English Syntax E-Book
28,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: UTB
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
This collection of pivotal issues about syntactic analysis bridges the gap between two extremes: Quirk et al.’s classic, yet voluminous standard grammar The Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (CGEL, 1985) and slim booklets with sample solutions. Written for students and teachers alike, this textbook introduces basic concepts, deepens preexisting knowledge, prepares students for various exam contexts and provides hands-on teaching material. Each chapter provides theoretical explanations, which are immediately illustrated by numerous complete sample analyses of sentences taken both from the CGEL as well as from more recent British and American news articles. The final part of this textbook offers a comprehensive practice section for self-study using sentences which are divided into three levels of difficulty and come with model solutions.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Seitenzahl: 385
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Ähnliche
Jenny Arendholz (Ed.)
English Syntax
Basic Facts and In-Depth Analyses
Dr. Jenny Arendholz is a senior lecturer at Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (LMU) and teaches English linguistics and language courses.
Umschlagabbildung © Hannah Jahner, Sandra Neigefind und Jenny Arendholz
© 2022 • Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KGDischingerweg 5 • D-72070 Tübingen
Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetztes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
Internet: www.narr.deeMail: [email protected]
Einbandgestaltung: Atelier Reichert, Stuttgart
utb-Nr. 5655
ISBN 978-3-8252-5655-5 (Print)
ISBN 978-3-8463-5655-5 (ePub)
Contents
Preface
“Isn’t there a book where I can read up on all this and practice syntactic analyses myself?” I’ve been asked this question a lot in the past 14 years and so far, the answer has always been “I’m afraid not.” After all, students could either resort to voluminous grammar books, which no one ever reads from cover to cover, or to slim booklets containing model solutions but hardly any explanations. So, in 2018, I finally decided that it was time to write that book myself. I was extremely lucky to be able to enlist a handful of very talented students for this project. Together, we joined forces and wrote a book that we as students, tutors, teachers and lecturers have been wanting for a long time. So, in a way, this volume is the result of years of learning and teaching syntax as it collects and answers all the pivotal questions that always come up in syntax classes at all levels. For that reason, this book not only offers basic insights to students in introductory classes but also helps advanced students to brush up on their knowledge of syntax and to drill their analytical skills in preparation for their (final) exams. By combining teachers’ and students’ perspectives, we tried to present this branch of linguistics in a way that would make syntax and syntactic analyses, with all their intricacies and pitfalls, more accessible and comprehensible, hopefully even enjoyable.
In contrast to some collections of model solutions available to students, we uphold the function/form pairing almost religiously and definitely at all times. Therefore, our prepositional phrases, to give one example, always start with prep: prep, one prep for function in the phrase, one prep for the form, i.e. the word class of an element. This becomes particularly relevant in Chapter 9 “Coordination” where we do not omit part of a level, leaving out either a functional or a formal label, just to facilitate our analysis. You will also come to notice that we always opted for the most precise term available in our analyses. For instance, we use clause labels such as attributive -ing-participle clause instead of participle clause or an even more general term such as non-finite clause. In doing so, our aim is to get you to see the bigger picture of syntactic structures and, of course, to leave no question unanswered as far as possible. So, depending on your reason for studying syntax with this book, it will be for you to decide which level of accuracy and detail best fits your purpose. For that matter, the same holds true when it comes to approaching the content of the book in general. Each chapter introduces the rather basic facts about a topic first before moving on to more difficult aspects. Particularly complex issues are more often than not saved up for the last part of a chapter and discussed in detail in sections called “Tricky Business”. Sample analyses are constantly provided throughout each chapter, paralleling the increasing complexity of the content discussed.
This book is the direct result of meticulously screening and often challenging Quirk et al.’s The Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985) – or CGEL for short – which explains the large number of references to and quotes from Quirk et al.’s renowned work on constituency grammar. To keep the short citation really as short as possible yet to facilitate easy access to the relevant passages in a grammar book that runs to more than 1700 pages, we use the acronym CGEL followed by two numbers (e.g. CGEL 1208, 16.55) to indicate the page and the relevant chapter in the CGEL, respectively. To avoid cluttering our short citation, we deliberately refrained from marking those instances in which we did not adopt every minute bit of formatting (e.g. small caps) that is present in the original quote. For the same reason, most of the example sentences presented in the chapters do not come with short citations. After all, they were taken from the same CGEL chapters as the surrounding theory.
It is no accident that we review a lot of classic, at times slightly archaic, declarative sentences from the CGEL as we have experienced that students are often quite familiar with the example sentences as such, but have never seen their full syntactic analysis. This is why we often went hunting for clues in the CGEL, trying to piece together complete analyses. Whenever we found pieces missing, we filled the gaps and resorted to suggesting solutions which we deem most appropriate. In addition to shining a light on sentences that were published already back in 1985, we also turned our attention to present-day sentences when drawing up the application-oriented Chapter 11 “Practice makes Perfect”. The practice sentences in this chapter date from the end of 2017 to the beginning of 2019 and were mostly taken from three British online newspapers and two American ones. Our selection of texts was guided by their topic. After all, the sentences should be culturally relevant and understandable without further contextual information.
We worked on this book for three years and allowed for certain topics and issues to evolve and mature over time. We composed our chapters and syntactic analyses very diligently and carefully checked for mistakes and inconsistencies. Yet, syntax trees are prone to attract flaws, especially when so many of them are drawn up at the same time. So, it should go without saying that all remaining flaws are our own.
It would not have been possible to write this book without so many different contributions from many people. First of all, I owe thanks to Brigitta Mittmann, my first syntax teacher back in the day at Augsburg University, not only for sparking my interest in the topic but also for giving excellent syntax lessons from which I have profited greatly. I’m also grateful to many friends and colleagues, among them Monika Kirner-Ludwig, Christina Sanchez-Stockhammer and Hans-Jörg Schmid, for taking the time to contribute to the success of this project in various ways. I also owe a lot of thanks to Eva Faistenhammer for keeping the project website up-to-date. I am especially indebted to Melanie Keller for proofreading the entire manuscript and for ensuring that we constructed idiomatically and syntactically correct English sentences. A very special thanks goes to my lovely colleagues Gill Woodman and Renate Schruff for being the wonderful people they are, for their moral and hands-on support and for their constant reassurance that the cavalry is always nearby and ready if needed.
Felix Bokelmann deserves special thanks for his support, advice and guidance, enabling us to get generous funding for the project from “Lehre@LMU” – not once, but four times! – thus making it possible for the team of writers to get together in the beautiful Allgäu Alps for two highly productive conferences. In this context, I would also like to express my thanks to the wonderfully peaceful guest house “AllgäuWeite” for hosting us both times. I also wish to thank LMU’s “Karrierefond” for the funds to hire a highly valued student assistant who later became in charge of a chapter.
Thanks also go to so many of my former students from syntax classes present and past for asking clever questions, thereby uncovering problems and inconsistencies in the CGEL. Special thanks go to Lisa Dafinger and Sybille Homes for their preliminary outlines of chapters as well as for their contributions in early discussions. I am also unbelievably grateful to Zarah Zein, Xaver Boxhammer and Carolin Kosney for taking great care of the formatting of the entire manuscript. In this context, thanks also go to Corina Popp, Kathrin Heyng, Katharina Gerhardt and Arkin Keskin at Narr Francke Attempto Verlag for guiding me through the publishing process.
I’m also highly indebted to those former students of mine who got bitten by the syntax bug so badly that they unhesitatingly signed up for this project. They are my extraordinary team of co-authors composed of Lioba Arnoldi, Sandra Neigefind, Hannah Jahner, Franziska Kirchhoff, Michaela Pitsch and Britta van den Berg. I would like to thank them so much for their hard work, enthusiasm and meticulous attention to detail at every stage of the project. It’s not often, and therefore much appreciated, that busy, full-time students voluntarily dedicate so much time to a project – let alone actually have a whale of a time discussing syntactic subtleties for hours.
Hannah Jahner and Sandra Neigefind spontaneously agreed to design our beautiful book cover featuring the seven dwarfs Sandra created for Chapter 1. I couldn’t be happier with the results and thank both of them very much. Britta van den Berg read the entire manuscript twice from cover to cover to make sure the first round of formatting was consistent and the list of abbreviations complete. A great deal of thanks also go to Lioba Arnoldi for her spontaneous help in proofreading the index. I would like to express my thanks to Franziska Kirchhoff for taking the extra time to get acquainted with an extremely helpful web application written and kindly provided by my colleague Quirin Würschinger. I cannot thank him enough for not only letting me use this tool but also for being available for help and advice in using it. Our syntax trees would look a lot less appealing without these two people and their technical support and supervision.
On a related note, I’m especially indebted to my dear husband Frank for putting his self-taught programming skills to good use and compiling every single tree that can be admired in this book. And finally, I’ll always be grateful to (and for) my incredible seven-year-old daughter for her cheerfulness, understanding and most of all her unwavering willingness to help with the book. Without her, life and work would not be the same.
Jenny Arendholz
Munich, December 2021
List of abbreviations (alphabetical order)
A
adverbial
adj
adjective
AdjP
adjective phrase
adv
adverb
adv bare inf cl
adverbial bare infinitive clause
adv cl
adverbial clause
adv -ed-part cl
adverbial -ed-participle clause
adv -ing-part cl
adverbial -ing-participle clause
AdvP
adverb phrase
adv to-inf cl
adverbial to-infinitive clause
adv vless cl
adverbial verbless clause
attr -ed-part cl
attributive -ed-participle clause
attr -ing-part cl
attributive -ing-participle clause
attr rel cl
attributive relative clause
attr that-cl
attributive that-clause
attr to-inf cl
attributive to-infinitive clause
attr wh-cl
attributive wh-interrogative clause
aux v
auxiliary verb
bare inf cl
bare infinitive clause
cat v
catenative verb
CO
object complement
co conj
coordinating conjunction
comp cl
comparative clause
comp-element
comparative element
compl
complementation
compl det
complex determiner
compl prep
complex preposition
compl sub conj
complex subordinating conjunction
comp n
compound noun
conj
conjoin
coord
coordination
correl sub conj
correlative subordinating conjunction
CS
subject complement
def rel cl
defining/restrictive relative clause
det
determiner
dtm
determinative
-ed-part cl
-ed-participle clause
ellipt.
elliptical
exist. there
existential there
fv
full verb
Gen.
genitive
h
head
ind appos
indicator of apposition (FU and FO)1
inf mark
infinitive marker (FU and FO)
-ing-part cl
-ing-participle clause
int adv
interrogative adverb
int det
interrogative determiner
int pron
interrogative pronoun
marg mod aux
marginal modal auxiliary
marg prep
marginal preposition
mod aux
modal auxiliary
mod id
modal idiom
mv
main verb
n
noun
neg
negation
neg part
negative particle
nom bare inf cl
nominal bare infinitive clause
nom -ed-part cl
nominal -ed-participle clause
nom -ing-part cl
nominal -ing-participle clause
nom rel cl
nominal relative clause
nom that-cl
nominal that-clause
nom to-inf cl
nominal to-infinitive clause
nom vless cl
nominal verbless clause
nom wh-cl
nominal wh-interrogative clause
non-def rel cl
non-defining/non-restrictive relative clause
NP
noun phrase
num
numeral
Oant
anticipatory object (extraposition)
Od
direct object
Oi
indirect object
Opost
postponed object (extraposition)
Oprep
prepositional object
phr-prep v
phrasal-prepositional verb
phr v
phrasal verb
pn
proper noun
postmod
postmodifier
postmod (appos)
appositive postmodifier
PP
prepositional phrase
premod
premodifier
premod (appos)
appositive premodifier
prep
preposition (FU and FO)
prep adv
prepositional adverb
prepC
prepositional complement
prep v
prepositional verb
pron
pronoun
pv
primary verb
rel adv
relative adverb
rel det
relative determiner
rel pron
relative pronoun
S
subject
Sant
anticipatory subject (extraposition)
Scomp
compound sentence (coordination)
Sgr
grammatical subject (existential constructions)
Snot
notional subject (existential constructions)
Spost
postponed subject (extraposition)
semi aux
semi-auxiliary verb
sent rel cl
sentential relative clause
sub
subordination
sub conj
subordinating conjunction
subj mark
subject marker (FU and FO)
that-cl
that-clause
to-inf cl
to-infinitive clause
V
verb
vless cl
verbless clause
VP
verb phrase
wh-cl
wh-clause
zero rel pron
zero relative pronoun
List of abbreviations (structural order)
Based on our alphabetical list of abbreviations, we compiled a list of the abbreviations actually2 found in syntactic analyses. We also rearranged them to directly show whether:
the concept (and its abbreviation) belongs to a formal or a functional level,
the concept (and its abbreviation) are immediate constituents of clauses3 or phrases.
Please note that the abbreviations are otherwise in alphabetical order. The abbreviations (e.g. prep) used both on a formal and functional level are necessarily listed twice.
functional level
formal level
in clauses
syntactic functions
A
CO
CS
Od (incl. the variations Oant and Opost)
Oi
Oprep
S (incl. the variations Sgr, Sant, Snot and Spost)
V
phrases
AdjP
AdvP
NP
PP
VP
subordinate clauses
adv bare inf cl
adv cl
adv -ed-part cl
adv -ing-part cl
adv to-inf cl
adv vless cl
nom bare inf cl
nom -ed-part cl
nom -ing-part cl
nom rel cl
nom that-cl
nom to-inf cl
nom vless cl
nom wh-cl
sent rel cl
in phrases
phrase internal functions
aux v
compl
coord
dtm
h
ind appos
inf mark
mv
neg
postmod
postmod (appos)
premod
premod (appos)
prep
prepC
sub
subj mark
embedded clauses
attr -ed-part cl
attr -ing-part cl
attr that-cl
attr to-inf cl
attr wh-cl
comp cl
def rel cl
non-def rel cl
word classes
adj
adv
cat v
co conj
compl det
compl prep
compl sub conj
comp n
correl sub conj
det
exist. there
fv
ind appos
inf mark
int adv
int det
int pron
marg mod aux
marg prep
mod aux
mod id
n
neg part
num
phr-prep v
phr v
pn
prep
prep adv
prep v
pron
pv
rel adv
rel det
rel pron
semi aux
sub conj
subj mark
1Basic Introduction and Syntactic Functions
In very broad strokes, analyzing a sentence syntactically means attributing a function and a form to smaller units within this sentence. This chapter sets out to describe some general rules on how to proceed when doing so. Knowing basic structural facts relevant for every syntactic analysis, including standardized conventions for the layout of an analysis, often helps to avoid typical mistakes from the start. After that, the seven syntactic functions will be briefly introduced. What follows are some guidelines on how to tell those seven functions apart.
1.1Some Structural Facts and Layout Conventions
As can be seen in Figure 1, a full-fledged syntactic analysis can consist of various levels (in this case five levels), always depending on the length of the sentence.
Every single level is a pairing of a function (FU) and a form (FO); the function is determined first, then the corresponding form. Once the number of chunks, i.e. constituents, has been determined in a sentence, we can label them by choosing from the list of seven syntactic functions (see Section 1.2 below). The sentence in Figure 1 consists of three syntactic functions on the first level: a subject (S), a verb (V) and a subject complement (CS). To every function, one form is attributed – in the example above a noun phrase (NP), a verb phrase (VP) and a nominal to-infinitive clause, respectively.
Figure 1: Example sentence with five levels of analysis
Note: Within one level of analysis, there has to be a 1:1 relationship between function and form, which is always indicated by a colon. Determining three syntactic functions thus necessitates attributing three forms to them!
A form, such as a noun phrase (see Chapter 2.2), can be used with various functions. To illustrate this, consider the two sentences The dog bit the postman. vs. The postman bit the dog. Both the dog and the postman are noun phrases, which can both be used either as a subject or as an object (resulting in different meanings of the sentences, of course). Although the formal name we attach to the constituent remains stable – a noun phrase always remains a noun phrase – the syntactic function it fulfills may vary. This is comparable to the non-syntactic example of a man named John Black. His form is always the same, i.e. he is a man of a certain height and with a certain hair color and eye color, etc., named John Black, though his functions may vary depending on the situation. He might be a customer in a supermarket, a teacher, a dog owner or a patient at the dentist’s. Nevertheless, it is always the same form that is used in various functions.4
In applying the notational system proposed by Aarts/Aarts (1988), one word each is noted on one line in a flush right arrangement. This does not, however, hold for compound nouns (e.g. weather report, Figure 1), which can be written as one word on one line (see also Chapter 3.1). For reasons of readability, it is possible to conduct minor changes in the order of the elements of the sentence, thus reuniting chunks that have been separated by other chunks, most typically verbs that have been interrupted by an adverbial. Figure 2 displays changes like these with the help of the example She has suddenly left him.
She
has
suddenly ➔
left
him.
She
has
left
suddenly
him.
Do not forget to mark the change in the original word order, e.g. by an arrow, and also comment on your reasons for doing so, e.g. in a footnote.
Figure 2: Example sentence with original and changed order
Working your way through the analysis of a sentence from left to right and from larger to smaller units, you should always come up with pairings of functions and forms and end on a formal level by categorizing single items in terms of their word classes. As should also become evident by looking at Figure 1, the combination of functional and formal labels is always noted at the topmost line of the respective constituent. It goes without saying that this convention is valid for all levels of analysis.
While colons link a function to a form, lines are used to indicate the transition to the next level. In between levels, there is no 1:1 relation, as can be seen in the subject and subject complement slot of the example sentence in Figure 1: on the second level, the internal structure of the noun phrase, the verb phrase and the to-infinitive clause are analyzed – again in terms of functions and then forms. The same procedure is repeated on every following level.
Obviously, labeling structures requires knowing the extent of a constituent, i.e. when one constituent ends and the next one starts. A simple test involves replacing the chunk under investigation with the pronouns it or something. The elements that remain untouched by that change must belong to the next syntactic constituent. This method works perfectly well with sentence (1) (CGEL 1049, 15.4):
(1)
That the invading troops have been withdrawn has not affected our government’s trade sanctions.
→
(1a) [Something] has not affected our government’s trade sanctions.
→
(1b) That the invading troops have been withdrawn has not affected [it].
Sentence (1a) proves that the rather long first segment is in fact one constituent (not two or three), namely the S (represented by a clause), while sentence (1b) confirms that our government’s trade sanctions is also only one constituent, namely the direct object (Od, represented by one noun phrase, NP).
One of the most important building blocks necessary for a successful syntactic analysis is to know the difference between functions and forms or, put differently, from which set to choose on which level. The following table serves as a guideline as well as a preview of the chapters to come:
category name
selection of examples
where?
functions
syntactic functions
phrase-internal functions
S, V, O, etc.
head, premodifier, postmodifier, etc.
Ch. 1
Ch. 2
forms
phrases or clauses
word classes
NP, VP etc. or nominal that-clause, etc.
noun, adjective, preposition, etc.
Ch. 2, Ch. 5, Ch. 6 & Ch. 7
Ch. 3 & Ch. 4
Table 1: Outline of forms and functions to choose from (with references to chapters to come)
1.2The Seven Syntactic Functions
We can choose from seven syntactic functions: the subject (S)subject (S), the verb (V)verb (V), the indirect object (Oi)indirect object (Oi), the direct object (Od)direct object (Od), the subject complement (CS)subject complement (CS), the object complement (CO)object complement (CO) and the adverbial (A)adverbial (A). As a little mnemonic device, the seven dwarves might come in handy (see Figure 3):
Figure 3: Seven dwarves for seven syntactic functions (mnemonic device)
These seven functions can be found on the first syntactic level when segmenting sentences for the first time (see Figure 1, level 1), but also every time we have to analyze clauses within the sentence. In very broad strokes (but see Chapters 5, 6 and 7 for far more details on dependent clauses), clauses on whichever level are dealt with just like a sentence on the first level: once again, we look for our seven syntactic functions. Beyond S, V, CS on the first functional level, the sentence in Figure 1 also features a V and a Od on the 2nd level, both being syntactic functions inside the nominal to-infinitive clause of the 1st level, as well as a V and an A on the 3rd level, which are in turn syntactic structures inside the nominal to-infinitive clause of the 2nd level. As this example perfectly illustrates, it should not come as a surprise to not only find the basic seven syntactic functions on the first level of analysis! The goal of the remainder of this chapter is quite straightforward: to characterize those seven syntactic functions (Table 2) and to find ways to distinguish them from one another (Table 3).
function
semantic role (Kortmann 2009: 134)
form
S
agent, i.e. the person (or the thing) carrying out the action denoted by the verb of the sentence
a noun phrase
a clause
V
action of the sentence (anchor of the sentence, see valency and transitivity)
always a verb phrase
Oi
(usually) someone who benefits from the action of the verb (benefactive or recipient) or the goal of the action
a noun phrase
a clause
Od
patient, i.e. someone (or something) who is affected by the action denoted by the verb
a noun phrase
a clause
CS
complements the subject, is referentially identical with the subject and further characterizes it
a noun phrase
an adjective phrase
a clause
CO
complements the object, is referentially identical with the object and further characterizes it
a noun phrase
an adjective phrase
a clause
A (“dustbin” category)
contains (mostly optional) information about the circumstances with regard to time, place, reason, etc.
a noun phrase
an adverb phrase
a prepositional phrase
a clause
Table 2: Semantic roles and typical forms associated with the seven functions
If you still cannot decide what kind of syntactic function you are looking at based on the semantic role or on the form of the constituent, you might want to try one of the following tests. Except for the verb, every constituent can be determined by means of some very basic syntactic tests (see Table 3):
function
test(s)
examples
S
passive-test:5 can be transformed into a by-agent prepositional phrase functioning as A
Oi
passive-test: can become the subject of a corresponding passive sentence
with some verbs, the Oi can also be put after the Od when introduced by a preposition, thus becoming an A (see Section 1.3)
Od
passive-test: can become the subject of a corresponding passive sentence
CS
passive-test: cannot become the subject of a corresponding passive sentence
always follows a copular verb, which can be substituted by the prototypical copular verb to be6
CO
passive-test: cannot become the subject of a corresponding passive sentence
in a passive construction, the CO becomes the CS
inserting a copular verb like to be between the object and the object complement proves the identity of reference between Od and CO7
A (“dustbin” category)
passive-test: cannot become the subject of a corresponding passive sentence
rearrangement-test: optional (!) adverbials can be moved around relatively freely in the sentence (sentence-initial, -middle and -end position)
deletion-test: optional adverbials can be deleted without compromising the syntax of the sentence
Table 3: Tests to contrast the seven basic syntactic functions
Aside from semantic roles, forms and a collection of syntactic tests, there is yet another useful resource for determining the function of a constituent: looking at its position in the sentence. Table 4, a slightly adapted reproduction of Kortmann’s overview of the seven basic sentence patternsseven basic sentence patterns (2009: 131, cf. CGEL 53, 2.16), should always be kept in mind when doing a functional analysis.
pattern
S
V
O
C
A
SV
The girl
was sleeping.
SVOd
Her mother
was dressing
the baby (Od).
SVCS
Little James
seemed
very happy (CS).
SVA
He
was sitting
on the table.
SVOiOd
Mrs Bates
gave
her children (Oi)
all her love (Od).
SVOdCO
Most people
considered
her (Od)
a perfect mother (CO).
SVOdA
She
had spent
all her life (Od)
in the village.
Table 4: Seven basic sentence patterns (Kortmann 2009: 131, slightly adapted)
This list of the seven basic sentence patterns…
… is comprehensive. It shows the only possible sentence patterns that exist in the English language. Accordingly, the order of the elements in this list is absolutely fixed. Consequently, proposing a sentence structure such as *VSOCS or *SVCO, to give just two obviously incorrect examples, usually results in a flawed syntactic analysis since deviations from these seven patterns8 can only be justified by reasons of emphasis (see Chapter 10). These structures always have a very marked word order.
… outlines obligatory sentence elements only. That means that optional adverbials can occur at multiple positions. In contrast to all other syntactic functions, which have a fixed place within those seven basic sentence patterns because the verb requires their presence, optional adverbials are not required by the main verb of the sentence. To illustrate that point, consider Kortmann’s SVCS sentence Little James seemed very happy. Leaving out the S or the CS leads to a syntactically crippled sentence and proves that both elements are obligatory. However, the expanded sentence Back then Little James always seemed very happy in his tiny pool. has three optional adverbials which are not required by the verb. Therefore, their deletion still keeps the sentence syntactically intact.
… also holds for dependent clauses. These patterns cannot only be applied to full-fledged sentences on the first syntactic level but basically to every other level as well. Every time we have to analyze the internal structure of a subordinate clause, we have to rely on those seven patterns again. In other words, analyzing subordinate clauses requires the same mechanisms and the same set of tools as analyzing a complete sentence on the first level.
Note on the SVO sentence pattern:
If there is only one object, is it an Oi or a Od?
On this, the CGEL comments: “[I]f there is only one object present, it is generally the direct object” (727, 10.7).
→ SVOd
The list of the seven basic sentence patterns also introduces all the types of valency and transitivity that exist in English verbs. Valencyvalency, on the one hand, is defined as “the way in which a verb determines the kinds [see Table 2] and number of elements that can9 accompany it in the clause” (CGEL 1169, 16.18 Note). Counting obligatory elements surrounding a verb thus results in calling the verb monovalent (accompanied by one other constituent, i.e. SV), bivalent (accompanied by two other constituents, i.e. SVO, SVCS, SVA) or trivalent (accompanied by three other constituents, i.e. SVOiOd, SVOdCO or SVOdA).
The term transitivitytransitivity, on the other hand, “is often applied to all verbs which require [at least one] object” (CGEL 54, 2.16). Those verbs which require exactly one object are called monotransitive (SVO), those with two ditransitive (SVOiOd) and those with one object and one more obligatory component complex-transitive (SVOCO or SVOA). Verbs that do not require an object are called intransitive, which is true for all SV sentences and (at least technically) also for SVCS and SVA sentences. After all, there is no room for objects in these kinds of sentences. Therefore, the term copular is used for SVCS and SVA patterns, as only one particular type of verb, i.e. a copular verb such as be, appear, seem, become, leads to these structures.10
Copular structures: SVCS or SVA?
SVCS: CS answers the questions How? or What?
e.g. The children are sick. (How?) She is a teacher. (What?)
SVA: A answers the question Where?
e.g. The children are upstairs.
Note that a verb never has one valency or one transitivity that you can simply learn by heart. Instead, its valency/transitivity is always dependent on the sentence structure of which the verb actually forms part. Kortmann (2009: 140, slightly simplified) illustrates that point with the sentences She ran. vs. She ran a business. While the first sentence makes use of the intransitive verb run, the second one features the same verb in a monotransitive form.
In some rare cases, a sentence can be analyzed with recourse to more than one basic pattern, depending on its meaning. Consider, for instance, the following sentence (CGEL 1208, 16.55) in Figure 4, which can be read in two different ways, thus leading to two different syntactic analyses:
He found her a loyal friend.
number of persons
3: He, her, a loyal friend
2: He, her (= a loyal friend)
meaning
He found a loyal friend for her.
He thought that she was a loyal friend.
syntactic analyses
SVOiOd
SVOdCO
valency & transitivity
trivalent & ditransitive
trivalent & complex-transitive
Figure 4: One sentence, two syntactic analyses
1.3Tricky Business: Oi vs. Oprep
The last theoretical part of this chapter focuses on a problem which is closely connected to the ascription of syntactic functions in a sentence: what happens if the Oi is introduced by a preposition, thus turning it into a prepositional phrase placed after the Od? Should we use the notion prepositional object (Oprep)prepositional object (Oprep)?
We return to one of the sentences in Table 3, John gave Mary the book., which was identified earlier as a SVOiOd structure and which can be turned into John gave the book to Mary. If the OiMary is introduced by a preposition, typically to or for (occasionally also with and of) to indicate a recipient, both objects swap positions.11 This change in form and position also leads to a change in syntactic function since the (former) Oi, Mary, “may generally be paraphrased by a prepositional phrase functioning as adverbial” (CGEL 54, 2.17, cf. 59, 2.23). If we follow this straightforward rule, viz. treating the prepositional phrase (PP) as an A, John gave the book to Mary. should be analyzed as SVOdA. This is the analysis which will also be recommended at the end of this section (see below).
Still, it is interesting to note that neither the meaning of the sentence nor the semantic roles of the two objects have changed during this transformation. Possibly for this reason, Quirk et al. consider abandoning this straightforward rule in favor of “an alternative analysis in which the to-phrases and the for-phrases […] are described as prepositional objects, and are regarded as grammatically equivalent to indirect objects” (59, 2.23 Note). Out of academic interest, the remainder of this section will thus trace this alternative train of thought.
Paragraph 9.46 (CGEL 698) focuses on sentences like She made a beautiful doll for her daughter. and He cooked a dinner for her., which both include “intended recipients” in the form of for-prepositional phrases which “can often be equated with an indirect object” (ibid.). On the contrary, however, paragraph 10.7 (CGEL 726) lists typical features of objects, among them: “the object is normally a noun phrase or a nominal clause.” Consequently, this means that in the alternative analysis, form (PP) and function (Oi) seem to be in contradiction. Then again, the very same paragraph (727, 10.7) goes on explaining that “(iv) The indirect object generally corresponds to a prepositional phrase, which is generally placed after the direct object: I’ll send Charles another copy. ~ I’ll send another copy to Charles. / Pour me a drink. ~ Pour a drink for me.” And Note [a] to paragraph 10.7 (727) adds: “We do not, as some do, apply the term ‘indirect object’ to the corresponding prepositional phrases (eg: for me in Pour a drink for me.), though we use the term ‘prepositional object’ for the complement in such phrases.” As this quote shows, Quirk et al. rule out using the functional label Oi for PPs in these constructions. Instead, they introduce the term prepositional object (Oprep), which also needs some explaining.
Paragraph 16.56 (CGEL 1208) details ditransitive constructions, among them the type object and prepositional object (thus discarding again the simpler possibility of calling the PP an A), listing three general combinations. Depending on the verb, one and the same content can sometimes be expressed with any of these three syntactic structures, the verb tell being a perfect example:
(1)
Oi + Od, e.g. Mary told only John the secret.
(2)
Od + Oprep, e.g. Mary told the secret only to John.
(3)
Oi + Oprep, e.g. Mary told only John about the secret.
As these sentences, directly borrowed from Quirk et al. (1209, 16.56), showcase, the term prepositional object is applied for what used to be an Oi or a Od and is now introduced by a preposition in sentence-final position (and thus stands in stark contrast to another definition of prepositional objects as used in the context of prepositional and phrasal-prepositional verbs, but see Chapter 4.3 on multi-word verbs!). There is yet another peculiar consequence of this usage of the term prepositional object. If “prepositional objects […] are regarded as grammatically equivalent to indirect objects” as already stated above (CGEL 59, 2.23 Note), the third structure features two indirect objects.
In order to keep confusion to a minimum and guarantee a straightforward analysis, we recommend limiting the use of the term prepositional object to sentences which actually have a multi-word verb (prepositional or a phrasal-prepositional verb, see Chapter 4.3) and stick to the relatively simple rule outlined at the beginning of this section that proposes analyzing the sentence-final PP which used to be the Oi as an A.
2The Internal Structure of Phrases
Just like the previous chapter, this one still concentrates on the first12 level of analysis. This time, however, the formal level will take center stage. As has already been mentioned in the previous chapter, every level of analysis consists of a pairing of a certain amount of functions and the same (!) amount of forms, which leads to a 1:1 relation of function and form. The function of a subject, for instance, is usually paired with the form of a noun phrase, while the function of a verb is always paired with the form of a verb phrase. There are, however, cases in which a subject or a subject complement, to give but two examples, is not formally represented by a phrase but by a clause. Many more details about clauses will be presented in Chapters 5, 6 and 7, in which the structures of the various clause types will be explained. To still give a first, introductory example showcasing the difference between a phrase and a clause, consider the following sample sentences:
(1)
That the invading troops have been withdrawn has not affected our government’s trade sanctions.
(1a)
The withdrawal has not affected our government’s trade sanctions.
As indicated by the numbering, (1a) is a slightly altered version of (1), which was directly borrowed from the CGEL (1049, 15.4). While both sentences feature a SVOd structure on a functional level, they differ when it comes to the formal realization of the subject: (1) has a clause as a subject, (1a) a noun phrase. Since the mere length of a constituent is not, as one might think, a good criterion to distinguish a phrase from a clause – after all, there can also be very long phrases and very short clauses – we will need more solid criteria to be able to tell those two forms apart. One way of doing that is being aware of the internal structure of the five phrases, which is why this chapter details noun phrases (NPs), verb phrases (VPs), adjective phrases (AdjPs), adverb phrases (AdvPs) and prepositional phrases (PPs). Another way to distinguish a phrase from a clause is to recognize typical clausal patterns, which is dealt with in Chapters 5 to 7.
2.1Characteristic Features of Phrases
In general, the five phrases can be remembered with the help of a hand13 as shown in Figure 1:
Figure 1: Five fingers for five phrases (mnemonic device)
Some basic facts about phrasesphrase14 are summarized very briefly:
the central and obligatory element of a phrase, whose word class lends its name to the entire phrase, is called the head; this is true for NPs, AdjPs, AdvPs and (to a certain degree15) VPs, which are all called headedheaded phrase or endocentric phrases
