
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 |
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?
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.
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.
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
| Previous Issue | TOC Main page | Language Main page | Next Issue |