Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T01:53:41.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to get even

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Stephen R. Anderson
Stephen R. Anderson*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Various proposals for treating the word even in a transformational grammar of English are reviewed. It is shown that the word cannot be derived from a structure in which it is directly associated with that portion of the sentence which constitutes its semantic scope. An alternative account based on principles of interpretation of derived structure is sketched and motivated. The semantic content of the word is suggested as the source of limitations on its appearance within the sentence.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , December 1972 , pp. 893 - 906
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 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

*

This work was supported by grant number GS-1934 from the NSF to Harvard University, and by the Language Research Foundation. I am indebted to Noam Chomsky, Janet Fodor, Bruce Fraser, and J. R. Ross for comments on earlier versions. Needless to say, they should not be held to agree with me about anything, nor to be responsible for my errors.

References

Anderson, Stephen R. 1967. Pro-sentential forms and their implications for English sentence structure. In Report #NSF-20 of the Harvard University Computation Laboratory.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. A semantically based sketch of Onondaga. Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics, memoir 25.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. Studies in general and Oriental linguistics, ed. by Jakobson, R. and Kawamoto, S., 52–91. Tokyo: TEC Co.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1965. Entailment rules in a semantic theory. (POLA, report 10.) Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan D. 1968. On cleft sentences and contrastive stress. ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Fraser, J. Bruce. 1970. An analysis of ‘even’ in English. Studies in linguistic semantics, ed. by Fillmore, C. and Langendoen, D. T., 151–180. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Horn, Larry. 1969. A presuppositional approach to only and even. Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 98–107.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1969. Some rules of semantic interpretation for English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1971. Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. Jay. 1968. Review of Adverbial positions in English, by S. Jacobson. Lg. 44.357–373.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward. 1964. Negation in English. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J., 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1969. Attachment transformations. Modern studies in English, ed. by Reibel, D. and Schane, S., 331–351. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970. Global rules. Lg. 46.627–639.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1969. Why you can't not say no sentences like this one. Unpublished, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Miller, Rachel. 1971. Adverbs: some syntactic rules and semantic notions. Bachelor's thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1968. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.10.1007/978-94-010-1707-7_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1970. On coreferential complement subject deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 1.439–500.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar