The purpose clause is a common fonn of adverbial modification in English. The bracketed phrases below are purpose clauses, and they look and sound unremarkable. We hear and see these things all the time. John came [to play with the children] [to play with] I brought John along Insofar as purpose clauses appear to be adverbial, they frequently occupy a relatively low place on the scale of important things for syntactic theory to address itself to. In this book I assume the theoretical framework that has come to be known as 'Government-Binding' theory (GB), initiated in Chomsky (1981). The general fonn of the analyis of purpose clauses in GB dates roughly from Chomsky (1977). where several kinds of constructions akin to purpose clauses are identified. Within GB. this analysis is so widely accepted that it deserves to be considered the standard theory. This book, then. is about a few syntactically peripheral ell~ments that have enjoyed a relatively long-lived. virtually universally accepted. theoretical treatment What is perhaps an obvious question arises in this context. Why write a GB book about purpose clauses? This book. I hope, will supply an interesting answer. Simply put. purpose clause:;, and related constructions, have various properties that are not accounted for in the standard theory. In this book I propose an alternative analysis of purpose clauses, an analysis from which. I think. more of their properties follow more naturally.

Autorentext

CLAIRE G. JONES is editor of HerStoria Magazine and an Associate Lecturer in History at the University of Liverpool, UK. In 1999 she was joint winner of the Clare Evans Prize for the best new essay in the field of women's history and gender and history.

Klappentext
The purpose clause is a common kind of adverbial modifier in English. In this book, the standard unbounded-dependency theory of constructions like purpose clauses, outlined within Noam Chomsky's Government and Binding theory (GB), is contrasted with an alternative theoretical characterization of them, worked out within Edwin Williams GB-related theory of thematic roles and argument structure. The central proposal of the alternative theory is that purpose clauses are essentially nonclausal in contrast to the standard fully-clausal analysis. The abundant special properties of purpose clauses, extensively presented and described here, sharply illuminate many of the fundamental assumptions, and limitations of several GB-sub-theories. Among the topics considered are the argument adjunct distinction, the generality of syntactic movement, locality restrictions on filler-gap dependencies, tough-movement, the semantic content of thematic roles, and the quantificational nature and semantics of Control.

Inhalt
I. Introduction.- 1. Two Theoretical Frameworks.- 2. Purpose Constructions.- II. External Syntax.- 1. Distinguishing Purpose Clauses.- 2.Adjunction of IOC and PC.- 3. Purpose Clauses as Adjuncts.- 4. Wh-Extraction.- III. Internal Syntax.- 1. Inside In Order Clauses.- 2. Inside Subject-Gap Purpose Clauses.- 3. Inside Object-Gap Purpose Clauses.- 4. The PP 'Subject' of OPC.- 5. PC and Be.- IV. Easy-Clauses.- 1. Easy-S'.- 2. Easy-Clause = OPC.- 3. The New Tough Movement.- 4. Related Constructions.- V. Quantification.- 1. Quantification and Predication.- 2. Quantifying PRO arb.- 3. Control via Empty Operators.- 4. Conclusion.- VI. Control.- 1. A Semantics for Control.- 2. What is a ?-Role?.- 3. Control of Purpose Clauses.- 4. Generalized Control.- 5. Obligatory Control and the Argument/Adjunct Distinction.- VII. Conclusion.- Index of Names.- Index of Subjects.