Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:48:56.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

See-in: A case of lexically-governed, non-clausal predication1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2014

ILAN HAZOUT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The see-in construction, exemplified in sentences like John sees/finds in Mary his best friend involves a relation of predication between the DPs Mary and his best friend. It provides evidence against the hypothesis that predication relations are established uniformly within the syntactic context of clausal structure. The empirical facts show that [in Mary] and [his best friend] in this example are both complements of see/find. It follows that Mary and his best friend could not possibly be syntactically related as the subject and predicate of a clause, despite the fact that they are engaged in a semantic relation of predication.

Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , July 2015 , pp. 501 - 514
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

I am thankful to three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees as well as to the editor Caroline Heycock for many helpful comments and suggestions.

References

REFERENCES

Bošković, Željko. 2002. A′-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5, 167–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591–656.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel & Seely, T. Daniel. 2006. Derivations in Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukui, Naoki & Speas, Margeret. 1986. Specifiers and projection. In Fukui, Naoki, Rapoport, Tova R. & Sagey, Elizabeth (eds.), Papers in theoretical linguistics (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8), 128–172. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad. 1997. PP-complements. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15, 89–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 2004. Sceptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2006. Secondary predication. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The syntax companion, vol. IV, 209–233. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1983. Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review 2, 258–312.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 208–238.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar