Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.260-281
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Sep 2018
Received 05 Aug 2018 Revised 14 Sep 2018 Accepted 18 Sep 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.18.3.201809.260

Taxonomic Disputes over the Categorical Nature of BECAUSE and Subordinators

Sungshim Hong ; Joo Hyun Chun*
Professor, Chungnam National University Department of English Language and Literature 99, Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu Daejeon, Korea 34134 vshong@cnu.ac.kr
Professor, Hanbat National University Department of English Language and Literature 125, Dongseodae-ro, Yuseong-gu Daejeon, Korea 34158 joochun@hanbat.ac.kr

Correspondence to: Chun, Joo Hyun Professor, Hanbat National University Department of English Language and Literature 125, Dongseodae-ro, Yuseong-gu Daejeon, Korea 34158 Email: joochun@hanbat.ac.kr

Abstract

Hong, Sungshim, and Joo Hyun Chun. 2018. Taxonomic disputes over the categorical nature of BECAUSE and subordinators. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 18-3, 260-281. This paper aims to clarify the taxonomic confusion regarding a word like because and other subordinators, including or excluding complementizers, and to present additional empirical and structural evidence for Pullum (2009a, 2009b, 2014), Huddleston & Pullum (hereafter H & P, 2005, 2018) in that because is a Preposition, contra all the dictionaries, on-or-off line, and usage books such as Garner (2016), and Fowler’s (2015), and reference and prescriptive grammar books. Gelderen (2013, 2017), on the other hand, has maintained that because, along with all other subordinators, is a complementizer. Furthermore, Haumann (2011) has proposed another functional projection (SubconP), differently from both P and C. If because plus other subordinators belong to a category P as Pullum (2009a: 255-273), and H & P (2005: 129-130, 2018) have argued for, and if subordinators including because are complementizers, as Gelderen (ibid) has argued for, which party is right in this dispute and what are the consequences? This paper, while defending Pullum, and H & P, on the basis of the recapitulation over the grammatical category distinction, clarifies this controversy by (i) providing additional empirical evidences and (ii) presenting the structural details of the subordinate clauses as PP, which Pullum, and H & P have missed out.

Keywords:

taxonomy, conjunction, subordinator, word-class, subconP, TopP

Acknowledgments

S. Hong is the 1st author, J. Chun is the corresponding author, and we like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their thorough comments, through which this paper has greatly improved.

References

  • Aarts, B. 2008. English Syntax and Syntactic Argumentation. New York:　Palgrave. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-36647-3]
  • “Because.” American Heritage Dictionary. 1996. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Garner’s Modern English Usage. 2016.
  • “Because.” Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage. 2015. edited by Jeremy Butterfield. Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780199661350.001.0001]
  • “Because” is the 2013 Word of the Year. American Dialect Society. 3rd Jannuary 2014. https://www.americandialect.org/because-is-the-2013-word-of-the-year.
  • Burton-Roberts, N. 1997. Analysing Sentences: An Introduction to English Syntax, 2nd edition. London and New York: Pearson Education Limited.
  • Carey, S. 2013. ’Because’ has become a preposition, because grammar, https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/because-has-become-a-preposition-because-grammar/.
  • Chun, Joo Hyun. 2006. A Study on the Syntactic Category of IF and WHETHER. Master's thesis, Chungnam National University. Daejeon. Korea.
  • Dixon, R. M. W. and A. Y. Aikhenvald. 2006. Complementation: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Explorations in Linguistic Typology. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Emonds, J. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure-Preserving and Local Transformation. New York: Academic Press.
  • Garner,　B. 2016. Garner’s Modern English Usage. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Garber, M. 2013. English has a new preposition, because Internet. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/11/english-has-a-new-preposition-because-internet/281601/.
  • Gelderen, E. van. 2013. Clause Structure: Key Topics in Syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084628]
  • Gelderen, E. van. 2017. An Introduction to Minimalism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [https://doi.org/10.1075/z.214]
  • Haumann, D. 2011. The Syntax of Subordination. Series of Linguistiche Arbeiten 373 (copyrighted 1997). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
  • Hong, S. and J. Chun. 2018. On the failed attainment of BECAUSE-clause among Korean L2ers of English. Ms. Chungnam National University.
  • Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum. 2005. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum. 2016, Modern and traditional descriptive approaches to grammar. In B. Aarts, J. Bowie and G. Popova, eds., The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hudson, R. 1995. Competence without comp? In B. Aart and C. F. Meyer, eds., The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description, 40-53. New York:　 Cambridge University Press.
  • Hunter, J. 1784. A Grammatical Essay on the Nature, Import, and Effect of Certain Conjunctions. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
  • Jesperson, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Kayne, R. S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
  • Lee, D. 1999. Intransitive prepositions: Are they viable? In P. Collins and D. Lee, eds., The Clause in English in Honour of Rodney Huddleston, 133-147. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Pullum, G. 2009a. Lexical categorization in English dictionaries and traditional grammars. Zeitschrift fr Anglistik und Amerikanistik 57(3), 255-273.
  • Pullum, G. 2009b. 50 years of stupid grammar advice. The Chronicle of Higher Education 55(32), B15-B16.
  • Pullum, G. 2010. The truth about English grammar: Rarely pure and never simple. Manuscript presented at 2009 LTTC International Conference on English.
  • Pullum, G. 2014. Because syntax. Language Log. 5 Jan. 2014. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=9494.
  • Pullum, G. 2015a. Prepositions as Conjunctions, Whales as Fish. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 8th Nov. 2015, https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2015/11/08/prepositions-as-conjunctions-whales-as-fish/Language teaching and Testing at Taiwan National University.
  • Pullum, G. 2015b. The unfortunate divorce of English grammar from English literature. Psychology and Language Science 11, 9-20.
  • Pullum, G. 2016. English Grammar and English Literature On the Move: Glancing Backwards to Build a Future in English Studies, 2538. Aitor Ibarrola-Armendariz and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, eds., Bilbao, Spain: Universidad de Deusto. On-line available: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/pubs.html.
  • Pullum, G. 2018. Philosophy of linguistics. In K. Becker and I. Thomson, eds., The Cambridge Companion to History of Philosophy, 1945-2015. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Radford, A. 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. New York: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811319]
  • Quirk, R,, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
  • Sportiche, D., H. Koopman and E. Stabler. 2013. An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory. Wiley. Blackwell.
  • Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman, ed., Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Rosenbaum, P. S. 1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. MA:　MIT Press.