Page 3 of 5 First 1 2 3 4 5 Last
Results 21 to 30 of 46
  1. Member
    English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Great Britain
      • Current Location:
      • Great Britain

    • Join Date: Mar 2016
    • Posts: 303
    #21

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by Piscean View Post


    I wonder if that school of linguistics would see 'embedded questions' in both the following:

    Sally asked me where John lived.
    Sally told me where John lived.

    [1] Sally asked me where John lived.
    [2] Sally told me where John lived.

    Of course they are embedded questions; what else could they be?

    [1] reports an act of asking a question,while [2] reports an act of stating, giving the answer to a question that may or may not have been asked.

  2. VIP Member
    Retired English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • Europe
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic

    • Join Date: Jul 2015
    • Posts: 15,296
    #22

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Of course they are embedded questions; what else could they be?

    [2] reports an act of stating, giving the answer to a question that may or may not have been asked.
    By that line of reasoning,every statement would seem to be the answer to a question that may or may not have been asked!


    [1] Sally asked me where John lived.
    [2] Sally told me where John lived.

    [1] is a reported version if "Where does John live?", clearly a question.
    [2] is a reported version of "John lives in (for example) New York", clearly not a question.

  3. Member
    English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Great Britain
      • Current Location:
      • Great Britain

    • Join Date: Mar 2016
    • Posts: 303
    #23

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by Piscean View Post
    By that line of reasoning,every statement would seem to be the answer to a question that may or may not have been asked!


    [1] Sally asked me where John lived.
    [2] Sally told me where John lived.

    [1] is a reported version if "Where does John live?", clearly a question.
    [2] is a reported version of "John lives in (for example) New York", clearly not a question.

    [2] reports the act of giving an answer to the question "Where does John live?

    [2] is the answer-orientated version of question-orientated [1].

  4. VIP Member
    Retired English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • Europe
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic

    • Join Date: Jul 2015
    • Posts: 15,296
    #24

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMatthews View Post
    [2] reports the act of giving an answer to the question "Where does John live?
    If that question had been asked, the answer would probably be reported as "She told me", not "She told me where he lived".

    I cannot see any justification for claiming that a statement is an answer to a question when there is not the slightest evidence of any question having been asked or even implied.

  5. Member
    English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Great Britain
      • Current Location:
      • Great Britain

    • Join Date: Mar 2016
    • Posts: 303
    #25

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by Piscean View Post
    If that question had been asked, the answer would probably be reported as "She told me", not "She told me where he lived".

    I cannot see any justification for claiming that a statement is an answer to a question when there is not the slightest evidence of any question having been asked or even implied.
    I said it reports the act of giving an answer. How much clearer can it be? I said that the question may or may not have been asked.

    "The answer to" bit is simply a gloss.

  6. VIP Member
    Retired English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • Europe
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic

    • Join Date: Jul 2015
    • Posts: 15,296
    #26

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMatthews View Post
    I said it reports the act of giving an answer. How much clearer can it be? I said that the question may or may not have been asked.

    "The answer to" bit is simply a gloss.
    It's even clearer if you leave out the ideas of question and answer altogether.

    The idea of an answer has no relevance at all, in my opinion in any of these sentences:

    1. Piscean (pointing out a building to his brother): That is my school.
    2. Piscean (pointing out a building to his brother): That is where I work.
    3. Piscean's brother (to his wife, next day): Piscean showed me where he worked.

    4. Piscean (talking to his brother): I've got a new job. I work in a school in Manchester now.
    5. Piscean's brother (to his wife, next day); Piscean told me where he worked.


    If you believe that any of those utterances is somehow 'the act of giving an answer', perhaps you could explain how this comes to be.

  7. Phaedrus's Avatar
    Senior Member
    English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Jul 2012
    • Posts: 830
    #27

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Interesting discussion! Differentiating between free relative clauses (or fused relatives) and embedded questions is notoriously tricky at times.

    What about an argument from "sluicing," Piscean? (The term comes from Haj Ross.)

    Sluicing is a type of ellipsis that only works with questions (embedded and root). The ellipsis always follows the wh-word.

    One could say: I asked where Piscean worked, and he told me where. ["he told me where" = "he told me where [Piscean worked]"]

    But one couldn't say: *I have been to where Piscean works, and I like where.
    Last edited by Phaedrus; 07-Jun-2019 at 18:27.

  8. VIP Member
    Retired English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • Europe
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic

    • Join Date: Jul 2015
    • Posts: 15,296
    #28

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    What about an argument from "sluicing," Piscean? (The term comes from Haj Ross.)
    I am clearly past my prime; that's a new one for me. I'll have to do some work on that before I can respond. Don't hold your breath!

  9. jutfrank's Avatar
    VIP Member
    English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England

    • Join Date: Mar 2014
    • Posts: 8,253
    #29

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMatthews View Post
    [2] reports the act of giving an answer to the question "Where does John live?
    It may or it may not. It obviously reports some kind of speech act but without more context we cannot know what kind of act it was.

    (Did you mean to write [1] instead of [2]? If you did, then of course I agree—the verb asked clearly identifies an illocutionary act of asking a question. The verb told does not.)

    [2] is the answer-orientated version of question-orientated [1].
    Maybe but maybe not. For [2] to have been uttered, it is not necessary for a question to have been asked at all, whether that question was spoken, written, or remained only as a thought in the mind. If none of these, I don't see what use there could be to say that it is 'answer-orientated'. The answer to what? To only a 'potential' question?
    Last edited by jutfrank; 07-Jun-2019 at 20:09.

  10. jutfrank's Avatar
    VIP Member
    English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England

    • Join Date: Mar 2014
    • Posts: 8,253
    #30

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    What about an argument from "sluicing," Piscean?

    Sluicing is a type of ellipsis that only works with questions (embedded and root). The ellipsis always follows the wh-word.

    One could say: I asked where Piscean worked, and he told me where. ["he told me where" = "he told me where [Piscean worked]"]

    But one couldn't say: *I have been to where Piscean works, and I like where.
    Do you mean to say that for an ellipted utterance such as He told me where, we can confidently assume that a question had been asked? I see, yes.

    That's interesting but where's the argument?

    Without the ellipsis (He told me where he works), we cannot make the same assumption.

Page 3 of 5 First 1 2 3 4 5 Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •