Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T11:35:11.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paratactic and subordinative So*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Jacob Hoeksema  and
Donna Jo Napoli
Jacob Hoeksema
Affiliation:
Faculteit der Letteren, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Postbus 716, 9700 AS Groningen, The Netherlands.
Donna Jo Napoli
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA 19081USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The contrast between subordination and co-ordination, from both a syntactic viewpoint and a semantic viewpoint, is assumed by most formal theories of grammar today, so much so that generally only avowed a-formalists or anti-formalists seriously entertain the possibility that any other type of relationship may exist between clauses. Yet paratactic constructions persist in nagging us, undermining precisely that contrast, sometimes competing with co-ordination, sometimes with subordination, for the same semantic niche in language. In this article we focus on one such case in English, that of complex sentences containing the degree-adverbs so or such in which one clause serves to indicate an extent to which the predicate modified by so/such holds and the other clause expresses a result. As we argue below, there are two types of complex sentences with this general characterization, one of which is of the paratactic kind and is exemplified in (I):

(I) I fainted, the sun was so hot.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , September 1993 , pp. 291 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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.)

References

Belletti, Adriana (1990). Generalized verb movement. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Berretta, Monica (1977). Linguistica ed educazione linguistica. Guida all'insegnamento dell-l'italiano. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano (1978). L'italiano impopolare. Naples: Liguori.Google Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano (1980). La variabilita sociale delta lingua. Turin: Loescher.Google Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano & Berretta, Monica (1977). Lezioni di sociolinguistia e di linguistica applicata. Naples: Liguori.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight (1988). Ataxis. In Rokko Linguistic Society (ed.) Gendai no Gengo Kenkyu (‘Linguistics Today’), Tokyo: Kinseido. 1–17.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
The compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1971). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter (1980). Deriving the comparative from so (Social Science Research Reports, 76). Irvine, CA: School of Social Sciences, University of California at Irvine.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph (1979). Appositive relatives have no properties. LI. 10 211–242.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia (1976). Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Lg. 52 382–397.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane (1979). Complement selection and the lexicon. LI. 10 279–326.Google Scholar
Gueron, Jacqueline and May, Robert (1984). Extraposition and logical form. LI. 15 1–32.Google Scholar
Haan, Germen J. & Weerman, Fred (1986). Finiteness and Verb Fronting in Frisian. In Haider, Hubert & Prinzhorn, Martin (eds.) Verb second phenomena in Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Foris. 77–110.Google Scholar
Haiman, John (1985). Natural syntax: iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Sag, Ivan (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. LI. 7 391–428.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan & Thompson, Sandra (1973). On the applicability of root transformations. LIn. 4 465–497.Google Scholar
Laan, K. Ter (1930). Groninger Overleveringen, deel 1, Zutphen: Thieme.Google Scholar
Laan, K. Ter (1953). Proeve van een Groninger spraakkunst. Winschoten: Van der Veen.Google Scholar
Lepschy, Anna & Lepschy, Giulio (1981). La lingua italiana. Milan: Bompiani.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark (1974). On conditioning the rule of subject-aux inversion. In Kaisse, Ellen & Hankamer, Jorge (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.77–91.Google Scholar
Longacre, Robert (1985). Sentences as combinations of clauses. In Shopen, Tim (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description, vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 235–286.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1982). Adverbs and logical form: a linguistically realistic theory. Lg. 58 144–184.Google Scholar
Milner, Jean Claude (1973). Arguments linguistiques. Tours: Mame.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo (1989). Predication: a case study for indexing theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo & Nespor, Marina (1986). Comparative structures in Italian. Lg. 62 622–653.Google Scholar
Ogle, R. (1974). Natural order and dislocated syntax. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet and Hirschberg, Julia (1991). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, Philip, Morgan, Jerry & Pollak, Martha (eds.) Intentions in communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 271–311.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. LI 20. 365–424.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain (1978). Result clauses and conditions on rules. In Keyser, Samuel J. (ed.) Recent transformational studies in European languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 159–187.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, Gazdar, Gerald, Wasow, Thomas & Weisler, Steven (1985). Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 117–171.Google Scholar
Schmerling, Sue (1975). Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. In Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry (eds.) Syntax and semantics, vol. III. New York: Academic Press. 211–232.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra & Longacre, Robert (1985). Adverbial clauses. In Shopen, Tim (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description, vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 171–234.Google Scholar
Tommola, Jorma (1978). Expectancy and speech comprehension. In Kohonen, Viljo & Enkvist, Nils Erik (eds.) Text linguistics cognitive learning and language teaching (Suomen sovelletun kielitieteen yhdistyksen (AFinLA) julkaisuja, no. 22). Turku. 49–69.Google Scholar
Weerman, Fred (1989). The V2 conspiracy. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin (1980). Predication. LI. II 203–238.Google Scholar