This is a test
- 279 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
The book provides a detailed empirical approach to constructing grammatical analysis and theory, in particular the analysis of English verbs. It develops an integrated formal description of the English verbal system and offers several theoretical advances in the treatment of verbs that have escaped formulation until now.
Frequently asked questions
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoâs features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youâll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weâve got you covered! Learn more here.
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Yes, you can access The Syntax and Morphology of English Verbs by Joseph Embley Emonds in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Languages & Linguistics & Linguistics. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
1 English modals and be are not irregular verbs
1.1 English auxiliaries
The apparent complexity of the English system of verbal auxiliaries is well known and has been analyzed in many works on grammar, both theoretical and practical. To illustrate the variety of auxiliaries, letâs examine an artificially constructed but still simple exchange among four friends of a couple who are applying for jobs.
(1-1)
a
Are John and Mary maybe getting hired now?
b
John is already hired. Was Mary not being hired Monday? So they did get hired.
c
Thatâs wrong; John and Mary have not yet been hired.
d
But they will be hired soon, even if being hired does not seem easy and is not quick.
With the same main verb hired, these sentences contain twelve different words that are called auxiliaries: are, getting, is, was, did, get, have, been, will, be, being, and does. And all except get/getting and be/being appear to be unrelated in form to each other.1
Traditional and structuralist treatments of the English verb go some way toward setting up an observationally adequate system, for example the â5 slot modelâ in (1-2) laid out in Quirk et al. (2004).
(1-2)
English predicates: (modal)-(perfect have)-(progressive be)-(passive be) â lexical verb
Nonetheless, these treatments end up stating that an English lexical verb such as hired in the examples above can be preceded by a string of up to four auxiliary verbs in the same clause (should have been getting hired), and that these verbs, being subject to item-particular restrictions, are, well, just irregular. Thus, the available descriptions are simply lists of unpredictable irregularities of form and combination, and make no clear line between which verbs are âlexicalâ and which are âauxiliaryâ.
The first decades of generative grammar saw significant progress in making formal sense of the English verb system. One important ingredient of this progress was the claim from the start (Chomsky 1957: ch. 7) that English auxiliaries and main verbs are not in the same syntactic category, even though some of the former may share some characteristic (later called a feature) of lexical verbs in some constructions.
This proposal was hotly contested soon after it was made, even by Chomskyâs most intrepid followers (for example, Ross 1969), and most generative work on verbs in the last thirty years seems to increasingly reject, or at least ignore, Chomskyâs break with tradition. As a result, current generative syntax can easily give the impression that it is content to continue to refine well-established tenets of traditional and structuralist grammar â that English auxiliary verbs are first and foremost verbs, but have irregular lexical properties (item-particular and peripheral) that partly obscure their membership in the category V.
The most intensely felt reaction to Chomskyâs original system and to subsequent proposals for maintaining and refining it seems to center on English modal auxiliaries, namely those which are invariant, whatever the grammatical number and person of a clausal subject. There is a clearly delineated class of modals that consists of the following: will, would, can, could, may, might, shall, should, must, ought, dare, need, and had better.2
This chapter explores the issue of whether modals are in the category V or not. A preponderance of authors in current linguistics, including generativists, assumes that they are. To answer this question, we first should have some contentful criteria as to what a verb is.
1.2 Diagnostics for the category verb
1.2.1 The place of verbs in clausal structure
In line with traditional grammar going back to Aristotle, verbs are thought to be words that play a central role in the construction of âcomplete sentencesâ or (when there are no embedded sentences) âclausesâ. In turn, a clause is then composed of: (i) a subject, a potentially complex Noun Phrase currently widely notated as DP (âDeterminer Phraseâ), and (ii) a predicate formed around a Verb Phrase, a unit whose âmain wordâ is a verb.3
From this perspective, a typical clausal structure thus looks like this, with the agreeing main verbs underlined:
(1-3)
Subjects + Predicates
[CLAUSE [DP [D some] [NP [N trails] into the forest] [VP really [V look] steep]]
[CLAUSE [DP [D no] [NP [N trail] into the forest]] [VP really [V looks] steep]]
[CLAUSE [DP [D those] [NP two [N guys] you chose]] [VP [V try] to drive well]]
[CLAUSE [DP [D that] [NP one [N guy] you chose]] [VP [V tries] to drive well]]
Thus one says that D is the head of DP, that N is the head of NP, and that V or VP is the head of the clause. Here are the coinciding defining properties of a head proposed in Harris (1957) and still current today:
(1-4)
Head Properties. A head of a phrase is a structurally obligatory position that selects other constituents in that phrase, and is selected by other heads outside that phrase.
The fact that a head is structurally obligatory does not mean that its position is always spelled out by an overt morpheme. The obligatory Noun positions e in the bracketed subject phrases in (1-5a) are all phonetically silent, as are the âgappedâ obligatory Verb positions in (1-5b):
(1-5)
a
[Those e through the forest] are the most beautiful.
[Everybody else e in that neighborhood] seems to own a fur coat.
[Three or more e of them] are usually dangerous.
[e Who you marry] matters little to me.
b
Has your sister got a car or [your brother e a bicycle]?
John should clean the kitchen and [Mary e the bedrooms].
John is now a teacher and [Mary e a bus driver].
Although âheadâ is a central theoretical construct in syntax, there is no method of analyzing syntactic data based on a priori considerations such a...
Table of contents
- Title Page
- Copyright
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- 1âEnglish modals and be are not irregular verbs
- 2âThe single English Past morpheme âed / -en
- 3âRegular inflections and contractions: Limits on grammatical irregularity
- 4âPolyfunctional âing: Can any other language match it?
- 5âGerunds vs. infinitives: Less alike than they look
- 6âEnglish passive structures and the passive participle
- 7âThe empirical basis of theoretical advance
- Index of cited authors
- Index of definitions, principles, tables and trees
- Index of English lexical entries