Advances in Role and Reference Grammar

(^212) MARK HANSELL
3.3 Potential complement form
Another way in which V+V compounds differ from the seemingly look-
alike V+V CR construction is that a Potential Complement (PC) can be
formed out of a CR by inserting de or bu between  and V 2 , while this can­
not be done with a V+V compound. (In Chao"s terminology, CRs are "in­
fixible", while verb compounds are not). It would be a mistake to simply
differentiate two classes of V+V constructions on the basis of whether or
not they are infixible, however, because that would imply that there is sim­
ply a finite set of verb compounds and that each is somehow marked as
[+infixible] or [-infixible]. In fact, although not all CRs can be made into
PCs, the possible set of CRs that can become PCs is open. What differen­
tiates CRs ([+infixible]) from verb compounds ([—infixible]) is a charac­
teristic of the abstract structure of the V+V construction, having to do with
causality. (See section 5 below).

4. Reasons for treating CCs and SVCs alike

The best reason for treating CCs as SVCs is that of simplicity and explana­

tory power. When the same set of principles that already exists to deal with

one set of phenomena can be applied to another set of phenomena, the

grammar is spared unnecessary complexity. Besides just being a saving of

ink and paper, however, if such a simplification of the system is well jus­

tified by the data, it can also represent an insight into similarities of struc­

ture and function between different parts of the grammar that may

have explanatory value. This section deals with some of the syntactic and

semantic principles needed to account for SVCs that can also apply to CCs.

The end of this section then raises some objections to and problems with

treating CCs like SVCs, that will be dealt with in a more systematic way

below.

4.1 Syntax

There are three basic principles of syntax applicable to both SVCs and CCs: