PRAGMATIC MOTIVATION AND EXPLOITATION OF SYNTACTIC RULES 081889
(An incomplete and occasionally arbitrary catalog)
G. M. Green
University of Illinois
I. Acknowledged cases
A. Perceptual motivation
1. Heavy NP Shift: postpones a non-subject heavy NP, to preserve coherence in the rest
of the sentence
They attributed the fire which destrowyed two houses and a dissertation in S.E. Urbana last week
to arson.
They attributed to arson the fire which destroyed ...
2. Extraposition: postpones a sentential (and therefore heavy) subject NP--to preserve coherence?
That Dean ordered the destruction of the files is false.
It is false that Dean ordered the destruction of the files.
3. Passive: allows a heavy agent-expression to appear at the end rather than the beginning
of a sentence
Agents of the Korfavian Secret Police, who had been summoned from all over the galaxy by
Commander Vader, quelled the revolt.
The revolt was quelled by agents of the Korfavian Secret Police, who had been summoned from all
over the galaxy by Commander Vader.
Ref. Olsen 1986
B. Rhetorical purposes
1. Relative clause extraposition: permits assertion of the content of the relative clause
A man who has three ears came in.
A man came in who has three ears.
References: Ziv 1975, 1976
2. Extraposition: permits assertion of the content of a sententtial subject (de-factivizes)
[Why did you come on Monday?]
That I thought it was Tuesday is obvious.
It's obvious that I thought it was Tuesday.
Ref. Morgan 1972a, 1975b; Horn 1986
3. Passive: Lots of diverse motivations--may be used to distribute information in old-before-new
order
Ref. Sinha 1973, 1974, & works cited there; Green 1978; Davison 1980
4. Agent deletion: motivation: leave out irrelevant or unknown information
exploitation: suggest impersonality, avoid implying responsibility
Ref: Stanley 1971
5. Negative transportation: softens a negation
I think he won't come.
I don't think he'll come.
Ref. R. Lakoff 1969a, Horn 1975, 1978
6. Tag question formation: diverse uses, ranging from sincere question with answer expected indicated,
to bullying
Alice is in France.
Alice is in France, isn't she?
Ref. Bolinger 1967, R. Lakoff 1969a, 1972a, 1972b, 1973etc.
Emphatic reorderings
7. Negative Adverb Preposing and Inversion
I have never been so tired.
Never have I been so tired.
Ref. Green 1980, 1982
8. Negative NP formation
She didn't eat a bite.
She ate not a bite. (poetical?)
9. Negative NP Preposing and Inversion
She ate not a bite.
Not a bite did she eat.
Ref. Green 1980, 1982; Sheintuch & Wise 1976
10. VP Preposing
If John wants to grow artichokes, then he will grow them.
If John wants to grow artichokes, then grow them he will.
Ref. Ward 1985
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
11. Locative and directional expression preposing: lots of motivations (postpone mentioning subject
(for various reason), highlight preposed material)
The balloon went up/over the stadium.
Up/Over the stadium went the balloon.
Ref. Green 1980, 1982
12. Comparative reduction: permits hyperbole
Hans leaps like a gazelle does.
Hans leaps like a gazelle.
Ref. Morgan 1973
13. Slifting: forces illocutionary force of complement; makes matrix S pragmatically transparent
I think I had better leave now.
I had better leave now, I think.
Where is it, I wonder.
Put it over there, I guess.
14. Tough-movement: attributes the property expressed by the 'tough'-predicate to the inherent
nature of the derived subject
It is hard to play sonatas on this violin.
Sonatas are hard to play on this violin.
This violin is hard to play sonatas on.
The crud on my glasses makes it impossible to read my notes.
The crud on my glasses makes my notes impossible to read.
Ref. Ross 1967, Morgan 1968, Partee 1971
C. Discourse-structural rhetorical functions
Rhetorical inversions Ref. Green 1980, 1982
1. Directional adverb preposing and inversion
The balloon came up/here.
Up/Here came the balloon.
2. Locative and directional phrase preposing
The cavalry rode into the valley. The boy stood in the garden.
Into the valley the cavalry rode. In the garden the boy stood.
3. Locative/Directional phrase preposing and inversion
Into the valley the cavalry rode. In the garden the boy stood.
Into the valley rode the cavalry. In the garden stood the boy.
4. Participial phrase preposing and inversion
A mule was ambling down the street. A pile of magazines was stacked over there.
Ambling down the street was a mule. Stacked over there was a pile of magazines.
5. Quotation preposing and inversion
John cried, "There it is!"
"There it is!" John cried.
"There it is!" cried John.
Ref. Hermon 1978, Green 1982
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
6. Cleft sentence formation
I like fried eggplant.
It's fried eggplant that I like.
Ref. Prince 1978
7. Pseudo-cleft formation
I like fried eggplant.
What I like is fried eggplant.
Ref. Prince 1978
8. Topicalization (Y(iddish)-movement)
He's not a doctor.
A doctor, he's not.
Ref. Ben-Horin 1976; Prince 1981, 1984; Ward 1985, Olsen 1986
9. Focus-movement: contrasts
I won't tolerate that kind of sloppiness.
That kind of sloppiness I won't tolerate.
Ref. Ben-Horin 1976; Prince 1981, 1984; Ward 1985, Olsen 1986
10. Left Dislocation
My mother darns our socks on Tuesdays.
My mother, she darns our socks on Tuesdays.
Ref. Prince 1981, 1984; Ward 1985
11. Right dislocation
My mother darns our socks on Tuesdays.
My mother darns them on Tuesdays, our socks.
He broke my pencil, the little bastard.
(Cf. ??The little bastard, he broke my pencil.
But: The little bastard! He broke my pencil.
--sentence must state a justification for the epithet.)
Maybe RD has a focusing role--it can apply to constituents which don't meet the conditions for
Heavy NP Shift.
12. Adverb preposing
I finished the dishes at 8:00.
At 8:00, I finished the dishes.
Ref. Green 1976; Ward 1985
13. There-insertion
Three terrorists were shot at dawn.
There were three terrorists shot at dawn.
Ref. Milsark 1977, Napoli and Rando 1978
14. Presentational there-insertion
The brown grizzly we had been tracking ran out of the woods.
There ran out of the woods the brown grizzly we had been tracking.
Ref. Aissen 1975
D. Presuppositional motivations (inhibitions or facilitations)
--very poorly understood. WHy should presuppositions inhibit or force optional rules?
1. Dative movement: V NP NP allowed only if NPs are assumed to be in the same "world"
Win this one for the Gipper. (refers to a recently deceased player)
*Win the Gipper this one.
Ref. Green 1974, Ch. 3
2. Raising: raised NPs must refer to contemporaries of their derived clausemates
It seems to me that Napoleon loved puce.
(?)Napoleon seems to me to have loved puce.
It just struck me that Julius Caesar was anti-democratic.
Julius Caesar just struck me as anti-democratic.
referent of raised NP must have interacted with referents of derived clausemate NPs
I found that Napoleon was a vicious man.
I found Napoleon to have been a vicious man.
I asked that John leave.
I asked John to leave.
Ref. Borkin 1974, Steever 1977, Schmerling 1978
3. Some-->any (and other negative polarity items): a negative expectation (hope, fear, etc.)
may be sufficient to trigger the rule/occurrence
Do you want some more cabbage?
Do you want any more cabbage?
Ref. R. Lakoff 1969b, Green 1981
4. Verb agreement
Pickles and ice cream is/are good for you.
Forty acres is a lot to plow.
Forty acres are ready to plow.
Ref. Morgan 1972b, 1984
II. Possible candidates
A. Perceptual/Processing functions [most of these serve a collapsing or abbreviatory function]
1. Relative-marker deletion
I know the man who/that Mary married.
I know the man Mary married.
2. Wh-be deletion (and adjective preposing)
I found a book which was from France.
I found a book from France.
I found a dress which was red.
I found a red dress.
3. Sluicing
John went somewhere, but I don't know where he went.
John went somewhere, but I don't know where.
Ref. Ross 1969, Green 1981
4. VP-deletion
If John will go to France, Bill will go to France (too).
If John will go to France, Bill will (too).
5. Gapping
I ordered potatoes, and Bill ordered turnips.
I ordered potatoes, and Bill turnips.
B. Rhetorical functions
1. Niching
Obviously, guppies taste better with salt.
Guppies obviously taste better with salt.
Guppies taste better with salt, obviously.
Ref. Corum 1975
2. Subj-Aux inversion in embedded questions
I wonder where it went.
I wonder where did it go.
Ref. Green and Morgan 1976b, Fowler 1923, Green 1981
3. Absolute constructions
Vermont had its snowiest winter, Burlington getting 30 inches.
??Vermont had its snowiest winter, Gov. Sharpe getting very cold.
Vermont had its snowiest winter, Gov. Sharpe getting stuck in his driveway several times.
4. Non-restrictive relative clause formation
John, who is my uncle, is a good poker player.
John, who is a good poker player, is my uncle.
Ref. Loetscher 1973, Morgan 1975a
5. not...any --> no
I didn't see anyone.
I saw no one.
Ref. Sheintuch and Wise 1976
C. Discourse-structural rhetorical functions
1. Pronominalization: intersententially optional in many contexts, probably reflecting both
perceptual and discourse-structural considerations
[The Romans built an immense network of roads.]
They/The roads were used to transport men and materiel to the distant outposts
of the Empire.
Ref. Kuno 1972, 1975; Morrisroe 1969, Kantor 1976, Bickerton 1975
D. Presuppositional inhibition/facilitation
1. Complementizer choice
Jane is content that she is smoking her life away.
Jane is content to smoke her life away.
Ref. Riddle 1975
2. Sequence of tenses
Sandy said she is coming.
Sandy said she was coming.
Ref. Huddleston 1969, R. Lakoff 1970, Costa 1972, Riddle 1978
III. No apparent pragmatic function, motivation, or conditions
1. Particle movement
I tore up the paper.
I tore the paper up.
2. Reflexivization--but non-clausemate reflexivization, cited promiscuously in Jackendoff 1973 and
Ross 1970) is optional, so maybe.
Johni said that a picture of himi was hanging in the Post office.
John said that a picture of himself was hanging in the Post Office.
3. Equi-NP-Deletion. Sometimes optional, so maybe.
I expect that I will win.
I expect to win.
Learning he could do it pleased John.
John's learning he could do it pleased him.
4. Super-Equi. Always optional. Why would it exist if not for some purpose?
John said that for him to crane his neck would be offensive.
John said that to crane his neck would be offensive.
5. That-complementizer deletion. Optional for most verbs, blocked for a some, preferred for a few.
What does this imply?
Syntactically de-islandizes, which facilitates "chopping rules", but does not seem to affect
assertive force of complement.
I know that it's raining.
I know it's raining.
Bill piped up that it was raining.
*Bill piped up it was raining.
?I guess that it's raining.
I guess it's raining.
*Who did Mary say that 0 left?
Who did Mary say 0 left?
Ref. Bolinger 1972
6. Conjunction reduction. Probably a collapsing function, but why is it optional for but...not, and
more obligatory for and and or?
John is washing dishes, but he isn't washing pots.
John is washing dishes, but not pots.
??John is washing dishes and/or he is washing pots.
John is washing dishes and/or pots.
and...too sentences have a presupposition of particular relevance, lacking in conjunction-reduced
and-sentences.
I like chocolate and I like tangerines.
I like chocolate and I like tangerines, too.
Ref. Green 1973b
7. Conjunct movement
Kim and Sandy are friends.
Kim is friends with Sandy.
8. Quantifier floating
a. All the boys are writing poems.
b. The boys all are writing poems.
c. The boys are all writing poems.
Why is (b) less acceptable than (d)?
d. The boys all wrote poems.
Perhaps because of a condition favoring floating the Q as far as possible--but what would motivate
such a condition?
Some more examples:
Each of the boys nominated the other.
The boys nominated each other.
REFERENCES
Aissen, J. 1975. Presentational there-insertion; a cyclic root transformation. CLS 11:1-14.
Ben-Horin.G. 1976. Aspects of syntactic preposing in spoken Hebrew. In Cole, P., Studies in Modern
Hebrew syntax and semantics. North Holland.
Berent, G. 1975. English absolutesin functional perspective. CLS FUNC 10-23.
Bever, T., and D.T. Langendoen. 1973. Can a not unhappy person be called a not sad one? In
Anderson, S.R. and Kiparsky, P., Festschrift for Morris Halle. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Bickerton, D. Some assertions about presuppositions about pronominalization. CLSFUNC 24-35.
Bolinger, D. 1967. The imperative in English. To honor Roman Jakobson, v. I. THe Hague: Mouton.
Bolinger, D. 1972. That's that. Mouton.
Borkin, A. 1974. Raising to object position. U. of Michigan diss.
Costa, R. 1972. Sequence of tense in that-clauses. CLS 8: 41-51
Corum, C. 1975. A pragmatic analysis of parenthetical adjuncts. CLS 11:133-141.
Davison, A. 1980. Peculiar passives. Language 56: 42-66.
Fowler, H.W. 1923. On grammatical inversions. Society of Pure English tract 10: 9-25.
Green, G. 1973a. The derivation of a relative infinitive construction. Studies in the linguistic
sciences 3,1: 1-32.
Green, G. 1973b. Theoretical implications of emphatic conjunction. Foundations of language 10:
197-248.
Green, G. 1974a. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Indiana University Press.
Green, G. 1974b. The function of form and the form of function. CLS 10: 186-197.
Green, G. 1976. Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Language 52: 382-397.
Green, G. 1980. Some wherefores of English inversions. Lg. 56: 582-602.
Green, G. 1981. Pragmatics and syntactic description. Studies in the linguistic sciences 11,1: 27-
37. University of Illinois.
Green, G. 1982. colloquial and literary uses of inversions. Spoken and written language; exploring
orality and literacy, ed. by D. Tannen, 119-154. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Green, G., and J. Morgan. 1976. Notes toward an understanding of rule government. Studies in the
linguistic sciences 6;1: 228-248. University of Illinois.
Hermon, G. 1979. On the discourse structure of direct quotation. Tech. Rep. 143, Center for the
Study of Reading. University of Illinois, Champaign.
Horn, L. 1975. Neg-raising predicats; toward an explanation. CLS 11: 279-294.
Horn, L. 1978. Remarks on neg-raising. Syntax and semantics, vol. 9: pragmatics, ed. by P. Cole,
129-220. NY: Academic Press.
Horn, L. 1986. Presupposition; theme and variations. Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and
grammatical theory, Chicago Linguistic Society, 168-192.
Huddleston, Rodney, 1969. Some observations on tense and deixis. Lg. 45: 777-806.
Jackendoff, R. 1973. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press.
Jake, J. 1977. Gapping, pragmatics and factivity. CLS 13: 165-172.
Kantor, R. 1976. Discourse phenomena and linguistic theory. Ohio State U. Working Paper 21: 161-
188.
Kuno, S. 1972. Functional sentence perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 3:269-320.
Kuno, S. 1975. Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax. CLSFUNC 276-336.
Lakoff, R. 1969a. A syntactic argument for negative transportation. CLS 5: 149-157.
Lakoff, R. 1969b. Why there can't be any some-any rule. Language 45: 608-615.
Lakoff, R. 1970. Tense and its relation to participants. Lg. 46: 838-849.
Lakoff, R. 1972a. Language and woman's place. Language in Society 2: 45-79.
Lakoff, R. 1972b. Language in context. Language 48: 907-927.
Lakoff, R. 1973. The logic of politeness. CLS 9: 292-305.
Loetscher, A. 1973. On the role of non-restrictive relative clauses in discourse. CLS 9: 356-368.
Morgan, J. 1968. Some aspects of it. CLS 4: 81-93.
Morgan, J. 1972a. Syntactic form and conversational import. Proceedings of the 1st annual
symposium on limiting the domain of linguistics. Dept. of Linguistics, University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Revised version appears as Morgan 1975b.
Morgan, J. 1972b. Verb agreement as a rule of English. CLS 8: 278-286.
Morgan, J. 1973. Sentence fragments and the notion 'sentence'. Issues in linguistics; Papers in
honor of Henry and Renee Kahane, ed. by B. Kachru et al. University of Illinois Press.
Morgan, J. 1975a. Some remarks on the nature of sentences. CLS Parasession on Functionalism: 433-
449.
Morgan, J. 1975b. Some interactions of syntax and pragmatics. SS3: 289-304.
Morgan, J. 1984. Some problems of determination in English number agreement. ESCOL _____.
Milsark, G. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction.
Linguistic Analysis 3: 1-30.
Morrisroe, S. 1969. Optional pronominalization. CLS 5: 186-194.
Napoli, D.J., and E. Rando. 1978. Definites in there-sentences. Language 54: 300-313.
Olsen, Margaret. 1986. Some problematic issues in the study of intonation and sentence stress.
University of Illinois Ph.D. dissertaion
Partee, B. 1971. On the requirement that transformations preserve meaning. Studies in linguistic
semantics, ed. by C. Fillmore and D.T. Langendoen. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Postal, P. 1974. On raising. MIT Press.
Prince, E. 1978. A comparison of It-clefts and WH-clefts in discourse. Language 54: 883-906.
Prince, E. 1981. Topicalization, focus-movement, and Yiddish-movement: a pragmatic
differentiation. BLS 7: 249-264. (ed. by D. Alford).
Prince, E. 1983. Topicalization and left-dislocation: a functional analysis. Discourses in reading
and linguistics, ed by S.J. White and V. Teller, 213-225. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences.
Riddle, E. 1975. Some pragmatic conditions on complementizer choice. CLS 11: 467-474.
Riddle, E. 1978. Sequence of tenses in English. University of Illinois Ph.D. dissertation.
Ross, J. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. MIT diss. (Published under the title Infinite
Syntax, Ablex (1983)).
Ross, J. 1975. Where to do things with words. SS3: 233-256.
Schmerling, S. 1978. Synonymy judgements as syntactic evidence. SS9: 299-314.
Sheintuch, G., and K. Wise. 1976. On the pragmatic unity of the rules of Neg-raising and Neg-
attraction. CLS 12: 548-557.
Sinha, A. 1973. On stative passives and treatment of some idioms. CLS 9: 615-626.
Sinha, A. 1974. How passive are passives? CLS 10: 631-642.
Stanley, J. 1971. Passive motivation. ms.
Steever, S. 1977. Raising, meaning, and conversational implicature. CLS 12: 590-602.
Ward, G. 1985. The semantics and pragmatics of preposing. Univ. of Pennsylvania diss.
Ziv, Yael. 1975. On the relevance of content to the form-function correlation. CLSFUNC 568-579.
Ziv, Yael. 1976. Functions of relative clauses in English and Hebrew. University of Illinois diss.