1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Reclaiming Control as a Semantic and Pragmatic Phenomenon

Reclaiming Control as a Semantic and Pragmatic Phenomenon

image of Reclaiming Control as a Semantic and Pragmatic Phenomenon
GBP
Buy:£80.00 + Taxes

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.

References

  1. Achard, Michel
    1998 Representation of Cognitive Structures, Syntax and Semantics of French Sentential Complements. Cognitive Linguistics Research Series 11. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110805956
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805956 [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. 2007 “Complementation.” In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts , and Hubert Cuyckens , 782-802. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ariel, Mira
    2008 Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791314
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791314 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2010 Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511777912
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777912 [Google Scholar]
  6. Arseneau, Maryse
    2009 The Infinitive and the Gerund-participle as Complements of Verbs of Risk. M.A. thesis, Université Laval.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Azar, Betty Schrampf
    1981 Understanding and Using English Grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bach, Emmon
    1982 “Purpose Clauses and Control.” InThe Nature of Syntactic Representation, ed. by Jacobson, Pauline , and Geoffrey K. Pullum , 35–57. Dordrecht: Reidel. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑7707‑5_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7707-5_2 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bach, Kent
    2001 “You don’t say?”Syntheses128: 15-44. doi: 10.1023/A:1010353722852
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010353722852 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bardzokas, Valandis
    2012 Causality and Connectives. From Grice to Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.216
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.216 [Google Scholar]
  11. Barrie, Michael
    2008 “Control and wh-infinitivals.” InNew Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, ed. by Davies, William D. , and Stanley Dubinsky , 263–279. Dordrecht: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Baschung, Karine
    1996 “Une approche lexicalisée des phénomènes de contrôle. ”Langages122: 96-122. doi: 10.3406/lgge.1996.1751
     https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1996.1751 [Google Scholar]
  13. 1998 “Le contrôle revisité, y a-t-il une différence entre verbes ‘à contrôle’ et verbes ‘à montée’?”Journal of French Language Studies8: 1-27. doi: 10.1017/S0959269500000545
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269500000545 [Google Scholar]
  14. Berrendonner, Alain , and Marie-José Reichler-Béguelin
    1989 “Décalages. Les niveaux de l’analyse linguistique.” Langue Française8: 99-125. doi: 10.3406/lfr.1989.4770
     https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1989.4770 [Google Scholar]
  15. Birdsong, David
    1989 Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑74124‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-74124-1 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bloom, Lois , Jo Tackeff , and Margaret Lahey
    1984 “Learning to in Complement Constructions.” Journal of Child Language11: 391-406. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900005833
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900005833 [Google Scholar]
  17. Boeckx, Cedric , and Norbert Hornstein
    2003 “Reply to ‘Control is not Movement’.”Linguistic Inquiry34: 269-280. doi: 10.1162/002438903321663406
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438903321663406 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2004 “Movement Under Control.”Linguistic Inquiry35: 431-452. doi: 10.1162/0024389041402625
     https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389041402625 [Google Scholar]
  19. Boeckx, Cedric
    2006 Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Boeckx, Cedric , and Norbert Hornstein
    2006 “Control in Icelandic and Theories of Control.”Linguistic Inquiry37: 591-606. doi: 10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.591
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.591 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. Boeckx, Cedric , Norbert Hornstein , and Jairo Nunes
    2010 Control as Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511761997
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761997 [Google Scholar]
  23. 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 Nicke l, 17-28. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Boutault, Joasha
    2011 “A tough nut to crack, a Semantico-syntactic Analysis of TOUGH-constructions in Contemporary English.”Syntaxe and Sémantique12: 95-119.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Bowers, John
    2008 “On Reducing Control to Movement.”Syntax11: 125-143. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2008.00103.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2008.00103.x [Google Scholar]
  26. British National Corpus 1995 Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Carnie, Andrew
    2007 Syntax, A Generative Introduction, 2nd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Carroll, John B
    1971 “Currrent Issues in Psycholinguistics and Second Language Teaching.”TESOL Quarterly5: 101-114. doi: 10.2307/3585992
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3585992 [Google Scholar]
  29. 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]
  30. 2002 Thoughts and Utterances, The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470754603
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  31. 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]
  32. Chapman, Siobhan
    2011 Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978‑0‑230‑34519‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-34519-5 [Google Scholar]
  33. Chierchia, Gennaro
    1988 Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. New York: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 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. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2721‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2721-6 [Google Scholar]
  35. Chomsky, Noam
    1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. COCA, Corpus of Contemporary American 2008 Compiled by Mark Davies , Brigham Young University.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary 1995 New York: Harper and Collins.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Combettes, Bernard
    1998 Les constructions détachées en français. Gap: Ophrys.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Comrie, Bernard
    1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 1985 “Reflections on Subject and Object Control.”Journal of Semantics4: 47-65. doi: 10.1093/jos/4.1.47
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/4.1.47 [Google Scholar]
  43. Culicover, Peter W. , and Ray Jackendoff
    2001 “Control is not Movement.”Linguistic Inquiry32: 493-512. doi: 10.1162/002438901750372531
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901750372531 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2005 Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Culicover, Peter W
    1997 Principles and Parameters, an Introduction to Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 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. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139060998.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139060998.004 [Google Scholar]
  47. Davis, Wayne A
    1998 Implicature, Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511663796
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663796 [Google Scholar]
  48. Dickens, Charles
    1967[1850]. David Copperfield. London: Heron.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Dowty, David Roach
    1985 “On Recent Analyses of the Semantics of Control.”Linguistics and Philosophy8: 291-331. doi: 10.1007/BF00630916
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630916 [Google Scholar]
  50. Dowty, David
    1991 “Thematic Proto-roles and Argument Selection.”Language67: 547-619. doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  51. Ducrot, Oswald
    1984 Le dire et le dit. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Duffley, Patrick J
    1992 The English Infinitive. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 1999 “The Use of the Infinitive and the -ing after Verbs Denoting the Beginning, Middle and End of an Event.”Folia Linguistica33: 295–331. doi: 10.1515/flin.1999.33.3‑4.295
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1999.33.3-4.295 [Google Scholar]
  54. 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 Linguistics44: 251-266.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Duffley, Patrick J
    2003 “The Gerund and the to-infinitive as Subject.”Journal of English Linguistics31: 324-352. doi: 10.1177/0075424203257833
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424203257833 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2006 The English Gerund-participle. A Comparison with the Infinitive. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Duffley, Patrick J. , and Rafika Abida
    2009 “Complementation with Verbs of Choice in English.”Canadian Journal of Linguistics54: 1-26. doi: 10.1353/cjl.0.0028
     https://doi.org/10.1353/cjl.0.0028 [Google Scholar]
  58. 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 Linguistics57: 31-50. doi: 10.1353/cjl.2012.0022
     https://doi.org/10.1353/cjl.2012.0022 [Google Scholar]
  59. 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.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Egan, Thomas
    2008 Non-finite Complementation, a Usage-based Study of Infinitive and -ing Clauses in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 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]
  62. Farkas, Donka
    1988 “On Obligatory Control.”Linguistics and Philosophy11: 27-58. doi: 10.1007/BF00635756
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00635756 [Google Scholar]
  63. Farrell, Patrick
    1995 “Lexical Binding.”Linguistics33: 939-80. doi: 10.1515/ling.1995.33.5.939
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1995.33.5.939 [Google Scholar]
  64. 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]
  65. 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]
  66. Fowler, Henry Watson , and Francis George Fowler
    1931 The King’s English, 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Gazdar, Gerald
    1979 Pragmatics, Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. London: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Givón, Talmy
    1980 “The Binding Hierarchy and the Typology of Complements.”Studies in Language4: 333-377. doi: 10.1075/sl.4.3.03giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.4.3.03giv [Google Scholar]
  69. 2001 Syntax: an Introduction, Volume II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Goldberg, Adele E
    1995 Constructions: a Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Grimshaw, Jane
    1997 “Projections, Heads, and Optimality.”Linguistic Inquiry28: 373-422.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Guillaume, Gustave
    1984 Foundations for a Science of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.31
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.31 [Google Scholar]
  73. 1990 Leçons de linguistique de Gustave Guillaume 1943-1944. Série A. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval and Paris: Klincksieck.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Hagège, Claude
    1974 “Les pronoms logophoriques.”Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris69: 287-310.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Haiman, John
    1985 Natural Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Halliday, Michael A.K. , and J.R. Martin
    1993 Writing Science, Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Hamawand, Zeki
    2002 Atemporal Complement Clauses in English. A Cognitive Grammar Analysis. Munich: Lincom Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Haspelmath, Martin
    1989 “From Purposive to Infinitive – a Universal Path of Grammaticalization.”Folia Linguistica Historica10: 287-310.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 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. doi: 10.1075/hcp.27.07hay
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.27.07hay [Google Scholar]
  80. Hewson, John
    1992 “The Ideal Sentence as a Linguistic Datum.”Journal of Pragmatics18: 579-589. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90120‑Z
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90120-Z [Google Scholar]
  81. Hicks, Glyn
    2009 “ Tough-constructions and their Derivation.” Linguistic Inquiry40: 535–566. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.535
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.535 [Google Scholar]
  82. 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]
  83. Hirtle, Walter H
    1995 “The Simple Form again: an Analysis of Direction-giving and Other Uses.”Journal of Pragmatics24: 265-281. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00054‑I
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00054-I [Google Scholar]
  84. 2007a Lessons on the English Verb. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 2007b Language in the Mind. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Hornstein, Norbert
    1999 “Movement and Control.”Linguistic Inquiry30: 69-96. doi: 10.1162/002438999553968
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999553968 [Google Scholar]
  87. Huddleston, Rodney , and Geoffrey K. Pullum
    2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  88. Israel, Michael
    2011 The Grammar of Polarity, Pragmatics, Sensitivity, and the Logic of Scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511975288
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975288 [Google Scholar]
  89. 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. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑7959‑9_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7959-9_5 [Google Scholar]
  90. Jespersen, Otto
    1924/1992. The Philosophy of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 1927 A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part II. London: George Allen and Unwin.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. 1940 A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part V. London: George Allen and Unwin.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Jordan, Michael. P
    1999 “‘Unattached’ Clauses in Technical Writing.”Journal of Technical Writing and Communication29: 65-93. doi: 10.2190/41PB‑WPVV‑0VXY‑JM1Q
     https://doi.org/10.2190/41PB-WPVV-0VXY-JM1Q [Google Scholar]
  94. Katz, Jerrold
    1977 Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force. New York: Crowell.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Kawasaki, Noriko
    1993 Control and Arbitrary Interpretation in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 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]
  97. Kempson, Ruth
    1986 “Ambiguity and the Semantics-pragmatics Distinction.” In Meaning and Interpretation, ed. by Charles Travis , 77-103. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 1988 “Grammar and Conversational Principles.” In Linguistics, The Cambridge Survey, Volume2, ed. by Frederick Newmeyer , 139-163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621055.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621055.009 [Google Scholar]
  99. Kortmann, Bernd
    1991 Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English. Problems of Control and Interpretation. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Lamiroy, Béatrice
    1987 “The Complementation of Aspectual Verbs in French.”Language63: 278-298. doi: 10.2307/415657
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415657 [Google Scholar]
  101. Landau, Idan
    2000 Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3943‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3943-4 [Google Scholar]
  102. 2004 “The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control.”Natural Language and Linguistic Theory22: 811-877. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑004‑4265‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-4265-5 [Google Scholar]
  103. 2010 “The Explicit Syntax of Implicit Arguments.”Linguistic Inquiry41: 357-388. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00001
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00001 [Google Scholar]
  104. 2013 Control in Generative Grammar. A Research Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139061858
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139061858 [Google Scholar]
  105. Langacker, Ronald W
    1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. 1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. 2000 Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Lasnik, Howard and Robert Fiengo
    1974 Complement Object Deletion. Linguistic Inquiry5: 535–571.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 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. doi: 10.1515/9783110219258.69
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219258.69 [Google Scholar]
  110. Leech, Geoffrey N
    2004 Meaning and the English Verb, 3rd edition. London: Pearson.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Le Flem, Daniel C
    1987 “De + infinitif: préposition ou complémentiseur?”Langues et linguistique13: 121-145.
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Levinson, Stephen C
    1987 “Pragmatics and the Grammar of Anaphora: a Partial Pragmatic Reduction of Binding and Control Phenomena.”Journal of Linguistics23: 379-434. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700011324
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011324 [Google Scholar]
  113. 2000 Presumptive Meanings: the Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Los, Bettelou
    2005 The Rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274765.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274765.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  115. Lyngfelt, Benjamin
    2000 “OT Semantics and Control.” Rutgers Optimality Archive 411. http//roa.rutgers.edu/files/411-0800/roa-411-lyngfelt-3.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  116. 2002 Kontroll i svenskan. Den optimala tolkningen av infinitivers tankesubjekt. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensia.
     [Google Scholar]
  117. 2009 “Control Phenomena.” In Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics, ed. by Frank Brisard , Jan-Ola Östman , and Jef Verschueren , 33-49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hoph.5.02lyn
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.5.02lyn [Google Scholar]
  118. Mair, Christian
    1990 Infinitival Complement Clauses in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Manzini, Maria Rita
    1983 “On Control and Control Theory.”Linguistic Inquiry14: 421-446.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Martinich, Aloysius P. , and Avrum Stroll
    2007 Much Ado About Nonexistence, Fiction and Reference. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
     [Google Scholar]
  121. 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]
  122. Matthews, Peter H
    1981 Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. McArthur, Tom
    1992 The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  124. 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. doi: 10.1075/tsl.85.03ree
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.85.03ree [Google Scholar]
  125. Murphy, Raymond
    1989 Grammar in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Nanni, Deborah L
    1980 “On the Surface Syntax of Constructions with easy-type Adjectives.”Language56: 568-581. doi: 10.2307/414450
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414450 [Google Scholar]
  127. 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]
  128. Panther, Klaus-Uwe , and Klaus-Michael Köpcke
    1993 “A Cognitive Approach to Obligatory Control Phenomena in English and German.”Folia Linguistica27: 57-106. doi: 10.1515/flin.1993.27.1‑2.57
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1993.27.1-2.57 [Google Scholar]
  129. 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. doi: 10.1075/cilt.150.29pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.150.29pan [Google Scholar]
  130. 2008 “Relating Participants across Asymmetric Events: Conceptual Constraints on Obligatory Control.” In Asymmetric Events, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk , 209-225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.11.14pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.11.14pan [Google Scholar]
  131. 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]
  132. Popper, Karl
    1959 The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Portner, Paul H
    2005 What is Meaning?. Oxford: Clarendon.
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Postal, Paul M
    1970 “On Coreferential Complement Subject Deletion.”Linguistic Inquiry 1, 439‑500.
     [Google Scholar]
  135. 1974 On Raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech , and Jan Svartvik
    1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Radford, Andrew
    1997 Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166706
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166706 [Google Scholar]
  138. Recanati, François
    2004 Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  139. 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]
  140. 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]
  141. Río-Rey, Carmen
    2002 “Subject Control and Coreference in Early Modern English Free Adjuncts and Absolutes.”English Language and Linguistics6: 309-323. doi: 10.1017/S1360674302000254
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674302000254 [Google Scholar]
  142. 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]
  143. Romaine, Suzanne
    1992 “The Evolution of Complexity in a Creole Language: Acquisition of Relative Clauses in Tok Pisin.”Studies in Language16: 139-82. doi: 10.1075/sl.16.1.06rom
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16.1.06rom [Google Scholar]
  144. Rosenbaum, Peter S
    1967a The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  145. 1967b “Phrase Structure Principles of English Complex Sentence Formation.”Journal of Linguistics3: 103-118. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700012986
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012986 [Google Scholar]
  146. 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]
  147. Rudanko, Juhani
    1996 Prepositions 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]
  148. 2002 Complements and Constructions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
     [Google Scholar]
  149. 2011 Changes in Complementation in British and American English. Houndmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230305199
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230305199 [Google Scholar]
  150. Ruhl, Charles
    1989 On Monosemy. A Study in Linguistic Semantics. SUNY Series in Linguistics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  151. Ruwet, Nicolas
    1991 Syntax and Human Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  152. 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]
  153. Safir, Ken
    1987 “The Syntactic Projection of Lexical Thematic Structure.”Natual Language and Linguistic Theory5: 561-601. doi: 10.1007/BF00138989
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138989 [Google Scholar]
  154. Sag, Ivan A. , and Carl Pollard
    1991 “An Integrated Theory of Complement Control.”Language 67: 63‑113.
     [Google Scholar]
  155. Schachter, Paul
    1976 “A Nontransformational Account of Gerundive Nominals in English.”Linguistic Inquiry 7: 205‑241.
     [Google Scholar]
  156. Sells, Peter
    1987 “Aspects of Logophoricity.”Linguistic Inquiry18: 445-479.
     [Google Scholar]
  157. Seuren, Pieter A.M
    2004 Chomsky’s Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  158. Smith, Michael B
    2009 “The Semantics of Complementation in English: a Cognitive Semantic Account of two English Complement Constructions.”Language Sciences31: 360-388. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2008.06.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  159. Stowell, Tim
    1982 “The Tense of Infinitives.”Linguistic Inquiry13: 561-570.
     [Google Scholar]
  160. Thompson, Sandra A
    1973 “On Subjectless Gerunds in English.”Foundations of Language 9: 374‑383.
     [Google Scholar]
  161. 1983 Grammar and Discourse, the English Detached Participial Clause. InDiscourse Perspectives on Syntax, ed. by Flora Klein , 43-65. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  162. Visser, Fredericus Th
    1969 An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Volume3, 1. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  163. 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. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511551970.012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551970.012 [Google Scholar]
  164. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1961 Springfield, MA: G. and C. Merriam Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  165. Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms 1973 Springfield, MA: G. and C. Merriam Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  166. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1987 “Boys will be Boys: ‘Radical Semantics’ vs. ‘Radical Pragmatics’.”Language63: 95-114. doi: 10.2307/415385
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415385 [Google Scholar]
  167. Williams, Edwin
    1980 “Predication.”Linguistic Inquiry11: 203-238.
     [Google Scholar]
  168. 1985 “PRO and Subject of NP.”Natural Language and Linguistic Theory3: 297-315. doi: 10.1007/BF00154265
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154265 [Google Scholar]
  169. 1992 “Adjunct Control.” In Control and Grammar, ed. by Richard Larson , Sabine Iatridou , Utpal Lahiri , and James Higginbotham , 297-322. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑7959‑9_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7959-9_9 [Google Scholar]
  170. Wood, Frederick T
    1956 “Gerund vs. Infinitive.”English Language Teaching11: 11-16. doi: 10.1093/elt/XI.1.11
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/XI.1.11 [Google Scholar]
  171. 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. doi: 10.1075/la.53.07wur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.53.07wur [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/books/9789027269478
Loading

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027269478
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027269478
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027269478
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error