Fawcett's Case For Abolishing The Verbal Group

Fawcett (2010: 336):

Thus the paper presents four major, mutually supportive types of evidence, such that each provides an independent set of reasons why the elements of the supposed 'verbal group' should be treated as elements of the clause. Moreover, each set of reasons applies not merely to one element, but to many of the relevant elements — and in some cases to all of them. In other words, the paper makes the case for abolishing the 'verbal group' four times over, so that even if only one of the four types of evidence were to be deemed to be admissible the case still stands.

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading, because, as the four previous posts demonstrate, not one of these "four major, mutually supportive types of evidence" withstands close scrutiny.