Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T20:30:33.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Heads in discourse: structural versus functional centricity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2010

Get access

Summary

Introduction

Ellipsis, deletability and the question of what fragment of a constituent can stand alone are problems which figure in many discussions of what constitutes the head of a constituent; see Zwicky's definition of base (this volume). The very persistence of this issue in the literature would lead one to expect that there would be distinct cross-linguistic consistency in the deletability and retainability of parts of constituents. In addition, and more generally, it would lead one to expect that the notion of head would lead to useful crosslinguistic generalizations about deletability and obligatoriness of parts of constituents. This chapter offers a first step towards a cross-linguistic investigation of whether and how heads figure in constraining constituent-reducing operations of the type that arise in connected discourse. A comparison of just two of the languages discussed – Russian and Chechen-Ingush – suffices to show that languages can differ substantially in whether heads can be deleted, or dependents left to stand alone, by these discourse operations. In part for this reason, and in part because the relevant tendencies are only statistical, constituent-reducing operations will probably not prove to be a useful cross-linguistic indicator of head and non-head status. On the other hand, they do appear to shed light on some of the larger questions of how constituents are defined, grammaticalized and used in individual languages.

In what follows I will simply assume that the verb is the head of the clause. Since the argument is that there is neither cross-linguistic consistency in what can be deleted in ellipsis nor correlation between deletability and morphological type, the conclusions would be equally valid for any decision as to what is head.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1993

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.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×