Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-9prln Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T07:54:19.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Have and be in English Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Emmon Bach
Emmon Bach*
Affiliation:
University of Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A re-analysis of English syntax is proposed, in which the forms have and be in their use as ‘main verbs’ are eliminated from the base and reintroduced by transformational rules. The rules are shown to be minor additions to rules required on independent grounds. Syntactic arguments are given first, then answers to possible semantic objections. It is further suggested that the use of these forms as auxiliaries can be explained in the same way. The resulting base rules are shown to be somewhat closer to a reasonable set of universal base rules than the corresponding rules of earlier analyses. The paper concludes with a discussion of analogous constructions in a number of different languages.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 43 , Issue 2-Part1 , June 1967 , pp. 462 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © 1967 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

References

Ashton, Ethel O. 1947. Swahili grammar, 2nd ed. London, Longmans Green.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1965. On some recurrent types of transformations. Report of the Sixteenth Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Teaching (Monograph series in languages and linguistics, 18), 3–18. Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bowen, J. Donald (ed.) 1965. Beginning Tagalog. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1962. A transformational approach to syntax. Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English, ed. by Hill, A. A., 124–58. Austin, University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar. Universals of language, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 48–90. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J., and Fodor, Jerry A. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Lg. 39. 170–210.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J., and Postal, Paul M. 1964. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1960. The grammar of English nominalizations. (Indiana University, Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, Publication 12.) Bloomington, Ind.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1965. Turkish nominalizations and a problem of ellipsis. Foundations of Language 1. 112–21.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1960. The place of intonation in a generative grammar of English. Lg. 36. 360–7.Google Scholar
Ueda, Akiko. 1966. The adnominal modification in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Wang, William S.-Y. 1965. Two aspect markers in Mandarin. Lg. 41. 457–70.Google Scholar