Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T08:22:43.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transportability, scope ambiguity of adverbials and the Generalized Binding theory1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Heizo Nakajima
Heizo Nakajima
Affiliation:
Department of English, Tokyo Metropolitan University, 1-1, Minami Osawa, Hachioji-shi, Tokyo 192-03, Japan.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There has been much discussion, mainly by Montague grammarians, of the fact that ‘transportation’ of adverbials affects use or semantic interpretation of perfect sentences. Consider, for example, the following perfect sentences: (1) with a durational PP in sentence-final position; (2) with a durational PP in sentence-initial position; and (3) with a durational wh-phrase in sentence-initial position:

(1) John has been in Tucson for two years.

(2) For two years, John has been in Tucson.

(3) How long has John been in Tucson?

(4) (a) John has been in Tucson for two years up to now.

(b) John was in Tucson for two years in the past.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , September 1991 , pp. 337 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Abney, S. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspects. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. (1982). A note on the constituent structure of adverbials and auxiliaries. LIn 13. 313–317.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. (1981). The formal nature of anaphoric relations. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. (1985). A grammar of anaphora. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. (1986). Generalized binding: the syntax and logical form of wh-interrogatives. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., Hornstein, N., Lightfoot, D. & Weinberg, A. (1987). Two types of locality. LIn 18. 537–577.Google Scholar
Browning, M. (1987). Null operator constructions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1989). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 43–74.Google Scholar
Demonte, V. (1987). Remarks on secondary predicates: c-command, extraction, and reanalysis. The Linguistic Review 6. 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar: the semantics of verbs and time in generative semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, J. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax; root, structure-preserving, and local transformations, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fabb, N. (1984). Syntactic affixation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. (1986). A theory of category projection and its applications. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. (1975). The position of fronted wh-phrases. LIn 6. 588–599.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: part 1. JL 3. 37–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heny, F. (1982). Tense, aspect and time adverbials, part II. Linguistics and Philosophy 5. 109–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X¯-syntax: a study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (1988). Verb raising and ‘have’, McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 20. 156–167.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1989). Null subjects and clitic climbing. In Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K. (eds). The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. 239–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyser, J. (1968). Review of Jacobson S. (1964), Adverbial positions in English. Lg 44. 357–374.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1975). Conditions on verb-phrase deletion. Foundations of Language 13. 161–175.Google Scholar
May, R. (1985). Logical form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. (1988a). The syntactic phenomena of English. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. (1988b). Adverbial NPs: bare or clad in see-through garb? Lg 64. 583–590.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, A. (1988). Aspects of English aspects: on the interaction of perfect, progressive and durational phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 203–254.Google Scholar
Nakajima, H. (1984a). Comp as a SUBJECT. The Linguistic Review 4. 121–152.Google Scholar
Nakajima, H. (1984b). Eigo no ido gensho (A study of movement in English). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
Nakajima, H. (1986a). Three empty category principles as licensing conditions on binding paths. The Linguistic Review 5. 223–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakajima, H. (1986b). Kiss's case transmittance approach and the binding path spproach to parasitic gaps. The Linguistic Review 5. 335–344.Google Scholar
Nakajima, H. (1987). On case adjscency condition. Linguistic Analysis 17. 186–199.Google Scholar
Nakajims, H. (1989). Bounding of rightward movements. LIn 20. 328–334.Google Scholar
Nakajima, H. (1990). Secondary predication. The Linguistic Review. 7. 275–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakajima, H. (1991). Another type of antecedent government. Ms., Tokyo Metropolitan University.Google Scholar
Nakajima, H. (forthcoming). Binding path and dependent categories. In Nakajima, H. (ed.) Current English linguistics in Japan. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, J. (1990). Sentential negation, relativized minimality and the aspectual status of auxiliaries. The Linguistic Review 7. 183–231.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. LIn 20. 365–424.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. (1928). A grammar of late modern English. Part I, 2nd edn.Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Richards, B. (1982). Tense, aspect and time adverbials, part I. Linguistics and Philosophy 5. 59–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (1990). Some notes on VP-fronting and head government. In Mascaró, J. & Nespor, M. (eds) Grammar in progress. Dordrecht: Foris. 387–396.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1986). Infinite syntax! New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (1983). The syntactic forms of predication. PhD dissertation, MIT. Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Sawada, H. (1987). A multistratal approach to English and Japanese auxiliary systems. Mimeo, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Tonoike, S. (forthcoming). The comparative syntax of English and Japanese: relating unrelated languages. In Nakajima, H. (ed.) Current English linguistics in Japan. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Travis, L. (1988). The syntax of adverbs, McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 20. 280–310.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1980). Predication. LIn 11. 203–238.Google Scholar
Zagona, K. (1982). Government and proper government of verbal projections. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Zagona, K. (1988). Verb phrase syntax: a parametric study of English and Spanish. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar