Re: syllepsis?

From: Greg Lee (greg_at_ling.lll.hawaii.edu)
Date: 03/11/05 

Date: 11 Mar 2005 16:11:48 GMT

Ron Hardin <rhhardin@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > ``Should, or intends to, regulate'' would pass my filter; but I think
> > > it's still syllepsis actually, with a disagreement whether ``regulate''
> > > is a to-infinitive or a bare infinitive. But it's sort of formal, suggesting
> > > a cut-and-paste alternative anyway.
> >
> > > On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
> >
> > So all you're complaining about is the omission of commas? Jeez.

> Commas suggest that you read the sentences separately, in which case there's
> no interference between the two constructions.

> The interference though is the point.

> The way you untangle ``He should regulate his behavior,'' continuing past
> the ``should,'' is apparently not the way you untangle ``He intends to regulate
> his behavoir,'' continuing past ``intends to,'' with differences happening
> at the artificial boundaries introduced by the conjunction.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. There are no artificial boundaries introduced
by the conjunction "or". "Or" does not coordinate "should" and "intends to".
In "He should, or intends to, regulate his behavior", the "or" coordinates the
verb phrases "should regulate his behavior" and "intends to regulate his
behavior". What is special about the construction is that the first intance
of "regulate his behavior" is missing. It's called a right node raising
construction, following Ross. The intonation break at the position of the
missing "regulate his behavior" is a charateristic of the right node raising
construction (though the break need not necessarily be there).

This construction has been very well studied, but its derivation is disputed.
Various theories have been advanced by Ross, McCawley, and Gazdar. 

-- 
Greg Lee <greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>