Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T14:18:51.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the status of auxiliaries in notional grammar1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

John Anderson
John Anderson
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The major assumption of notional grammar is that the syntactic classes established for each language on the basis of their distributional properties are labelled on notional grounds: the denotata of the prototypical members of classes meet universal ontological definitions. For example, one might suggest that: ‘As far as nouns are concerned, the prototypical denotata are persons, animals, and other discrete physical entities…’ (Lyons, 1989: 161). Despite the work of Lyons (notably also 1966, 1977) and others, involving a tradition of some antiquity, adequate explicit definitions for the range of classes are lacking; much remains intuitive. This should not prevent us, however, from examining the syntactic consequences of the notionalist assumption. Nor, of course, should the existence of non-prototypical class members (such as nouns which denote non-physical entities or whose denotata are of limited temporal extension - see further below). What follows explores the consequences for a specific area of classification of one articulation of a notional theory.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , September 1990 , pp. 341 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

REFERENCES

Anderson, John M. (1972). Remarks on the hierarchy of quasi-predications. RRLing 17. 23–44, 121–40, 193–202, 319–35.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. (1973). Universal quantifiers. Lingua 31. 125–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John M. (1974). Existential quantifiers. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 15. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John M. (1976). On serialisation in English syntax. Ludwigsburg: Ludwigsburg Studies in Language and Linguistics, I.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. (1977). On case grammar: Prolegomena to a theory of grammatical relations. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. (1979). Serialisation, dependency and the syntax of possessives in Moru. Studia Linguistica 33. 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John M. (1986a). Structural analogy and case grammar. Lingua 70. 79–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John M. (1986b). Old English morphology and the structure of noun phrases. Folia Linguistica Historica 7. 219–24.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. (1988). The localist basis for syntactic categories. Duisburg: LAUD A235.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. (1989a). Reflexions on notional grammar, with some remarks on its relevance to issues in the analysis of English and its history. In Arnold, D. J. et al., 13–36.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. (1989b). Structural analogy in language. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. (1989c). Grammaticalisation and the English modals. Duisburg: LAUD A253.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. (1989d). Periphrases and paradigms. In Odenstedt, Bengt & Persson, Gunnar, (eds) Instead of flowers: Papers in honour of Mats Rydén on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, August 27, 1989. ( = Acta Universitatis Umensis: Umeå Studies in the Humanities, 90.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 1–10.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. (in press). Should. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.) Proceedings of the conference on English historical syntax, Vienna, September 1988.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. (to appear). Notional grammar and the redundancy of syntax.Google Scholar
Arnold, Doug, Atkinson, Martin, Durand, Jacques, Grover, Claire & Sadler, Louisa (eds) (1989). Essays on grammatical theory and universal grammar. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Banks, David (1983). Etude sémantique de ‘get’ en anglais contemporain. Thèse de 36 cycle, Université de Nantes.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. (1983). Marking constituents. In Heny & Richards, 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Closs (Traugott), Elizabeth (1965). Diachronic syntax and generative grammar. Language 41. 402–15. [Reprinted in Reibel D. & Schane S. (eds) (1969) Modern Studies in English. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 395–408.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, J. P. (1974). ‘Get passive’: on some constructions with ‘get’. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Haas, M. R. (1946). A grammatical sketch of Tunica. Linguistic structures of native America, 337–66. VFPA.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin & Ramat, Paolo (eds) (1987). Historical development of auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heny, Frank & Richards, Barry (eds) (1983). Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles. Vol. I: Categories. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. D. (1980). Criteria for auxiliaries and modals. In Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (eds) Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk. London: Longman. 65–78.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. D. (1984). Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1984). Word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1987). Zwicky on heads. JL 23. 109–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, Erik (1988). Used to ( + infinitive). English Studies 69. 348–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemenade, A. van (1989). Syntactic change and the history of English modals. Dutch Working Papers in English Language and Linguistics, 16.Google Scholar
Kinkade, M. D. (1983). Salish evidence against the universality of noun and verb. Lingua 60. 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuipers, Aert H. (1968). The categories verb-noun and transitive-intransitive in English and Squamish. Lingua 21. 610–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légaré, Luc & Rollin, Jacques (1976). Syntaxe de l'auxiliaire en français. NELS 6. 187–95.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. (1979). Principles ofdiachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John (1966). Towards a ‘notional’ theory of the ‘parts of speech’. JL 2. 209–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John (1977). Semantics 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John (1989). Semantic ascent. In Arnold et al., 153–87.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1981). Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1982). Syncategorematicity and the English infinitival to. Glossa 16. 181–215.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1981). A grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. (1985). Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. (1973). Nouniness. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.) Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. 137–257.Google Scholar
Saltarelli, Mario (1988). Basque. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul (1985). ‘Parts-of-speech’ systems. In Shopen, T. (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description, I: Clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3–61.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel (1987). The interaction of periphrasis and inflection: Some Romance examples. In Harris & Ramat, 237–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. R. (in press). Elliptical and impersonal constructions: Evidence for auxiliaries in Old English? In Fran, Colman (ed.) Evidence for Old English: Material and theoretical bases for reconstruction. ( = Edinburgh studies in the English Language, 2.) Edinburgh: John Donald.Google Scholar