Omitted arguments and complexity of predication
by Port, Martin, Ph.D., CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, 2010, 253 pages; 3396486

Abstract:

This work focuses on the licensing conditions and logical structure of understood-argument constructions, or complement-drop constructions, in English. There are two main types of such arguments: Indefinite Understood Arguments (IUA) and Definite Understood Arguments (DUA). IUA readings occur in such cases in He ate, He cooked. In such cases, the reference of the dropped element need not be known for the sentence to be satisfactorily interpretable. DUA readings are given in such examples as She followed, She won. Here the reference of the missing element must be known to the speaker/hearer; it must appear in discourse.

Our central claim is that it is not necessary to resort to explanatory factors outside the lexical-semantic structure of verbs in order to account for the alternations. We propose that for both IUA and DUA, the structure of the understood argument is a complex structure involving existential quantification: "∃x [P(x)]". It is never a simplex, atomic element that could be represented by an individual constant. For IUA cases, we justify this complex structure by showing that it is mirrored in the structure of the alternating verbs. We note in particular that IUA verbs often undergo other alternations such as the material/product alternation, which we consider to be an indication of a complex lexical structure.

For Definite Understood Arguments, we give two licensing factors that correspond to the variable and the predicate in the logical form. We motivate existential quantification in DUA constructions, by considering such contrasts as I know/I know about that vs. I believe/*I believe about that. Selecting for a PP-complement correlates with the possibility of DUA. We claim that in this example, the about-phrase provides a slot for a variable, since the phrase makes allusion to some object without stating explicitly what it is.

We conclude by analyzing subject-drop alternations–the causative-inchoative alternation–in the light of our findings regarding complement drop. We note that this alternation occurs with verbs of a simplex structure; and we offer a description of the general system of argument drop in English.

 
AdviserWilliam McClure
SchoolCITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
SourceDAI/A 71-03, p. , Apr 2010
Source TypeDissertation
SubjectsLinguistics
Publication Number3396486
Adobe PDF Access the complete dissertation:
 

» This is an open access dissertation.
  Use the link below to access the full text PDF of this graduate work:
  http://gradworks.umi.com/3396486.pdf
  Use the link below to search and retrieve all open access dissertations:
  http://pqdtopen.proquest.com

About ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
With over 2.3 million records, the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database is the most comprehensive collection of dissertations and theses in the world. It is the database of record for graduate research.

The database includes citations of graduate works ranging from the first U.S. dissertation, accepted in 1861, to those accepted as recently as last semester. Of the 2.3 million graduate works included in the database, ProQuest offers more than 1.9 million in full text formats. Of those, over 860,000 are available in PDF format. More than 60,000 dissertations and theses are added to the database each year.

If you have questions, please feel free to visit the ProQuest Web site - http://www.proquest.com - or call ProQuest Hotline Customer Support at 1-800-521-3042.