summary of conditions (was Re: PSAT Glitch)
Dennis R. Preston
preston at PILOT.MSU.EDU
Fri May 30 11:50:06 UTC 2003
>arnold,
If you publish this exposé, we will all be even more grateful to you
for your hard work in exposing the well-known (among linguists) soft
underbelly of pre- (and primarily pro-) scriptivism.
dInIs
>this is a summary of all the perplexities that i know about in the
>interpretation of the Possessive Antecedent Proscription (PAP),
>using as a starting point the minimal formulation
>
> PAP: possessives cannot serve as antecedents for (personal)
> pronouns.
>
>
>1. query: just personal pronouns, or are other anaphors restricted?
>this is an issue for formulations in which implicit/implied/imagined
>antecedents play a role, since such formulations ought to apply not
>only to personal pronouns, but also to other definite anaphors:
>
> personal pronouns. PAP certainly rejects:
> Morrison's books made her famous.
> Morrison's success meant that she could afford a new car.
>
> the + Nom. maybe PAP rejects:
> Morrison's books made the writer famous.
> Morrison's success meant that the writer could afford a new car.
>
> this/that + Nom. maybe PAP rejects:
> Morrison's books made this/that writer famous.
> Morrison's success meant that this/that writer famous.
>
> zero definite anaphors. maybe PAP rejects:
> The army's treatment of anyone who joined ___ was scandalous.
> The recruits' complaint suggested that only two ___ had been injured.
>
> anaphoric adverbials there/then. maybe PAP rejects:
> Norway's snowy beauty is famous, but I never go there in the
> winter.
> The afternoon's heavy traffic doesn't bother Chris, who sleeps
> soundly then, despite the noise.
>
>2. query: is only (forward) anaphora constrained by the PAP, or is
>cataphora ("backward anaphora") also constrained? formulations in
>terms of implicitness should apply equally to both.
>
> maybe PAP rejects:
> Just before he fell, John's last thought was that
> the sidewalk needed fixing.
>
>3. query: are only possessive *noun* [well, really, NP] antecedents
>prohibited, or are possessive pronouns prohibited as well?
>formulations in terms of implicitness might affect both, depending on
>whether "he" is viewed as being merely implicit in "his" (etc.) or
>whether "he" is viewed as actually named in "his" (for those who claim
>that "Sam" is merely implicit, and not actually named, in "Sam's").
>
> possessive NP antecedent. PAP certainly rejects:
> Sam's books made him a millionaire.
>
> possessive pronoun antecedent. maybe PAP rejects:
> His books made him a millionaire.
>
>3'. query: if 3rd person possessive pronoun antecdents are
>prohibited, are 1st and 2nd person possessive pronoun antecedents also
>prohibited?
>
> maybe PAP rejects:
> My success pleases me.
> Our mistakes mean that we have to work over the weekend.
> Your books should make you famous.
>
>4. query: are only non-possessive pronouns ineligible as anaphors, or
>are possessive pronouns also unavailable? (the handbooks go both
>ways. "implicitness" has been argued to *allow* possessive-possessive
>linkages.)
>
> non-possessive anaphor. PAP certainly rejects:
> Mary's success made her famous.
>
> possessive anaphor. maybe PAP rejects:
> Mary's success made her family proud.
>
>5. query: are only dependent possessive antecedents proscribed, or
>are independent, free-standing, ones also prohibited? independent
>possessives function as Subject/Direct Object/Object of P, but also
>as Determiner ("adjective" in the handbooks); which function takes
>precedence?
>
> dependent possessive antecedent. PAP certainly rejects:
> No one read the books that Tom wrote,
> but Carrie's books made her famous.
>
> independent possessive antecedent. maybe PAP rejects:
> No one read the books that Tom wrote,
> but Carrie's made her famous.
>
>6. query: are *any* of the NPs in a "group genitive" (one ending in
>something other than the head N of the phrase) eligible to be
>antecedents for a pronoun? the head N doesn't have -'s, isn't
>"possessive"; some other word does have -'s, is "possessive". how
>does the "implicitness" criterion apply here?
>
> maybe PAP rejects one or another of the anaphors (it, she, there)
> in the following:
> People have different attitudes towards the city they live in.
> In fact, my friend from Chicago's opinions about it have
> changed over the years she has lived there.
>
>7. query: is the PAP merely a special case of some larger
>generalization about implicitness of antecedents? the handbooks
>provide a large number of possibly related types of examples, some
>involving antecedents that are merely "in the air", others involving
>pronouns of the "summarizing" type ("Chris disappeared into thin air,
>which astonished me"), and a few at least superficially similar to
>PAP violations:
>
>7a. anaphoric island violations, in which some phonologically
>similar, and morphologically related, material is available in the
>sentence, but no actual XP that could serve as an antecedent for a
>pro-element is available.
>
> I wanted to be a violinist, but my parents wouldn't buy me one.
> The violinist stunned us by playing it with such extraordinary
> skill.
> I was surprised at Kim's savage criticism of the students, since
> I myself would certainly never do that. ['criticize the students
> savagely']
>
>7b. N+N compounds with count N as first element. this first element
>is normally unavailable as an antecedent for pronouns (though proper
>and mass first elements, both of which could be construed with NP,
>rather than mere N, interpretations, are often available as
>antecedents, depending on the pragmatics of the situation).
>
> We couldn't schedule the piano recital,...
> because we couldn't find one.
> because it was out of tune.
>
>arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)
--
Dennis R. Preston
Professor of Linguistics
Department of Linguistics & Germanic, Slavic,
Asian & African Languages
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1027
e-mail: preston at msu.edu
phone: (517) 353-9290
More information about the Ads-l
mailing list