Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T03:52:53.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On The Underlying Tense of Deverbatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Robert I. Binnick
Robert I. Binnick*
Affiliation:
Scarborough College, University of Toronto
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues against syntactic derivation of deverbatives from forms marked for tense. It is shown, first, that Khalkha Mongolian deverbatives have categories completely different from those of finite verbs; second, that the facts of the English perfect are falsified by such derivation; and, third, that neutralization of underlying tense in Greek deverbatives results in a paradox involving primacy relations. It is concluded that deverbatives need not be marked for tense underlyingly, since tense is a ‘main clause phenomenon’ serving pragmatic functions of discourse. The surface actualization of underlying categories depends in part on such pragmatic functions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , June 1978, pp. 289 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. (Janua linguarum, 4.) The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S., 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Christie, J. J. 1973. Some underlying structures in Swahili. Generative grammar in Europe, ed. by Kiefer, F. & Ruwet, N., 121–40. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Goodwin, W. W. 1889. Syntax of the moods and tenses of the Greek verb. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Goodwin, W. W. 1892. A Greek grammar. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1975. Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Lg. 52.382–97.Google Scholar
Hangin, J. G. 1968. Basic course in Mongolian. (Uralic and Altaic series, 73.) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Hartung, Wolfdietrich. 1966. Die zusammengesetzte Sätze des Deutschen. (Studia grammatica, 4.) Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. LI 4.465–98.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1931. A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part IV: Syntax (Third Volume). London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin T. 1969. Abstract syntax and Latin complementation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1975. Functional stratigraphy. Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, 351–97. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Luvsanvandan, Sh. (ed.) 1966. Orčin cagijn mongol xel züj [Contemporary Mongolian linguistics]. Ulaan Baatar: Ulsyn Xevlelijn Xereg Erxlex Xoroo.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1971. Tense and time reference in English. Studies in linguistic semantics, ed. by Fillmore, C. & Langendoen, D. T., 97–114. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
McGilvray, James. MS. Tenses and beliefs. Montreal: Philosophy Dept., McGill University.Google Scholar
O'Leary, D. 1923. Comparative grammar of the Semitic languages. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Poppe, N. 1951. Khalkha-mongolische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Riddle, Elizabeth. 1975. A new look at sequence of tenses. Read at LSA Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicholas. 1968. Introduction à la grammaire générative. Paris: Plon.Google Scholar
Sinha, Anjani Kumar. 1973. Factivity and relations between main and subordinate clauses in Hindi. You take the high node and I'll take the low node, Papers from the Comparative Syntax Festival, 155–63. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Sodov, D. (ed.) 1967. Gadaadyn uranzoxiolyn unšix bičig [Foreign literature reader]. Ulaan Baatar: Gegeerlijn Jaamny Xevlel.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert, Schachter, Paul; and Partee, Barbara Hall. 1973. The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Street, John C. 1963. Khalkha structure. (Uralic and Altaic series, 24.) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Underhill, Robert. 1972. Turkish participles. LI 3.87–100.Google Scholar