This book is concerned primarily with certain constructions in English, often referred to as `stylistic', whose use is restricted to particular contexts of discourse. Within the general framework of Chomeskyan Government-Binding-Theory, Michael Rochemont and Peter Culicover demonstrate how these constructions can be accommodated naturally within grammatical theory. Indeed, the existence of these constructions in English follows directly from general assumptions about the nature of English grammar. Along with explaining the formal properties of these constructions, the book investigates why it is that they are judged to be `stylistic'. Rochemont and Culicover argue that what is perceived as stylistic does in fact follow from the special `focus' properties that these constructions exhibit, and that the `focus' property itself is predictable from general grammatical principles. This is the first book to study `stylistic constructions' in any depth, integrating them into syntactic theory. It will interest linguists and other scholars working within the area of English grammar and syntactic theory.This book is concerned primarily with certain constructions in English, often referred to as `stylistic', whose use is restricted to particular contexts of discourse. Within the general framework of Chomeskyan Government-Binding-Theory, Michael Rochemont and Peter Culicover demonstrate how these constructions can be accommodated naturally within grammatical theory. Indeed, the existence of these constructions in English follows directly from general assumptions about the nature of English grammar. Along with explaining the formal properties of these constructions, the book investigates why it is that they are judged to be `stylistic'. Rochemont and Culicover argue that what is perceived as stylistic does in fact follow from the special `focus' properties that these constructions exhibit, and that the `focus' property itself is predictable from general grammatical principles. This is the first book to study `stylistic constructions' in any depth, integrating them into syntactic theory. It will interest linguists and other scholars working within the area of English grammar and syntactic theory.
