Table Of ContentJANUA LINGUARUM
STUDIA MEMORIAE
NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA
edenda curai
C. H. VAN SCHOONEVELD
Indiana University
Series Practica, 210
VIEWPOINT, REFLEXIVES,
AND THE
NATURE OF NOUN PHRASES
by
WILLIAM R. CANTRALL
Northern Illinois University
1974
MOUTON
THE HAGUE • PARIS
© Copyright 1974 in The Netherlands
Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague
No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm
or any other means, without written permission from the publishers
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 74-81555
PREFACE
This present work is a revision of an unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, "On the Nature
of the Reflexive in English" (University of Illinois, 1969). For their advice and com-
ments at that time I wish to thank members of my committee, Robert B. Lees, then
Chairman of the Department of Linguistics, J. N. Hook, then of the Department of
English, University of Illinois, and James D. McCawley, Department of Linguistics
and Far Eastern Languages, University of Chicago. Besides providing a more
consistent theme, this revision includes improved arguments at several points and
reflects substantial changes in my ideas about reflexives before infinitives and reflexives
after picture verbs.
INTRODUCTION
VIEWPOINT AND LANGUAGE
From the viewpoint of the reader, according to the conventional way of looking at
such things the three circles below are arranged from left to right in the order X, Y,
Z; none of the three is behind or in front of the others:
® ® ®
But, looking from X, either Y is in front of Z, if Y and Z are considered in that order,
or Z is behind Y, if they are considered in the opposite order. If viewpoint were
not a fundamental aspect of language, these and several other ways of describing
the relationship of X, Y, and Z would all be expressed in exactly one way. Just so,
in speaking and writing, we regularly report how the world looks from some viewpoint
other than our own. In (A) and (B) below, the speaker has separated his viewpoint
from Mary's by verb choice and the use of negation. In (C) he has joined his and
Mary's viewpoints:
(A) Mary imagines that there are dragons.
(B) Mary doesn't realize that there are dragons.
(C) Mary now realizes that there are dragons.
In (D), the speaker may or may not share the viewpoint he reports Mary to have:
he may or may not acknowledge the existence of dragons and (separately) may or
may not take it as fact that Mary has more than one head:
(D) Mary fears that dragons will bite off one of her heads.
These are facts for linguistic study. Further, though one could try to interpret them
in terms of spheres and contexts, ultimately it will have to be faced that the word
dragons in (A) represents a complex structure which is different from that represented
by the same word in (B) or (C). If the word depends upon some referent's attesting
to the existence of a referent for it and upon his identification of that referent as
dragons, that identification and attestation will be part of the structure underlying that
8 INTRODUCTION
word. If the word depends upon the speaker's identification and attestation to the
existence of its referent, that, too, will be part of the underlying structure.
In cases like (E) the identification and attestation is attributed to the ancients or to
moderns with active fancies:
(E) Dragons do not exist.
Sometimes speaker and referent differ in the identification of a second referent but
not in respect to its existence; they may be seeing the same referent from different
physical and/or mental viewpoints:
(F) John dealt Mary the AKQJ10 of hearts, though he never saw them.
(G) The judge found Mary's murderer innocent.
In (F) John may have seen the backs of those cards but nothing which would have
enabled him to identify them as the AKQJ10 of hearts. In (G) it is obvious that the
judge is not saying, "I find Mary's murderer innocent".
This work will examine both facts about Reflexive and facts about Viewpoint.
Since reflexive pronouns are marked forms in English differing from simple pronouns
in use as well as structure, differences between them are unarguably a concern of
grammar. Since these differences cannot be accounted for, it appears, except by sup-
posing there to be built-in referent identifications as well as speaker identifications,
it must be hypothesized that such identifications are a part of all noun phrases and
presumably of other content words.
HOW TO READ THIS WORK
This work may be read, I hope, without a deep understanding of transformational-
generative grammar. Though it depends upon such standard works as The Grammar
of English Nominalizations1 and Aspects of the Theory of Syntax,2 and upon many
other, less well-known sources, this work must necessarily beat its own path through
a jungle of ignorance, stumbling only now and then upon a previously marked trail.
For more precise definitions of such a grammar, the reader may go to the books
mentioned above, but perhaps the following will be sufficient for his needs:
When a speaker wishes to communicate, he does not ordinarily repeat a sentence
that he has heard before, the number of sentences he might choose to speak in fact
being infinite. He creates his sentence on an abstract level by following two sets of
rules, phrase structure rules and transformational rules. The phrase structure rules
generate structures which are modified by transformational rules. The phrase struc-
1 R. B. Lees (The Hague, 1963).
2 N. Chomsky (Cambridge, Mass., 1965).
INTRODUCTION 9
ture rules show that all sentences are related in abstract structure; each begins from
a single point of origin, S (Sentence), and branches into NP (Noun Phrase) and VP
(Verb Phrase); NP and VP branch into added nodes which also may branch, with
certain options, down to terminal nodes. An essential feature of the system is its
recursiveness. Despite a limited number of symbols, the fact that S may reappear
makes sentences potentially capable of infinite length and infinite variety. The trans-
formational rules determine what alterations will occur in the original base structure,
formed by the phrase structure rules, by ordering, deleting, combining, and subordinat-
ing elements step by step up to the level of the pronounceable sentence. In the general
theory, each of these intervening steps is the output of a single transformation acting,
according to rule, upon the previous step. These rules — some optional, some obliga-
tory — are generally taken to be ordered and to operate cyclically, that is, upon the S
furthest removed from the point of origin, and thence in order upon each next higher
S.
Where I say that sentence B derives from sentence A, I mean that the identical
structure underlying them both underwent one or more additional optional transfor-
mations in B than in A. Recently it has been argued that not all transformations are
meaning-preserving. This work, however, will assume that they are and will seek to
provide some supporting evidence.
Understanding a sentence one hears or reads involves using the same rules to create
for oneself from the information available a base structure which has meaning —
hopefully, the intended one. It is a matter of common observation that communica-
tion is imprecise; yet the knowledge that a language-user has of the rules of his
language — his competence — is precise. His performance — his ability to speak
coherently and intelligibly, to grasp complicated sentences, to be rational rather than
wishful, to see another viewpoint — assuredly is not.
Matters pertaining to the viewpoints of the speaker, the addressee, and referents
have ordinarily been considered outside this description of language — an aspect
of pragmatics, or psychology, perhaps. This study will provide evidence that viewpoint
should be and can be represented within the familiar theory of syntax.
There is a certain amount of conventional representation to become acquainted
with before beginning the main part of the discussion. The major abbreviations are
S for sentence, NP for noun phrase, VP for verb phrase, V for verb, Det for determiner,
and N for noun. In both bracket and tree diagrams, left-to-right order will imply
certain grammatical relationships. Dominance proceeds from outer to i nner brackets
and from top to bottom nodes. For instance, in 1 below, the S node dominates all
others; the VP node dominates V, the right-hand NP, Det, and N; the right-hand
NP dominates Det and N:
10 INTRODUCTION
Generally, representations will ignore the fact that trees can continue branching to
identify verbs by category or feature such as tense, for instance. Such detail would
add irrelevant confusion. Subscripts or superscripts on S, NP, etc., appear for easy
referral. Boxes, circles, etc., are intended to call attention to particular symbols,
such as the pairs of identical NP where relative clauses form. Neither sort of marking
has any grammatical significance. In 2 below the S brackets dominate all others within
them, the VP brackets dominate all within them, and so on:
2. [ [ / ] [ [see] [ [a] [man] ] ] ]
S NP NP VP V V NP Det N N NP VP S
Commonly, nonpertinent bracketing and labeling is omitted; bracketing most
often will be used only for unlabeled sentences, like this:
3. [/ see a man] or [/ see a man]
i I
Tree diagrams, too, are likely to be less detailed:
4. s s
Not only does a S dominate a NP, a NP may itself immediately dominate a lower S
and in this work a NP may immediately dominate another NP. Sentences with restric-
tive relative clauses are represented in ordinary fashion. In bracketing, the main clause
precedes and the relativization depends upon the identity of two relevant NP's:
5. [ I ride with [ [ a man ] [ [ a man ] works in a bank ] ] ]
S1 NP S NPg S NP BJ
2 2 2 X
Condition: NP2 = NP3 (/ ride with a man who works in a bank)
6. [/ ride with a man [a man works in a bank]]
1 ~ 2 21
(/ ride with a man who works in a bank.)
The bracketing signifies a S enclosed in a S and subordinate to a NP. In a tree, the
main clause is higher and the NP being modified dominates the relative clause; the
point of juncture is also a NP:
