Sarunas Raudys 有篇數學的，好像從投到發至少有 5 年。不過找不到是哪篇了，不提也罷。
James D. McCawley 當年這篇
“English sentences without overt grammatical subject”
沒有經 peer-review 正式發表，但廣為引用，算是經典吧。
OVERT GRAMMATICAL SUBJECTS
by Quang Phuc Dong
South Hanoi Institute of
There is an extensive
dealing with English imperative sentences. As is well known, these
have no overt grammatical subject:
(1) Close the door.
There is general agreement
scholars that these sentences have deep structures involving an
subject you which is deleted by a transformation.
There is a widespread
that utterances such as:
(2) Fuck you.
which also appear to have the
form of a transitive verb followed by a noun phrase and preceded by no
overt subject, are also imperative. This paper will study the syntax of
sentences such as (2). While it will offer only a tentative conjecture
as to what the deep structure of sentences such as (2) is, it will at
demonstrate conclusively that they are not imperatives.
One characteristic of
such as (2), which–as has been often noted–is an anomaly if they are
analyzed as imperatives, is the absence of reflexivization; while
(3) *Assert you.
is ungrammatical, (2) is not.
There are many other anomalies which are not so widely recognized.
there are a large number of structures in which imperatives appear
embedded in a matrix or with various adjuncts:
(4) I said to close the door.
(5) Don’t close the door.
(6) Do close the door.
(7) Please close the door.
(8) Close the door, won’t you?
(9) Go close the door.
(10) Close the door or I’ll
take away your teddy-bear.
(11) Close the door and I’ll
give you a dollar.
there are no such sentences
corresponding to (2):
(12) *I said to fuck you.
(13) *Don’t fuck you.
(14) *Do fuck you.
(15) *Please fuck you.
(16) *Fuck you, won’t you?
(17) *Go fuck you.
(18) *Fuck you or I’ll take
away your teddy-bear.
(19) *Fuck you and I’ll give
you a dollar.
Further, while ordinary
can be conjoined with each other, they cannot be conjoined with (2):
(20) Wash the dishes and sweep
(21) *Wash the dishes and fuck
(22) *Fuck you and wash the
Similarly, sentences such
(20) can be reduced to sentences with a conjoined verb if the two
differ only in the verb; however, the fuck of (2) may not
in such a construction:
(23) Clean and press these
(24) *Describe and fuck
Likewise, there are
containing the word fuck which are ambiguous between a meaning
to (1) and a meaning parallel to (2):
(25) Fuck Lyndon Johnson.
This sentence can be
either as an admonition to copulate with Lyndon Johnson or as an
indicating disapproval of that individual but conveying no instruction
to engage in sexual relations with him. When sentences with the
and adjuncts of (4) to (11) and (20) are formed, the resulting
allow only the former of these readings:
(12a) I said to fuck Lyndon
(13a) Don’t fuck Lyndon
(14a) Do fuck Lyndon Johnson.
(15a) Please fuck Lyndon
(16a) Fuck Lyndon Johnson,
(17a) Go fuck Lyndon Johnson.
(18a) Fuck Lyndon Johnson or
I’ll take away your teddy-bear.
(19a) Fuck Lyndon Johnson and
I’ll give you a dollar.
(20a) Fuck Lyndon Johnson and
wash the dishes.
Consideration of these
makes it fairly clear that the fuck of (12a)-(20a) (henceforth fuck1)
and the fuck of (2) (henceforth fuck2) are
distinct homophonous lexical items. These two lexical items have
different selectional restrictions, as is shown by the examples:
(26) Fuck these irregular
(27) *John fucked these
(28) Fuck communism.
(29) *John fucked communism.
has a peculiar restriction on the determiner of the following noun
a restriction not shared by fuck1, namely that the
must be either definite or generic:
(30) Fuck these seven
(31) Fuck irregular verbs.
(32) Fuck all irregular verbs.
(33) *Fuck seven irregular
(34) *Fuck any irregular verb.
(35) Fuck seven old ladies by
midnight or I’ll take away your teddy-bear.
(36) Fuck any old lady you see.
(the latter two involving fuck1).
It should be noted that the word “generic” must be interpreted in a
such that all is generic (cf. example (32)) but each is
(37) *Fuck each irregular verb.
Indeed, substitution into
frame “Fuck____irregular verb(s)” is an excellent diagnostic test for
As example (35) makes clear, the two fucks also differ in their
potential for co-occurring with adverbial elements; while (35) is
(38) *Fuck you by midnight.
is not. Moreover, note the
(39) Fuck my sister tomorrow
(40) *Fuck these irregular
(41) Fuck my sister on the
(42) *Fuck communism on the
(43) Fuck my sister carefully.
(44) *Fuck complex symbols
Evidently, fuck2 does
not allow any adverbial elements at all. This restriction suggests
that fuck2 not only is distinct from fuck1
but indeed is not even a verb. Chomsky observes that the adverbial
of (39)-(42) are outside of the verb phrase and that only elements
the verb phrase play a role in strict subcategorization of verbs. That
principle would clearly be violated if fuck2 were a
While the “principle of strictly local subcategorization” proposed by
is in fact not valid in precisely that form, the fact remains that no
has been reported of any English morpheme which is unambiguously a verb
and which allows no adverbial elements whatever. Since the only reason
which has ever been proposed for analyzing fuck2 as
verb is its appearance in a construction (that of (2)) which
resembles an imperative but in fact is not, one must conclude that
is in fact not a scrap of evidence in favor of assigning fuck2
to the class “verb”, and indeed, assigning it to that class would force
the recognition of an anomalous subclass of verbs which violate
completely valid generalizations about “verbs”.
not a verb, then what is it? To make some headway towards answering
question, let us consider the following expressions, which have much in
common with (2):
(45) Damn Lyndon Johnson.
(46) Shit on Lyndon Johnson.
(47) To hell with Lyndon
(48) Hooray for Christine
These expressions likewise
adverbial elements and require the following noun phrase to be definite
(49) Damn those irregular
(50) *Damn those irregular
(51) *Damn seven irregular
(52) Shit on all irregular
(53) *Shit on each irregular
(54) *Hooray for an irregular
verb last night.
Only rarely have hypotheses
advanced as to the deep structure of expressions such as (45)-(48). One
hypotheses has been that (45) has an underlying subject God,
is deleted. However, this proposal is untenable since it would exclude
the completely acceptable sentence
(55) Damn God.
and imply the grammaticality
of the non-sentence
(56) *Damn Himself.
It is interesting that in
respect goddam works exactly like damn:
(57) Goddam God.
(58) *Goddam Himself.
While the assumption of a
subject, God, has semantic plausibility in the case of
such as (46) and (2), such an analysis must be rejected for the same
as in the case of damn, namely, the grammaticality of
(59) Fuck God.
(60) Shit on God.
and the ungrammaticality of
(61) *Fuck Himself.
(62) *Shit on Himself.
Consider now the semantics
hell with, shit on,
hooray for, etc. A sentence consisting
of one of these items plus a noun-phrase has neither declarative nor
nor imperative meaning; one can neither deny nor answer nor comply with
such an utterance. These utterances simply express a favorable or
attitude on the part of the speaker towards the thing or things denoted
by the noun-phrase. The fact that they have such a semantic
explains the restriction on the determiner of the noun-phrase; the
must specify a thing or class of things in order for the utterance to
Note further the
of using most of the words in question without any following
These sentences indicate
attitude in question but do not specify what object that attitude is
towards by the speaker.
The fact that sentences of
form fuck2 plus NP are not known to be validly
as NP + VP in deep structure, the fact that they are not embeddable in
any sentences, and the fact that they allow none of the adjuncts which
all other sentences allow, makes highly plausible the hypothesis that
should not even be analyzed as sentences–that the category “utterance”
be divided into two subcategories, “sentence” and “epithet” (the latter
class including utterances such as (2), (46) and (64)), that only
and not “epithet” be embeddable within an utterance, that “epithet”
a lexical category of “quasi-verbs” (this category consisting of fuck2,
on, etc.), that there be a phrase-structure rule
Epithet –> Quasi-verb NP
and that “Quasi-verb” appear
in no other phrase-structure rule.
In closing, I should
certain problems which I have not dealt with and which the reader
be aware of. First, there is the matter of stress in “epithets”. I know
of no non-ad-hoc treatment of the stress difference between
(78) Fuck you.
(79) Damn you.
Moreover, quasi-verbs have
tendency to take primary stress. Stress may disambiguate (63) (although
the distinction is lost when contrastive stress is placed on the NP):
(80) Shit on the carpet. (=
Fuck2 the carpet.)
(81) Shit on the carpet. (=
Defecate on the carpet.)
A second matter which
a full treatment is the process of historical change whereby normal
items become quasi-verbs. I conjecture that fuck2
historically from fuck1, although the paucity of
of fuck makes the philological validation of this conjecture
However, it is clearly no accident that many quasi-verbs are
with normal morphemes.
South Hanoi Institute of
Revised version, Feb. 5, 1967
WE SUPPORT OUR BOYS IN
U.S. EMBASSY, SAIGON.
就在今年，該團隊再次在《Science》發表文章，只不過這次是一份勘誤聲明，他們發現，在MRI進行實驗時，人是躺著進去的，而狗卻是趴著進去的，所以左右腦搞反了ヽ( ຶ▮ ຶ)ﾉ!!!
狗狗表示很無辜：你們連我躺著進入還是趴著進入都傻傻搞不清，我還能說什麼呢，這個鍋我不背！自從其他狗狗得知我是左腦處理語言，它們都不願意跟我一起玩了 ◔̯◔ 哼
在摘要中去掉了left 和right ( ´ρ`)
~( ´•︵•` )~