Australian Journal of Linguistics

Vol. 14, no. 1 (1994)

Articles

A lexicalist analysis of gerundive nominals in English	James P. Blevins	1-38
Dõu as a wide scope universal quantifier	Mobo C. F. Gao	39-62
The grammar of reported speech and thought in Gooniyandi	William McGregor	63-92
A revised standard phonemic orthography for Australian English vowels	Mark Durie & John Hajek	93-107

Book reviews

Typological discourse analysis: Quantitative approaches to the study of linguistic function (J. Myhill)	Brett Baker	109-113
Deconstructing morphology (R. Lieber)	Koenraad Kuiper	114-119
The art of conversation (P. Burke)	Alison Ferguson	119-120
Bridging two worlds: Aboriginal English and crosscultural understanding (Jean Harkins)	Jane Simpson	121-127
Pragmatics: An introduction (Jacob L. Mey)	Peter Collins	127-131

Abstracts

A lexicalist analysis of gerundive nominals in English

James P. Blevins

Abstract: Gerundive nominals in English are true categorial hybrids, combining a verbal complementation pattern with a characteristically nominal distribution and a clausal interpretation. Initial generative descriptions of gerundives attempt to resolve this conflict by assimilating these constructions to unambiguously nominal or clausal categories, or by assigning the discordant properties to different derivational levels. The alternative articulated here follows Schachter 1976 and Jackendoff 1977 in associating these conflicting properties with different projections in a phrase structure analysis. Gerundives are analyzed as nominal phrases headed by present participles, which, as verbal categories, maintain a predominantly verbal argument structure and interpretation. Following Pullum 1991, the clash between the category of a gerundive phrase and its lexical head is not simply stipulated, but rather attributed to the default projection of constitutive 'head' features, as proposed in extended phrase structure systems. The present account however contrasts with Pullum 1991 in proposing a uniform treatment of 'POSS-ing' and 'ACC-ing' gerundives. Both constructions are assigned analyses which preserve bar-level succession, and in which NP specifiers, whether possessive or accusative, function as true syntactic subjects. The formal difference between POSS-ing and ACC-ing gerundives is then keyed to whether they are sanctioned by single or multiple phrase structure rules.

Dõu as a wide scope universal quantifier

Mobo C. F. Gao

Abstract: May (1977, 1985) argues that the rule of Quantifier Raising (QR), which is an instance of Move Alpha, is operative at the level of Logical Form (LF) in English. Based on the assumption that QR is operative at the level of S-Structure (SS) in Chinese and that the lexical item dõu is relevant to the application of QR at SS in Chinese (Gao 1989, 1990), this paper, by demonstrating a set of properties of dõu, aims to argue that dõu is a wide scope universal quantifier. The paper intends to demonstrate that a quantifier which co-occurs with dõu is unambiguous and always has wide scope; that a wh-question word becomes a universal quantifier if it co-occurs with dõu and again it always has wide scope; that dõu forces an NP or QP in the object position to move preverbally and thus forces it to have wide scope interpretation; and that even an existential quantifier or an ordinary noun or noun phrase will have universal presupposition if it appears with dõu. The significance of the argument that dõu is a wide scope universal quantifier having the above-mentioned properties is that it provides an elegant solution to the problem surrounding quantifier interpretations in Chinese because it is the role and function of dõu that make QR operative at SS level in Chinese.

The grammar of reported speech and thought in Gooniyandi

William McGregor

Abstract: This paper investigates the grammar of reported speech and thought in Gooniyandi, a Bunuban language of the southern Kimberley, Western Australia. According to a traditional analysis, indirect speech reports would be embedded in the clause of speech; such an analysis cannot be maintained for Gooniyandi. Nor can recent proposals such as those of Foley and van Valin (1984) and Halliday (1985) that subordination or hypotaxis is involved. Instead, a framing analysis of reported speech is elaborated, according to which the quoted utterance is contained within the scope of the clause of speech. This permits a systematic treatment of direct and indirect speech, and an explanation of their contrasting grammatical properties. It is further argued that the syntagmatic relationship involved is a sign, the signified of which is an interpersonal meaning: the clause of speech modifies the reported clause much as the particle utharri 'mistakenly believe' modifies the clause it holds in its scope.

Last update: 1 May 2000
Comments to Tim Curnow