Chapter 2
Complex NPs with third-order entity clauses
Towards a grammatical description and semantic typology
This article focuses on complex NP constructions of the form ‘determiner (+ adjective) + noun (+ complementiser) + clause’, which refer to third-order entities, defined by Lyons (1977: 443) as “such abstract entities as propositions, which are outside time and space”. Their functional structure has so far tended to be analysed in terms of one syntagmatic model, either as an appositive structure defined by the criterion that NP and clause have identical reference (e.g. Quirk et al. 1985) or as a complementation structure in which the noun is viewed as licensing the complement clause (e.g. Huddleston & Pullum 2002). I argue that, as unified descriptions, neither of these analyses can be maintained. I propose instead that these NPs divide into two distinct subtypes on the basis of different grammatical behaviour: one in which the third order entity clause is premodified by the noun and one in which it complements the head noun. Starting from this basic functional-structural division, I propose a typology that distinguishes the main semantic classes of nouns patterning with third-order entity clauses. The typology aims to capture the most important semantic distinctions between the subtypes of these complex NPs.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Main analyses in the literature
- 2.1Complex NPs with appositive clauses
- 2.2Complex NPs with noun complement clauses
- 3.Basic outline of a grammatical description
- 3.1Complex NPs with a complementation relation between noun and clause
- 3.2Complex NPs with a modification relation between noun and clause
- 3.3The main feature shared: nominalised third order entity clauses
- 4.A semantic typology of NPs with third-order entity clauses
- 4.1A semantic typology of NPs with a complementation relation between noun and clause
- 4.1.1Nouns taking presupposed complement clauses
- 4.1.2Nouns taking non-presupposed complement clauses
- 4.2A semantic typology of NPs with a modification relation between noun and clause
- 5.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (42)
References
Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos. 1996. The Puzzle of Apposition. Santiago: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Acuña-Fariña, Juan Carlos. 2009. Aspects of the grammar of close apposition and the structure of the noun phrase. English Language and Linguistics 13: 453–481. doi: ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 2: 119–127.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Breban, Tine, Davidse, Kristin & Ghesquière, Lobke. 2011. Types of phoric relations expressed by complex determiners in English. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2689–2703. doi: ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 1975. Nominal apposition. Foundations of Language 13: 391–419.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Butler, Chris. 2003. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories [Studies in Language Companion Series 63–64]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davidse, Kristin. 1994. Fact projection. In Perspectives on English: Studies in Honour of Professor Emma Vorlat, Keith Carlon, Kristin Davidse & Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds), 259–286. Leuven: Peeters.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davidse, Kristin. 2003. A corpus check of the factive presupposition. In Configurations of Culture: Essays in Honour of Michael Windross, Aline Remael & Katja Pelsmaekers (eds), 115–126. Apeldoorn: Garant.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts. Leuven & Dordrecht: Leuven University Press & Foris. doi: ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Delacruz, Enrique. 1976. Factives and proposition level constructions in Montague Grammar. In Montague Grammar, Barbara Partee (ed.), 177–199. New York, NY: Academic Press.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Donellan, Keith. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 60: 281–304. doi: ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Francis, Gill. 1993. A corpus-driven approach to grammar. In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 138–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gentens, Caroline. 2016. The Factive-Reported Distinction in English: Representational and InterpersonalSemantics. PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, Michael. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, Michael. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Arnold![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, Michael & Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huddleston, Rodney. 1988. Constituency, multi-functionality and grammaticalisation in Halliday’s Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 24: 137–174. doi: ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kallulli, Dalina. 2010. Belief will create fact: On the relation between givenness and presupposition, and other remarks. Theoretical Linguistics 36: 199–208. doi: ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kiparsky, Paul & Kiparsky, Carol. 1971. Fact. In Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, Danny Steinberg & Leon Jakobovits (eds), 345–369. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuno, Susumo. 1970. Some properties of non-referential noun phrases. In Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics, Presented to Shiro Hattori on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Roman Jakobson & Shigeo Kawamoto (eds), 348–373. Tokyo: TEC Corporation for Language and Educational Research.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McGregor, William. 1992 The place of circumstantials in systemic-functional grammar. In Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice, Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds), 136–149. London: Pinter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McGregor, William. 1997. Semiotic Grammar. London: Clarendon.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nuyts, Jan. 2005. The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In Modality: Studies in Form and Function, Alex Klinge & Henrik Høeg-Müller (eds), 5–38. London: Equinox.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Palmer, Frank. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP. doi: ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vandelanotte, Lieven & Davidse, Kristin. 2009. The emergence and structure of be like and related quotatives: A constructional account. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 777–807. doi: ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Langendonck, Willy. 1994. Determiners as heads? Cognitive Linguistics 5: 243–259. doi: ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Langendonck, Willy. 2007. Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Berlin: Mouton. doi: ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2007. Rethinking the Coordinate-Subordinate Dichotomy: Interpersonal Grammar and the Analysis of Adverbial Clauses in English. Berlin: Mouton. doi: ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
WB: Collins WordBanks Online. <[URL]>
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Gentens, Caroline
2019.
The Diachrony of the Fact That-Clauses.
English Studies 100:2
► pp. 220 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.