorie et pratique, Actes du Colloque de Varsovie, 25-26 November 1993, ed. by K. Zaleska, and A. Cataldi, 243-260. Warsaw: Uniwersytet Warszawski, Instytut Romanistyki.Google Scholar
1995b“Contrôle du sujet zéro de l'infinitif et programmation de la période.” In Problèmes de sémantique et de relations entre micro- et macro-syntaxe, Actes des Rencontres de linguistique BeNeFri-Strasbourg, Neuchâtel, 19-21 May 1994, ed. by Marie-Josée Reichler-Béguelin, 179-213. Strasburg: Publications of PROPARLAN, ERS du CNRS n° 125 and of l'Université des Sciences humaines de Strasbourg.Google Scholar
Río-Rey, Carmen
2002“Subject Control and Coreference in Early Modern English Free Adjuncts and Absolutes.” English Language and Linguistics 6: 309-323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter
2006“The Role of Functional Constraints in the Evolution of the English Complementation System.” In Syntax and Grammatical Norms, ed. by Christiane Dalton-Puffer et al., 143-166. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne
1992“The Evolution of Complexity in a Creole Language: Acquisition of Relative Clauses in Tok Pisin.” Studies in Language 16: 139-82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S.
1967aThe Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1967b“Phrase Structure Principles of English Complex Sentence Formation.” Journal of Linguistics 3: 103-118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter
1970“A Principle Governing Deletion in English Sentential Complementation.” In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, ed. by Roderick Jacobs, and Peter Rosenbaum, 20-29. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani
1996Prepositions and Complement Clauses. A Syntactic and Semantic Study of Verbs Governing Prepositions and Complement Clauses in Present-Day English. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
2002Complements and Constructions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
2011Changes in Complementation in British and American English. Houndmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruhl, Charles
1989On Monosemy. A Study in Linguistic Semantics. SUNY Series in Linguistics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas
1991Syntax and Human Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Saeed, John
2011“Pragmatics and Semantics.” In Foundations of Pragmatics, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz, and Neal R. Norrick, 461-490. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken
1987“The Syntactic Projection of Lexical Thematic Structure.” Natual Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 561-601. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., and Carl Pollard
1991“An Integrated Theory of Complement Control.” Language 67: 63‑113.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul
1976“A Nontransformational Account of Gerundive Nominals in English.” Linguistic Inquiry 7: 205‑241.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter
1987“Aspects of Logophoricity.” Linguistic Inquiry 18: 445-479.Google Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A.M.
2004Chomsky’s Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B.
2009“The Semantics of Complementation in English: a Cognitive Semantic Account of two English Complement Constructions.” Language Sciences 31: 360-388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Tim
1982“The Tense of Infinitives.” Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561-570.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
1973“On Subjectless Gerunds in English.” Foundations of Language 9: 374‑383.Google Scholar
1983Grammar and Discourse, the English Detached Participial Clause. In Discourse Perspectives on Syntax, ed. by Flora Klein, 43-65. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Th
1969An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Volume 3, 1. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe
2009“Non-finite Complements.” In One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English, ed. by Günter Rohdenburg, and Julia Schlüter, 212-227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1961 Springfield, MA: G. and C. Merriam Co.Google Scholar
Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms 1973 Springfield, MA: G. and C. Merriam Co.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1987“Boys will be Boys: ‘Radical Semantics’ vs. ‘Radical Pragmatics’.” Language 63: 95-114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1980“Predication.” Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203-238.Google Scholar
1985“PRO and Subject of NP.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 297-315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992“Adjunct Control.” In Control and Grammar, ed. by Richard Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James Higginbotham, 297-322. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Frederick T.
1956“Gerund vs. Infinitive.” English Language Teaching 11: 11-16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susanne
2002“Syntactic versus Semantic Control.” In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Groningen, May 26-27, 2000). Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 53, ed. by C. Jan-Wouter Zwart, and Werner Abraham, 93-127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subjects
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2014024723 | Marc record