Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:33:25.403Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

This sentence sucks to analyse: Are suck, bite, blow, and work tough-predicates?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Carolyn Pytlyk
Carolyn Pytlyk*
Affiliation:
University of Victoria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates tough-predicates and whether four verbs (suck, bite, blow, and work) can function as this type of predicate. The theoretical analysis uses two syntactic and two semantic properties of prototypical tough-predicates to determine the status of the tough-verb candidates. Syntactically, tough-predicates select a to-infinitival complement and require a referential dependency between the matrix subject and the object gap in the complement clause. Semantically, the matrix subject must possess an inherent or permanent property and tough-predicates assign an “experiencer” role. From these four diagnostic properties, the analysis concludes that suck, bite, and blow are indeed tough-verbs, while the conclusions concerning work are less definitive. To complement the conclusions of the theoretical analysis, native speaker judgements were collected from 22 Canadian English speakers. The results show that for a majority of the consultants, suck, bite, and blow can function as tough-predicates. The behaviour of these verbs suggests that suck, bite, and blow (and possibly work) should be added to the small list of known tough-verbs.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article étudie les prédicats tough ainsi que la question de savoir si quatre verbes (suck, bite, blow et work) peuvent fonctionner comme prédicats tough. L’analyse théorique se sert de deux propriétés syntaxiques et de deux propriétés sémantiques de prédicats tough prototypiques pour déterminer le statut de ces quatre verbes tough. En ce qui touche à la syntaxe, les prédicats tough sélectionnent un complément to-infinitif et requièrent une dépendance référentielle entre le sujet matrice et le vide du complément dans la subordonnée complétive. En ce qui a trait à la sémantique, le sujet matrice doit posséder une propriété inhérente ou permanente, et les prédicats tough doivent attribuer un rôle d’ «expérienceur». En fonction de ces quatre propriétés diagnostiques, l’analyse arrive à la conclusion que suck, bite et blow sont en effet des verbes tough, alors que les conclusions à l’égard de work sont moins probantes. Dans le but de compléter les conclusions de l’analyse théorique, des jugements de 22 Canadiens de langue maternelle anglaise ont été cueillis. Les résultats montrent que pour la majorité des consultants, suck, bite et blow peuvent fonctionner comme des prédicats tough. Le comportement de ces verbes suggère que suck, bite et blow (et peut-être work) devraient s’ajouter à la courte liste de verbes tough connus.

Keywords

tough-predicatestough-verbssyntaxEnglishconsultant dataprédicats toughverbes toughsyntaxeanglaisdonnées des consultants
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , July 2011 , pp. 247 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aniya, Sosei. 1998. The syntax, semantics and pragmatics of the tough construction. Linguistic Analysis 28:3–32.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformation. Language 47:257–281. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/412081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J.K. 2003. Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social significance, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On w/i-movment. In Formal syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 73–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11:1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Toronto: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary and King, Tracy H.. 2000. Missing-object constructions: Lexical and constructional variation. In Proceedings of the LFG00 Conference, ed. Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy H., 1–22. University of California Berkeley: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1983. Parasitic gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy 6:5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, Glyn. 2003. “So easy to look at, so hard to define”: Tough movement in the minimalist framework. M.A. thesis, University of York.Google Scholar
Hukari, Tom and Levine, Robert D.. 1987. Rethinking connectivity in unbounded dependency constructions. In Proceedings of the Sixth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Crowhurst, Megan, 91–102. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Kawai, Michiya. 2002. Tough-subjects are thematic. In Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association, ed. Burelle, Sophie and Somestalean, Stanca, 167–180. Toronto: Canadian Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Kim, Boomee. 1996. Predication in towg/j-constructions. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Camacho, Jose, Choueiri, Lina, and Watanabe, Maki, 271–286. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Fiengo, Robert. 1974. Complement object deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5:535–571.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D. 2001. Tough complementation and the extraclausal propagation of argument descriptions. In Proceedings of the 7th International HPSG Conference, ed. Flickinger, Dan and Kathol, Andreas, 214–228. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Nanni, Deborah. 1980. On the surface syntax of constructions with easy-type adjectives. Language 56:568–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraint in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Binding problems with experiencer verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 18:126–140.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul and Ross, John Robert. 1971. Tough movement si, tough deletion no! Linguistic Inquiry 2:544–546.Google Scholar
Reider, Michael. 1993. On tough movement in Spanish. Hispania 76:160–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reider, Michael. 1996. An NP-movement account of tough constructions. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 21:99–121.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1986. Infinite syntax! Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1981. Lovely to look at. Linguistic Analysis 8:431–448.Google Scholar
Wilder, Christopher. 1991. Tough movement constructions. Linguistische Berichte 132:115–132.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1983. Syntactic vs. semantic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6:423–446.Google Scholar