Language - Journal of the LSA


Table of Contents
Volume 75
Number 1 (March 1999)

Articles
Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations:
The What's X doing Y? construction
Paul Kay & Charles J. Fillmore  1
Why surface syntactic structure reflects logical
structure as much as it does, but only that much
 
James D. McCawley  34 
Quantifier scope in English, Chinese,
and Japanese
Susumu Kuno, Ken-ichi Takami, & Yuru Wu   63 
     
Obituary:   
Zellig Sabbettai Harris  Peter Matthews   112
     
Reviews:     
Baynton: Forbidden signs: American culture
and the campaign against sign language 
C. A. Padden  120 
Zentella: Growing up bilingual:
Puerto Rican children in New York
Y. Rivera-Castillo 123
Mühlhäusler: Linguistic ecology: Language change and linguistic imperialism in the Pacific region  P. T. Roberge  126
Ritchie & Bhatia (eds.): Handbook of
second language acquisition 
M. Thomas  128
Jusczyk: The discovery of spoken language  D. Ingram  131
Pinker: How the mind works  D. T. Langendoen  136 
Kaye (ed.): Phonologies of Asia and Africa  G. Rubio  138
MacLaury: Color and cognition in Mesoamerica: Constructing categories as vantages  K. Allan  143 
Trautmann: Aryans and British India  S. Steever  147 
Regier: The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism  E. Casad  149 
Hardcastle & Laver (eds.): The handbook of
phonetic sciences 
F. Ingemann  152 
Mallory & Adams (eds.): Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture   W. P. Lehmann  154
Kropp Dakubu: Korle meets the sea: A sociolinguistic history of Accra   C. Myers-Scotton  158 
Frawley: Vygotsky and cognitive science: Language and the unification of the social and computational mind  J. Stanlaw  161 
Gopnik (ed.): The inheritance and innateness
of grammars 
A. Carstairs-McCarthy  164 
Biber: Dimensions of register variation:
A cross-linguistic comparison 
T. E. Nunnally  166
Drechsel: Mobilian jargon: Linguistics and sociohistorical aspects of a Native American pidgin  R. Sabino  169
     
Book Notices    173
Publications Received    220

Back to index


Abstracts:

 

Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction

Paul Kay
Charles J. Fillmore
University of California, Berkeley

Our goal is to present, by means of the detailed analysis of a single grammatical problem, some of the principal commitments and mechanisms of a grammatical theory that assigns a central role to the notion of GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION. To adopt a constructional approach is to undertake a commitment in principle to account for the entirety of each language. This means that the relatively general patterns of the language, such as the one licensing the ordering of a finite auxiliary verb before its subject in English, often known as SAI, and the highly idiomatic patterns, like kick the bucket, stand on an equal footing as data for which the grammar must account. An explicit grammar that covers the full range of constructions must represent all constructions, of whatever degree of generality or idiomaticity, in an common notation and must provide an explicit account of how each sentence of a language is licensed by a subset of the leaves of the inheritance hierarchy of constructions which constitutes the grammar of that language. Language-internal generalizations are captured inheritance relations among constructions. Cross-language generalizations are captured by the architecture of the representation system and by the sharing of abstract constructions across languages. The a particular grammatical phenomenon used here to introduce construction grammar (CG) is the construction that licenses the surprising syntactic and semantic features of a sentence like What are they doing resusciating constructions?

Back to index

Why surface syntactic structure reflects logical structure as much as it does, but only that much
James D. McCawley
University of Chicago

The hypotheses that (1) with regard at least to scope, deep structure is identical to logical structure, e.g. a quantified expression is a sister of the S that is its scope, and (2) the rules relating deep structure to surface apply according to a strict principle of cyclicity, explain both why there are many syntactic parallels between surface syntactic structure and logical structure (e.g. cases where surface c-command relations match logical scope relations) and why there are the derivations there are from these parallels (as when a tensed auxiliary verb can be in the scope of a floated quantifier, contrary to an otherwise valid generalization).
The approach is put to work in accounting for distinctions (explored in Heycock 1995) between cases in which anaphora constraints seem to require ' reconstruction' of an underlying structure vs, those that do not. The analysis, which exploits some hitherto overlooked details of logical structures and an improved statement of the restrictions on anaphoric relations, has no need of reconstruction.

Back to index

Quantifier scope in English, Chinese, and Japanese

Susumu Kuno
Harvard University
Ken-Ichi Takami
Tokyo Metropolitan University
Yuru Wu
Plainsboro, NJ

This article critically examines Aoun and Li's (1993) syntactic analysis of quantifier scope interpretations in English, Chinese, and Japanese, and it shows that (i) that there are serious theoretical problems with Aoun and Li's account of scope interpretations for the double object and topicalization constructions; (ii) there are ambiguous sentences that Aoun and Li's analysis predicts to be unambiguous ; and (iii) there are unambiguous sentences which their analysis predicts to be ambiguous. While problem (iii) makes their analysis insufficient, problems (i) and (ii) make it untenable. We propose a quantifier scope analysis that is free from any of the above three problems. We claim that quantifier scope interpretations of a given sentence result from the interactions of various principles, some syntactic, others nonsyntactic. We propose an expert system that takes all these principles into consideration, and arrives at a composite opinion of the relative strengths of the potential scope interpretations of a given sentence. We speculate that wide idiolectal variations in quantifier scope interpretations are due to differences among speakers on the relative weights these principles receive in their respective expert systems.

Back to index


BOOK NOTICES IN THIS ISSUE

 


 Previous Issue  TOC Main page Language Main page  Next Issue
 Previous Issue  TOC Main page  Language Main page  Next Issue


Comments and questions to: Martin U. Kappus (mkappus@babel.ling.upenn.edu)- June 1999