8.1581, Sum: Addendum sentence acceptability

The LINGUIST List linguist at linguistlist.org
Tue Nov 4 13:11:23 UTC 1997


LINGUIST List:  Vol-8-1581. Tue Nov 4 1997. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 8.1581, Sum: Addendum sentence acceptability

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <seely at linguistlist.org>

Review Editor:     Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Associate Editor: Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>

Assistant Editors:  Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
                    Brett Churchill <brett at linguistlist.org>
                    Anita Huang <anita at linguistlist.org>
                    Julie Wilson <julie at linguistlist.org>
                    Elaine Halleck <elaine at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/


Editor for this issue: Elaine Halleck <elaine at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:10:04 +0000
From:  "Carsten Breul" <upp20a at ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>
Subject:  Addendum sentence acceptability (8.1555, 8.1567)

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:10:04 +0000
From:  "Carsten Breul" <upp20a at ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>
Subject:  Addendum sentence acceptability (8.1555, 8.1567)

Dear all (especially those who have kindly responded to my query on
sentence acceptability (8.1555) and the corresponding summary
(8.1567))

First of all, I must apologise. Only now have I realised (by the help
of some of the responses) that I made a big mistake in constructing my
sentences (1) and (2), i.e. in modifying the original ones from
Rochemont & Culicover. In using 'that' instead of 'a', I made it
pragmatically/semantically impossible to construe the sentences so as
to ask for the person who is depicted in the picture. (The reading in
which the speaker asks for the person from whom the picture was bought
is NOT intended). I give the sentences once again:

i) Who did you buy yesterday a beautiful picture of?
ii) Of whom did you buy yesterday a beautiful picture?

These are judged '*' by Rochemont & Culicover while the following ones
with the adverb and the direct object reversed are judged 'ok':

i') Who did you buy a beautiful picture of
yesterday?
ii') Of whom did you buy a beautiful
picture yesterday?

Now, what I am after is to find out if this contrast in acceptability
is really as strong as Rochemont & Culicover suggest so that we may
suspect a grammatical principle behind it. (I doubt that.)

Some of the responses seem to imply that it is NOT PRIMARILY the
adverb position in (4)-(6) which makes them unacceptable but rather
the intrusion of semantically ridiculous meanings.  This is supported
by the fact that (4')-(6') (i.e. the versions with the adverb in a
more 'natural' position) is not considered to be much better than
(4)-(6) by a number of people.

To sum up: What I am after is the (non-)possibility of shifting the
direct object to the right of the adverb in such constructions.  If
the unshift-versions are problematic/marginal/semantically odd/etc. in
themselves then it becomes difficult to decide if the unacceptability
of the shift-versions is due to a 'rule' which prohibits such a shift
or to an increase in pragmatic/semantic 'oddity' over an acceptability
threshold.

Dr. Carsten Breul
Englisches Seminar
Universitaet Bonn
Regina-Pacis-Weg 5
53113 Bonn
Germany

e-mail: c.breul at uni-bonn.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-8-1581



More information about the Linguist mailing list