Scope and semimodal verbs: two approaches

In this paper I focus on scope phenomena connected with semimodal (and modal) verbs and mainly on the syntactic behaviour of these groups of verbs. One important question is: why can semimodal verbs (and modal verbs in epistemic use) not have perfect and future tense forms? Taking among other things...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Michael Richter
Format: Article
Language:deu
Published: Bern Open Publishing 2002-03-01
Series:Linguistik Online
Online Access:https://bop.unibe.ch/linguistik-online/article/view/925
id doaj-5f8e9a98394e45c1a4055e025272b829
record_format Article
spelling doaj-5f8e9a98394e45c1a4055e025272b8292021-09-13T12:57:22ZdeuBern Open PublishingLinguistik Online1615-30142002-03-0110110.13092/lo.10.925Scope and semimodal verbs: two approachesMichael RichterIn this paper I focus on scope phenomena connected with semimodal (and modal) verbs and mainly on the syntactic behaviour of these groups of verbs. One important question is: why can semimodal verbs (and modal verbs in epistemic use) not have perfect and future tense forms? Taking among other things Reichenbach's tense system as a starting point I try to point out that the interpretation of a semimodal or a modal in epistemic use is problematic 1. if there is more than one reference time/if the reference time is indefinite or 2. if the verb in question stands together with an auxiliary of future which has a certain modal meaning itself. The comparison of the treatment of these phenomena in the framework of the Semantic Syntax with a non transformational approach (fragment of a categorial grammar) shows, that some important transformational rules and principles easily and economically can be represented in a non transformational grammar. The transformational approach needs rules like RAISING and LOWERING (or at least one of the two, and in addition to this a rather extended set of rules) for the generation of sentences, while in the categorial system we need only two reduction laws. It has to be investigated whether and to what extent the formation and transformation rules in a transformational grammar on the one hand and the dominance / linear precedence rules together with the lexical entries on the other hand are equivalent. https://bop.unibe.ch/linguistik-online/article/view/925
collection DOAJ
language deu
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Michael Richter
spellingShingle Michael Richter
Scope and semimodal verbs: two approaches
Linguistik Online
author_facet Michael Richter
author_sort Michael Richter
title Scope and semimodal verbs: two approaches
title_short Scope and semimodal verbs: two approaches
title_full Scope and semimodal verbs: two approaches
title_fullStr Scope and semimodal verbs: two approaches
title_full_unstemmed Scope and semimodal verbs: two approaches
title_sort scope and semimodal verbs: two approaches
publisher Bern Open Publishing
series Linguistik Online
issn 1615-3014
publishDate 2002-03-01
description In this paper I focus on scope phenomena connected with semimodal (and modal) verbs and mainly on the syntactic behaviour of these groups of verbs. One important question is: why can semimodal verbs (and modal verbs in epistemic use) not have perfect and future tense forms? Taking among other things Reichenbach's tense system as a starting point I try to point out that the interpretation of a semimodal or a modal in epistemic use is problematic 1. if there is more than one reference time/if the reference time is indefinite or 2. if the verb in question stands together with an auxiliary of future which has a certain modal meaning itself. The comparison of the treatment of these phenomena in the framework of the Semantic Syntax with a non transformational approach (fragment of a categorial grammar) shows, that some important transformational rules and principles easily and economically can be represented in a non transformational grammar. The transformational approach needs rules like RAISING and LOWERING (or at least one of the two, and in addition to this a rather extended set of rules) for the generation of sentences, while in the categorial system we need only two reduction laws. It has to be investigated whether and to what extent the formation and transformation rules in a transformational grammar on the one hand and the dominance / linear precedence rules together with the lexical entries on the other hand are equivalent.
url https://bop.unibe.ch/linguistik-online/article/view/925
work_keys_str_mv AT michaelrichter scopeandsemimodalverbstwoapproaches
_version_ 1717380647244267520