Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:50:29.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the distribution of bare infinitive complements in English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Anita Mittwoch
Anita Mittwoch
Affiliation:
Department of English, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper explores the fit between syntax and semantics in one small corner of English. It addresses two related questions: To what extent is the distribution of bare infinitive (BI) complements, as in (1) and (2) below, semantically motivated?

(1) I saw/heard Mary slam the door.

(2) I made/let John cross the street.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 103 - 131
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

Bennis, H. & Hoekstra, T. (1989). Why Kaatje was not heard sing a song. In Jaspers, D., Kloosker, W., Pulseys, Y. & Seuren, P., (eds) Sentential complementation and the lexicon: Studies in honour of Wim de Geest. Dordrecht: Foris. 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, H. (1931). Studien zum präpositionalen Infinitiv und Akkusativ mit dem To-Infinitiv. Anglia 55. 114–249.Google Scholar
Brown, E. K. (ms). Double modals in Hawick Scots.Google Scholar
Brown, K. & Millar, M. (1980). Auxiliary verbs in Edinburgh speech. Transactions of the Philological Society. 81–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1984). Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. (1971). Identity and individuation. In Munitz, M. K. (ed.) Problems ofidentity. New York: University Press. 3–30Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1967a). The logical form of action sentences. In Rescher, N. (ed.) The logic of decision and action. University of Pittsburgh Press. Reprinted in Davidson; 1980, pp. 105–121.Google Scholar
Davidson, B. (1967b). Causal relations. Journal of Philosophy 64. 691–703. Reprinted in Davidson, 1980; 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, B. (1980). Essays on actions and events. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Declerck, R. (1981). On the role of progressive aspect in nonfinite perception verb complements. Glossa 15. 83–114.Google Scholar
Declerck, R. (1982). The triple origin of participial perception verb complements. Linguistic Analysis 10. 1–26.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G., Pullum, G. K. & Sag, I. A. (1982). Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restricted theory of grammar. Lg 58. 591–638.Google Scholar
Guéron, J. & Hoekstra, T. (1988). T-chains and the constituent structure of auxiliaries. In Cardinaletti, A., Cinque, G. & Giusti, G. (eds) Constituent structure. Dordrecht: Reidel. 35–99.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1983). The logic of perceptual reports: an extensional alternative to situation semantics. Journal of Philosophy 80. 100–127.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1971). The sentence in written English: a syntactic sludy based on an analysis of scientific texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, J. (1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. LIn 18. 369–411.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1940). A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part 5. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1984). Connectedness andbinary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. Journal of Philosophy 70. 556–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löbner, S. (1987). Quantification as a major module of natural language semantics. In Groenendijk, J., de Jong, D., Stokhof, M. (eds) Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (= GRASS 8). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. (1971). Tense and time reference in English. In Fillmore, C. & Langendoen, T. (eds) Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 97–113.Google Scholar
McKay, T. (1985). Infinitival complements in Germon: lassen, scheinen and the verbs of perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, A. (1977a). Negative sentences with until. Papers front the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society. 410–417.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, A. (1977b). Equi or raising or both: another look at the root modals and at permissive allow. Papers in Linguistics 10. 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittwoch, A. (1982). On the difference between eating and eating something. LIn 13. 113–121.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, A. (1988). Aspects of English aspect: on the interaction of perfect, progressive and durational phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 203–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittwoch, A. (In preparation). Small clauses and negation.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, A. (1978). Events, processes and States. Linguistics and Philosophy 2. 415–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neale, S. (1988). Events and ‘logical form’. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 303–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1983). Semantic explanations for the syntax of the English modals. In Heny, F. & Richards, B. (eds) Linguistic categories: auxiliaries and related puzzles. Vol. 2. 205–217. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. (1985). Underlying events in the logical analysis of English. In LePore, E. & McLaughlin, B. P. (eds) Actions and events: Perspectives on the philosophy of Donald Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell. 235–267.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989) Verb movement, UG and the structure of IP. LIn 20. 365–424.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1982). Syncategorematicity and English infinitival to. Glossa 16. 181–215.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. & Wilson, D. (1977). Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries. Lg 53. 741–788.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. & Zwicky, A. (1983). Cliticization v. inflection: English n't. Lg 59. 502–513.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of phrase structure. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Taglicht, J. (1983) Message andemphasis: on scope and focus in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967a). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967b). Causal relations. Journal of Philosophy 64. 704–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. S. (1980). Predication. LIn 11. 203–238.Google Scholar
Williams, E. S. (1983) Against small clauses. LIn 14. 287–308.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1980). Stranded to. OSU WPL 24. 166–173.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1980). You don't have to. LIn 11. 631–636.Google Scholar