Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T04:06:35.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unions as multi-predicate clauses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

William Davies  and
Carol Rosen
William Davies
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Carol Rosen
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research on ‘universals of union’, fueled by new data on causatives and by the recognition of non-causative unions, has taken an unexpected turn. For over ten years it presupposed a certain structure and sought LAWS SPECIFIC TO UNION. Remarkably, the empirical findings suggest the opposite: union has a structure never hypothesized for it before (one clause where TWO OR MORE PREDICATES occur successively)—and there is little to stipulate, since nearly all observed effects are entailed by broader laws of clause structure. Further, the new analysis delimits the class of unions more narrowly, and reconciles them with otherwise problematic rules in Italian, Quechua, Tamil, and Turkish.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , March 1988 , pp. 52 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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

Footnotes

* For comments on an earlier version of this paper, we are grateful to Judith Aissen, Sandra Chung, Stanley Dubinsky, Nora Gonzalez, Wayne Harbert, Alice Harris, David Perlmutter, Paul Postal, and Geoffrey Pullum. We are indebted to Işik Bengi and İnci Özkaragöz for assistance with the Turkish data in §4.1. For introduction to the RG framework and formalism, see the papers in Perlmutter 1983b, Perlmutter & Rosen 1984.

References

Aissen, Judith. 1983. Indirect object advancement in Tzotzil. In Perlmutter 1983b:272–302.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith, and Perlmutter, David. 1976. Clause reduction in Spanish. BLS 2. 1–30. [Revised version in Perlmutter 1983b:360-403.]Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A Government-Binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Peter. 1984. Multiple syntactic levels: Evidence from Imbabura Quechua. Presented at the Symposium on Grammatical Relations, SUNY Buffalo.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, and Sridhar, S. N. 1977. Clause union and Relational Grammar: Evidence from Hebrew and Kannada. LI 8. 700–713.Google Scholar
Davies, William. 1985. A new formulation of the Oblique Law. ms.Google Scholar
Davies, William. 1987. Tamil unions. ms.Google Scholar
Dubinsky, Stanley. 1985. Japanese union constructions: A unified analysis of -sase and -rare. Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1983. Generalized union. Communication & Cognition 16. 3–37.Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna. 1986. Causatives and passives in Korean: Evidence for clause union without revaluation. Relational Studies on Korean (Buffalo working papers in linguistics), 98–195. Buffalo: Department of Linguistics, SUNY.Google Scholar
Gibson, Jeanne, and Raposo, Eduardo. 1986. Clause union, the Stratal Uniqueness Law, and the chômeur relation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4. 295–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice. 1981. Georgian syntax: A study in Relational Grammar. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Hermon, Gabriella. 1984. Two impersonal inversion constructions in Imbabura Quechua. Presented at the Symposium on Grammatical Relations, SUNY Buffalo.Google Scholar
Jake, Janice. 1983. Grammatical relations in Imbabura Quechua. Urbana: University of Illinois dissertation.Google Scholar
Johnson, David, and Postal, Paul. 1980. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton: University Press.Google Scholar
Kana, Marit. 1986. Grammatical relations in Bahasa Indonesia. Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
La Fauci, Nunzio. 1986. Sulla natura assolutiva del controllore dell'accordo del participio passato in italiano. (La Memoria: Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell'Università di Palermo, 3.) Palermo.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine. 1986. Object raising in French: A unified analysis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4. 137–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1973. The two si's of Italian: An analysis of reflexive, inchoative, and indefinite subject sentences in Modern Standard Italian. Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Özkaragöz, İncİ. 1986. The relational structure of Turkish syntax. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Patterson, Patterson Betty Soon. 1974. A study of Korean causatives. University of Hawaii M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. BLS 4. 157–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1979. Working 1's in Italian, Japanese, and Quechua. BLS 5. 277–324. [Revised version in Perlmutter & Rosen 1984:292–330.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1980. Relational Grammar. Current approaches to syntax (Syntax & semantics, 13), ed. by Moravcsik, Edith and Wirth, Jessica, 195–229. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1981. Multiattachment and the Unaccusative Hypothesis: The perfect auxiliary in Italian. ms.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1983a. Personal versus impersonal constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1. 141–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1983b (ed.) Studies in Relational Grammar, I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David, and Postal, Paul. 1977. Toward a universal characterization of passivization. BLS 3. 394–417. [Revised version in Perlmutter 1983b:3-29.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David, and Postal, Paul. 1983. Some proposed laws of basic clause structure. In Perlmutter 1983b:81–128.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David, and Postal, Paul. 1984a. Impersonal passives and some relational laws. In Perlmutter & Rosen 1984:126–70.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David, and Postal, Paul. 1984b. The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law. In Perlmutter & Rosen, 81–125.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David, and Rosen, Carol. 1984 (eds.) Studies in Relational Grammar, II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1986a. Masked inversion in French clause union complements. ms.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1986b. Studies of passive clauses. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Carol. 1981. The relational structure of reflexive clauses: Evidence from Italian. Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1983. Universals of causative union: A co-proposal to the Gibson–Raposo typology. CLS 19. 338–52.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1987. Star means bad: A syntactic divertimento for Italianists. Italica 64. 443–76.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1973. Lexical versus periphrastic causatives in Korean. Journal of Linguistics 9. 281–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Kyoko. 1984. A relational analysis of Japanese causative constructions. Cornell University M.A. thesis.Google Scholar