0
Cho7712 Posted 14 years ago
Linguistics Studies
carry verb
In the below example, the complement of the preposition is a pronoun.
e.g. You have to carry it with you when you leave the country.
And the complement of 'with' has the same reference with the subject of the matrix clause. Then it seems to have no reason not to be the reflexive pronoun there as in 'with yourself'.
However, what I just realized is that there is none showing the use of the reflexive pronoun after having done a search on the corpus site.
Then, there must be some factor that strongly blocked the latter 'you' being tied to the former 'you' in terms of binding.
A. You have [ PRO to carry it with you ]
B. [You have to carry it] [with you.]
As you see above, those are what I've thought as the deep structure of the original sentence, though I am just imagining the structure of B.
And it seems impossible to be drawn from A that the object of the preposition should be the pronoun, because the coreference comes into play.
i.e. the subject you = PRO = the complement 'you'
So I merely guess what the alternative structure is there to be, that is B.
But it is nothing more than an imagination for its not being based on any principle or rule.
In sum, the main points are these two,
1) Why is it not 'yourself' in the underlined part?
e.g. You have to carry it with you when you leave the country.
2) Which related rules or principles are to be applied here to
account for the occurrence of the pronoun?
e.g. You have to carry it with you when you leave the country.
e.g. You have to carry it with you when you leave the country.
And the complement of 'with' has the same reference with the subject of the matrix clause. Then it seems to have no reason not to be the reflexive pronoun there as in 'with yourself'.
However, what I just realized is that there is none showing the use of the reflexive pronoun after having done a search on the corpus site.
Then, there must be some factor that strongly blocked the latter 'you' being tied to the former 'you' in terms of binding.
A. You have [ PRO to carry it with you ]
B. [You have to carry it] [with you.]
As you see above, those are what I've thought as the deep structure of the original sentence, though I am just imagining the structure of B.
And it seems impossible to be drawn from A that the object of the preposition should be the pronoun, because the coreference comes into play.
i.e. the subject you = PRO = the complement 'you'
So I merely guess what the alternative structure is there to be, that is B.
But it is nothing more than an imagination for its not being based on any principle or rule.
In sum, the main points are these two,
1) Why is it not 'yourself' in the underlined part?
e.g. You have to carry it with you when you leave the country.
2) Which related rules or principles are to be applied here to
account for the occurrence of the pronoun?
e.g. You have to carry it with you when you leave the country.
Top answer
1-- Because 'it' is being carried, not 'you'. Compare ' You have to carry yourself with dignity '. 2-- I don't know what kind of rules you could mean.
- 1-- Because 'it' is being carried, not 'you'.
- Compare ' You have to carry yourself with dignity '.
- 2-- I don't know what kind of rules you could mean.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
1-- Because 'it' is being carried, not 'you'. Compare 'You have to carry yourself with dignity'.
2-- I don't know what kind of rules you could mean.
2-- I don't know what kind of rules you could mean.
00
cho7712there must be some factor that strongly blocked the latter 'you' being tied to the former 'you' in terms of binding.Yes. There is an interesting class of verbs, of which 'carry' is one, classified by Beth Levin (English Verb Classes and Alternations) as "Bound nonreflexive anaphor as prepositional object". Levin comments, "... with some of these verb
00
Thank you for the answer, MM and CJ.
It is very interesting to see the gap between the real uses and the linguistic rules.
It seems the language is more like a living creature itself for its having so many exceptions not like math.
And,
It is very interesting to see the gap between the real uses and the linguistic rules.
It seems the language is more like a living creature itself for its having so many exceptions not like math.
And,
CalifJimwith some of these verbs the reflexive pronoun cannot be used to express the coreferential interpretation, despite
00
cho7712Especially about the latter explanation, would you let me know to what book or article you refer?The reference to Chomsky was not mine. That was cited by Levin, who lists the following in her References section:
Chomsky, N. A. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
As for treating the object as the subjec
0
Related Questions