The Constraint On VP Deletion
Kuno posits the following constraint:
(16) The Constraint on VP Deletion
VP deletion can apply only to the VP that is VP-final.
Kuno's constraint requires us to distinguish between (i) the VP that is VP-final (= the VP-final VP), and (ii) the VP that is not VP-final (= the VP-nonfinal VP):
(17)
a. Did he hit her?
b. Yes, he hit her.
c. Yes, he did [e].
(18)
a. Why did he want to go to Paris?
b. He wanted to go there because Mary was there.
c. He wanted to [e] because Mary was there.
(19)
a. DId he hit her with a belt?
b. Yes, he hit her with a belt.
c. *Yes, he did [e] with a belt.
(20)
a. Why did he hit her?
b. He hit her because he hated her.
c. *He did [e] because he hated her.
According to Kuno's constraint, the underlined part of (17b) is a VP-final VP. Therefore, it can be deleted, as in (17c). The underlined part of (18b) is also a VP-final VP because go there and because Mary was there are not in a single constituent. Therefore, the underlined part can be deleted, as in (18c). The underlined part of (19b) is not a VP-final VP, because hit her and with a belt are in a single constituent. Therefore, the underlined part cannot be deleted, as shown in (19c). The underlined part of (20b) is not a VP-final VP, because hit her and because he hated her are in a single constituent. The constrast of the because-clause of (18) and the because-clause of (20) is very confusing.
Top answer
anonymous The constrast of the because-clause of (18) and the because-clause of (20) is very confusing. It certainly is. And in fact, (18) seems a bit out of place because there is no do substitution, which we see in all the other examples.
- anonymous The constrast of the because-clause of (18) and the because-clause of (20) is very confusing.
- It certainly is.
- And in fact, (18) seems a bit out of place because there is no do substitution, which we see in all the other examples.
- I can't say that I find this series of examples the best way to illustrate the point.
- In any case, the only explanation I can come up with is that in (18) the infinitive construction after 'want' is regarded as departing from the "main line" of the sequence of constituents so that it's He wanted to go there because Mary was there.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
anonymousThe constrast of the because-clause of (18) and the because-clause of (20) is very confusing.
It certainly is. And in fact, (18) seems a bit out of place because there is no do substitution, which we see in all the other examples. I can't say that I find this series of examples the best way to illustrate the point.
In any case, the o
0
Related Questions