Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T15:19:30.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Syntax of Auxiliary Reduction in English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Ellen M. Kaisse
Ellen M. Kaisse*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The reduced forms of the auxiliaries is and has are excluded from many more constructions than have previously been noted. This article extends the range of ungrammatical reductions for which any theory of Auxiliary Reduction must account, and argues that many of them are already predicted under a liberal reading of earlier constraints on the context following the AUX. However, it is shown that the preceding context must also have a particular form. Auxiliary Reduction is a cliticization, and imposes a categorial restriction on the host which precedes the clitic: it must be an NP.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , March 1983 , pp. 93 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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

Bach, Emmon, and Peters, Stanley. 1968. Pseudo-cleft sentences, MS.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1971. Contraction and the transformational cycle. [Reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1978.]Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1975. Comparative deletion and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Analysis 1.25–74.Google Scholar
Carden, Guy. 1979. There Insertion makes a mistake: A global rule and the validation of introspective judgments, MS.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S., 184–221. Waltham: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On WH-movement. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter et al., 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. LI 11.1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 1977. Some observations concerning pseudo-clefts. Linguistic Analysis 3.347–75.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1979. Appositive relatives have no properties. LI 10.211–42.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1977. Where do cleft sentences come from? Lg. 53.543–59.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1974. On the non-cyclic nature of wH-clefting. CLS 10.221–33.Google Scholar
Hendrick, Randall. 1982. Reduced questions and their theoretical implications. Lg. 58.800–819.Google Scholar
Higgins, Roger. 1973. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1980. Topics in Romance syntax. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. 1979. Auxiliary reduction and the derivation of pseudo-clefts. LI 10.707–10.Google Scholar
King, Harold V. 1970. On blocking the rules for contraction in English. LI 1.134–6.Google Scholar
Klavans, Judith L. 1980. Some problems in a theory of clitics. University College London dissertation.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don't exist. Recent transformational studies in European languages, ed. by Keyser, S. Jay, 65–112. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. Constraints on internal clauses and sentential subjects. LI 4.363–86.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1977. Wh-cleft and It-cleft sentences. Studies in English Linguistics 5.88–117.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Lg. 45.715–62.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970. Global rules. Lg. 46.627–39.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1976. Rule interaction and the organization of a grammar. University College London dissertation.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Zwicky, Arnold M. 1982. The syntax-phonology interface. New York: Academic Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk van, and Williams, Edwin. 1981. NP-Structure. Linguistic Review 1:2. 171–217.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. MIT dissertation. [Reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club.]Google Scholar
Rotenberg, Joel. 1978. The syntax of phonology. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1972. The phrase phonology of English and French. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1890. A primer of spoken English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Winifred J. 1979. Auxiliary reduction in English: A unified account. CLS 15.366–77.Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen T. 1982. Government and proper government of verbal projections. University of Washington dissertation.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1970. Auxiliary reduction in English. LI 1.323–36.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. On clitics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar