- See, for example, Otto Jespersen, A Modern English Grammar (Part VII: Syntax), London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1954 and 1958, Chapters X and XI: Comparison; G. O. Curme, Syntax, Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1931, pp. 498–508, and for various similar constructions pages 294–308.
- That is, one can reasonably demand two kinds of linguistic explanations: (a) how a speaker is able correctly to construct an unlimited number of new comparative expressions, and (b) how the language in which he constructs them evolved into its present state. Clearly, the historical explanation (b) presupposes the descriptive explanation (a), for to specify how the rules of a language have changed through time one must first be able to specify the rules.
- The descriptive explanation consists then simply in imputing the formulated rule to the speaker, or to his knowledge of the language.
- See R. B. Lees, “The Grammatical Basis of Some Semantic Notions,” Eleventh Annual Round Table Conference, Georgetown University, 1960 (proceedings to appear).
- For the latest summary of the arguments for a transformational extension of the usual constituent-structure expansion-rule model of grammars, see N. A. Chomsky, “On the Notion ‘Rule of Grammar’,” Proceedings of the Symposium on the Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects, American Mathematical Society (Providence, R.I.), April, 1961.
- Ibid., also see R. B. Lees, The Grammar of English Nominalizations, Bloomington: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, Publication Number 12, July, 1960, (International Journal of American Linguistics XXVI, Number 3, Part II), especially pp. xviii–xix.
- See N. A. Chomsky, “Three Models for the Description of Language,” Institute of Radio Engineers, Transactions on Information Theory, IT-2 (1956), p. 118.
- As in the cases discussed in N. A. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures, 's-Gravenhage: Mouton & Co., 1957, pp. 73–5, 81–3, 89–90; or in R. B. Lees, “A Multiply Ambiguous Adjectival Construction in English,” Language, XXXVI, 1960, 207–221.
- As in Curme, op. cit., page 303.
- The “Negativity” of certain verbs was first pointed out to me by Professor E. S. Klima of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in a paper read before the Seminar on Transformational Grammar at University of Pennsylvania, 1959.
- A study of his so-called “affective” expressions in now in preparation.
- See Lees, Nominalizations, p. 55.
- Sec Lees, Nominalizations, p. 32.
- See footnote 12.
- Lees, ibid., p. 50, footnote 24; also Chomsky, “Rule of Grammar,” section 3.
- This is then a slight extension, or improvement, of the Constituent-structure expansion-rules given in Lees, ibid., p. 13.
- Lees, ibid., p. 35–6; Rule (T41*), p. 49; and references to Chomsky therein.
- The conventions for writing grammatical rules are those of Lees, ibid.
- The example is taken from Jespersen, op. cit., p. 397.
- Lees, ibid., pp. 85–94.
- Lees, ibid., p. 94.
- Ibid., Chapter III.
- Ibid., p. 9, and references to Chomsky therein.
- I.e., rules which would expand, say, then in He came then to when I left, a transform of I left, yielding: He came when I left, etc.
- Lees, “The Grammatical Basis,” pages 9–10 and footnotes 19–21.
- Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
- Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
- Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
- Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research