Extra be: The syntax of shared shell-noun constructions in English

Massam, Diane

doi:10.1353/lan.2017.0004

Cited by 14 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When Massam (2017) and Bayer (2020) add a few more bricks to the formal edifice of generative syntax on the basis of data drawn from markedly casual English and German; i when Cinque (2010) emphasizes the near-uniformity of key aspects of adjectival sequencing in 'the national Romance languages' in contrast to the 'greater variation' seen in 'dialects, or older stages, of these languages;' ii or when Barbiers (2010, 2014, cited by Bayer 2020 presents some 'colloquial Dutch' facts resembling Bayer's German data - we find TLG-normative terminology guiding the delimitation of their phenomena. They come across as providing a rigorous and elaborate, but 'catching-down'-driven, account of sentence structure supplementing TLG's lexicographic catching down vis-à-vis the words of these languages.…”

Section: The Trouble With Linguisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On certain consequences of the objectification of languages: a substantivist approach

Dasgupta

2021

Linguistic Frontiers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The practitioners of linguistics (in all its forms) hope to converge on tools suitable for describing all human languages within a shared terminological and conceptual framework, demarcating phenomena that lend themselves to meaningful cross-linguistic comparison from those that do not. To this end, linguists are obliged to treat languages, and speech communities, as objects of analysis. In this respect, the characteristic posture of linguistics authors vis-à-vis their readers contrasts with the non-objectifying attitude associated with Traditional Lexicography and Grammar (here called TLG). Those who write dictionaries and (normative and pedagogical) grammars that count as authoritative for various points on the literacy scale, ranging from schoolchildren to the most proficient users of the written language, address their readers as potential writers (and, crucially, as potential editors) of the language.The practices and attitudes characteristic of TLG reference a single editorial-normative community. As such, they are particularistic, but may occasionally involve more than one nation-state. Country A's TLG workers negotiate with their counterparts in country B, to calibrate orthographic or other norms of a shared language like Dutch or German. Bilingual dictionaries operate with the TLG equipment of both the societies. As an enterprise, TLG crosses national boundaries only on this limited, transactional scale. It does not aspire to a universal scientific standpoint, and thus has no reason to objectify its language or its speech community. TLG represents, and intersubjectively addresses, only a circumscribed editorial-normative collectivity, the "we" to which its authors and readers belong.

show abstract

Section: The Trouble With Linguisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On certain consequences of the objectification of languages: a substantivist approach

Dasgupta

2021

Linguistic Frontiers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other construction types with unintegrated syntax involve a doubling of the copula be, also termed double be (Massam 2017), such as The problem is, is that this construction is never found in written language. Massam argues that what are treated by some as a "linguistic curiosity" (2017, p. 121) constitute in fact a unified set of recurrent constructions which can be analyzed syntactically using existing grammatical entities and notions.…”

Section: Integrated and Unintegrated Syntaxmentioning

confidence: 99%