Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info

New from Oxford University Press!


Oxford Handbook of Corpus Phonology

Edited by Jacques Durand, Ulrike Gut, and Gjert Kristoffersen

Offers the first detailed examination of corpus phonology and serves as a practical guide for researchers interested in compiling or using phonological corpora

New from Cambridge University Press!


The Languages of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History

By Bernard Spolsky

A vivid commentary on Jewish survival and Jewish speech communities that will be enjoyed by the general reader, and is essential reading for students and researchers interested in the study of Middle Eastern languages, Jewish studies, and sociolinguistics.

New from Brill!


Indo-European Linguistics

New Open Access journal on Indo-European Linguistics is now available!

Summary Details

Query:   Addendum sentence acceptability (8.1555, 8.1567)
Author:  Carsten Breul
Submitter Email:  click here to access email
Linguistic LingField(s):   Pragmatics

Summary:   Dear all (especially those who have kindly responded to my query on
sentence acceptability (8.1555) and the corresponding summary

First of all, I must apologise. Only now have I realised (by the help
of some of the responses) that I made a big mistake in constructing my
sentences (1) and (2), i.e. in modifying the original ones from
Rochemont & Culicover. In using 'that' instead of 'a', I made it
pragmatically/semantically impossible to construe the sentences so as
to ask for the person who is depicted in the picture. (The reading in
which the speaker asks for the person from whom the picture was bought
is NOT intended). I give the sentences once again:

i) Who did you buy yesterday a beautiful picture of?
ii) Of whom did you buy yesterday a beautiful picture?

These are judged '*' by Rochemont & Culicover while the following ones
with the adverb and the direct object reversed are judged 'ok':

i') Who did you buy a beautiful picture of
ii') Of whom did you buy a beautiful
picture yesterday?

Now, what I am after is to find out if this contrast in acceptability
is really as strong as Rochemont & Culicover suggest so that we may
suspect a grammatical principle behind it. (I doubt that.)

Some of the responses seem to imply that it is NOT PRIMARILY the
adverb position in (4)-(6) which makes them unacceptable but rather
the intrusion of semantically ridiculous meanings. This is supported
by the fact that (4')-(6') (i.e. the versions with the adverb in a
more 'natural' position) is not considered to be much better than
(4)-(6) by a number of people.

To sum up: What I am after is the (non-)possibility of shifting the
direct object to the right of the adverb in such constructions. If
the unshift-versions are problematic/marginal/semantically odd/etc. in
themselves then it becomes difficult to decide if the unacceptability
of the shift-versions is due to a 'rule' which prohibits such a shift
or to an increase in pragmatic/semantic 'oddity' over an acceptability

Dr. Carsten Breul
Englisches Seminar
Universitaet Bonn
Regina-Pacis-Weg 5
53113 Bonn


LL Issue: 8.1567
Date Posted: 04-Nov-1997
Original Query: Read original query


Sums main page