Recategorization of prepositions as complementizers: the case of temporal prepositions in English

Abstract

In this article we consider the syntax of temporal prepositions (e.g., after, before, while) and propose that they differ from nontemporals (e.g., without, despite, about) in that they occupy a C0 position whenever they occur before a clausal complement.Diachronic and dialectal evidence suggests that this distinction is attributable to a category change that the temporals underwent sometime before the 17th century.This analysis at once begs for an explanation of the difference between these temporals and the preposition for, which also fills C? but exhibits quite different behavior.We first examine the dialectal and diachronic evidence for positing a category distinction between the two classes and then reexamine an account of prepositions and gerundive complements proposed by Johnson (1988).The proposal made here bears on attempts by Emonds (1985) and Grimshaw (1991) to collapse the distinction between C and P. It provides additional evidence for the relatedness of these two syntactic categories, but also highlights potential problems with entirely eliminating the distinction between them (a direct comparison of our analysis and Emonds's is given in footnote 5). 1 Evidence for Recategorization One of the obvious differences between temporal and nontemporal prepositions in modern standard English is that only the former can have a tensed clausal complement (la-b).At the same time, neither class can appear with an overt complementizer (lc-d).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 66 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.