No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Discourse Functions of VP Preposing
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 March 2026
Abstract
An analysis of a corpus of naturally-occurring data reveals that verb phrase preposing serves two functions in discourse: to affirm a speaker's belief in a salient proposition explicitly evoked in the prior discourse, or to suspend a speaker's belief in such a proposition. Various types of VP preposing are identified, based on the type of discourse connective that introduces the preposing and on the epistemic status, relative to the speaker, of the affirmed or suspended proposition. The felicity conditions on VP preposing are shown to be related to those of other OSV constructions in that (1) a particular anaphoric relation must obtain between the preposed element and the preceding discourse, and (2) the preposing must effect the instantiation of a salient open proposition presupposed in the discourse.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1990 by Linguistic Society of America
Footnotes
*
Some of the ideas contained in this paper appear in Chapter VI of Ward 1985. I am indebted to Larry Horn for pointing out and discussing problems with the earlier work, as well as for suggesting alternative formulations and approaches. Also contributing to this paper were M. James Scott and Betty Birner, to whom I'm indebted for many extended and extremely helpful discussions of the phenomena in question. Thanks are also due Betty Birner, Dominique Estival, Julia Hirschberg, Judy Levi, and Kathy McCoy for providing naturally-occurring data.
References
Akmajian, Adrian, Steele, Susan; and Wasow, Thomas. 1979. The category aux in universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 1–64.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. A look at equations and cleft sentences. Studies for Einar Haugen, ed. by Firchow, Evelyn et al., 96–114. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1980. Syntactic diffusion and the indefinite article. Palo Alto, CA, ms.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice. 1984. Syntactic markedness and the definition of sentence topic. Lg. 60.797–846.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1970. Root and structure preserving transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax: Root, structure-preserving, and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Pullum, Geoffrey K.; and Sag, Ivan A. 1982. Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restrictive theory of grammar. Lg. 58.591–638.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1982. Linguistics and the pragmatics of language use. Poetics 11. 45–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics III: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics IX: Pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 113–28. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette. 1985. ‘Shared knowledge’ and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics 9. 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia. 1985. A theory of scalar implicature. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan, and Thompson, Sandra. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 465–97.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA dissertation. [Reprinted in 1976, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.]Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1991. Given as new: When redundant affirmation isn't. Journal of Pragmatics, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 169–93.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1986. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Topicalization, Focus-Movement, and Yiddish-Movement: A pragmatic differentiation. Berkeley Linguistics Society 7. 249–64.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1985. The semantic variability of absolute constructions. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra. 1987. The passive in English: A discourse perspective. In honor of Ilse Lehiste, ed. by Channon, Robert and Shockey, Linda, 497–511. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 1977. Connectives in text grammar and text logic. Grammars and descriptions, ed. by Dijk, Teun van and Petöfi, János, 11–63. New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory L. 1985. The semantics and pragmatics of preposing. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation. [Reprinted in 1988, New York: Garland.]Google Scholar
Warner, Richard G. 1979. Discourse connectives in English. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University dissertation. [Reprinted in 1985, New York: Garland.]Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Sperber, Dan. 1979. Ordered entailments: An alternative to pre-suppositional theories. Syntax and semantics XI: Presupposition, ed. by Choon-Kyu, Oh and Dinneen, David, 299–323. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael. 1982. Getting more mileage out of existentials in English. Linguistics 20. 747–62.Google Scholar
- 27
- Cited by