Dan Everett: Response to McGinnis posting

[Martha McGinnis]

> Martha McGinnis wrote:
>
> Here are some comments and questions in response to the previous
> three postings.
>
> Cheers,
> Martha
>
> ----------------------------------
> Alec's first posting:
>
> >10.    Why isn't a whole sentence simply a "form of a word" in some
> >paradigm space defined by the syntax?
> >
> >Everyone assumes that one reaches bedrock at the "content" words.  So, "The
> >cat is on the mat," can't be a form of the word "cat" since "mat" must be
> >an independent word.  However, "He's always singing," could be a form of
> >the word "sing," and might be realized as a single phonological word in
> >some language.
>
> <cough, splutter>  Indeed.  A fine observation!

In fact, an entire sentence can be a word (although not exactly like
the cases mentioned here). In my grammar of Wari' (ROUTLEDGE),
co-authored with Barbara Kern, we discuss several cases of
'verbalization', whereby entire sentences are interpreted as and
function as verbs, undergoing derivational morphology, etc. Yet the
sentences themselves have undergone WH-Movement, etc. prior to
verbalization. Moreover, there are co-reference requirements between
constituents of the verbalized sentences and the matrix clause. A
summary of the facts is found in my chapter in the _HANDBOOK OF
MORPHOLOGY_.

I have just emerged from several weeks of fieldwork in the Amazon, so
I have missed a lot of the discussion here. But let me second Heidi's
recommendation of Fodor's two new excellent books. All linguists
oughta read them.

Dan Everett