Re: ARG-ST on phrases?

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Carl Pollard (pollard@ling.ohio-state.edu)
Tue, 23 Jun 98 02:04:03 EDT


>I actually wrote a paperoid on the construction a few years back. (I think >it appears in my department's working papers.) I concluded that the >Nantecedent is some species of theme. Speakers' judgments vary, but some >people find that even a PP can control the gap: > >I presented Sandy with Jojo to play with on the plane. But this PP is still an argument. What's the problem? >This aside, isn't there a danger of introducing an excessive degree of >nonlocality into complement selection if ARG-ST is a head feature? In >very, very clear cases of subcategorization which no one would dispute >is selection by a head, do we need to look at the arguments of a >complement? That has always been Ivan's view. But there is already stuff in SYNSEM values that is never selected for that nobody ever worries about, CONT|QUANTS, CONT|NUCLEUS, QSTORE, and REL to mention just a few. Why aren't there any verbs which require that the VP or sentential complement's CONTENT be a psoa whose QUANTS value contains a universal quantifier? Carl


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Dec 18 1998 - 20:38:20 PST