English Syntax and Argumentation 9781350355361, 1350355364

Table of contents :
Cover
Halftitle page
Series page
Title page
Copyright page
Dedication page
CONTENTS
PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION
PART I GRAMMATICAL FORM AND GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION
1 INTRODUCTION
2 GRAMMATICAL FORM: WORDS, WORD CLASSES AND PHRASES
2.1 The notion ‘word’
2.2 Nouns and determinatives
2.3 Adjectives
2.4 Verbs
2.5 Prepositions
2.6 Adverbs
2.7 Conjunctions
2.8 Interjections
3 GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION
3.1 Subject and Predicate
3.2 Predicator
3.3 Direct Object
3.4 Indirect Object
3.5 Adjunct
4 MORE ON FORM: CLAUSES AND SENTENCES
4.1 Clauses and clause hierarchies
4.2 The rank scale
4.3 Clause types
4.4 More on tree diagrams
5 THE GRAMMATICAL FORM-GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION INTERFACE
5.1 Grammatical form–grammatical function relationships
5.2 Realisations of the Subject
5.3 Realisation of the Predicate and Predicator
5.4 Realisations of the Direct Object
5.5 Realisations of the Indirect Object
5.6 Realisations of Adjuncts
5.7 Motivating the analyses in this chapter
PART II ELABORATION
6 PREDICATES, ARGUMENTS AND THEMATIC ROLES
6.1 Predicates and arguments
6.2 Thematic roles
6.3 Grammatical functions and thematic roles
6.4 Selectional restrictions
6.5 Three levels of description
7 CROSS-CATEGORIAL GENERALISATIONS: X-BAR SYNTAX
7.1 Heads, Complements and Specifiers
7.2 Adjuncts
7.3 Cross-categorial generalisations
7.4 Subcategorisation
8 MORE ON CLAUSES
8.1 The I-node
8.2 Subordinate clauses
9 MOVEMENT
9.1 Verb Movement: aspectual auxiliaries
9.2 NP-Movement: passive
9.3 NP-Movement: Subject-to-Subject Raising
9.4 Movement in interrogative sentences: Subject–AuxiliaryInversion
9.5 Wh-Movement
9.6 The structure of sentences containing one or more auxiliaries
10 TENSE, ASPECT AND MOOD
10.1 Time and tense
10.2 Aspectuality and aspect
10.3 Modality and mood
PART III ARGUMENTATION
11 SYNTACTIC ARGUMENTATION
11.1 The art of argumentation
11.2 Economy of description: Linguistically Significant Generalisations and Occam’s Razor
11.3 Further constraints on description: elegance and independent justifications
11.4 Evaluating analyses
12 CONSTITUENCY: MOVEMENT AND SUBSTITUTION
12.1 The Movement Test
12.2 Substitution
13 CONSTITUENCY: SOME ADDITIONAL TESTS
13.1 The Coordination Test
13.2 The Cleft and Pseudocleft Test
13.3 The Insertion Test
13.4 The Constituent Response Test
13.5 The Somewhere Else Test
13.6 The Meaning Test
13.7 A case study: the naked pizza eating construction
13.8 Some caveats regarding the tests
14 PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS REVISITED
14.1 Establishing argumenthood
14.2 Two further types of verb + NP + to-infinitive construction: persuade and want
14.3 Concluding remarks
PART IV APPLICATION
15 INFORMATION PACKAGING
15.1 Preposing
15.2 Postposing
15.3 Inversion
15.4 Cleft constructions
15.5 Existential constructions
15.6 The passive construction
16 GRAMMATICAL INDETERMINACY
16.1 Category boundaries and gradience
16.2 Subsective gradience
16.3 Intersective gradience
16.4 Concluding remarks
17 CASE STUDIES
17.1 Negated modal auxiliaries
17.2 Noun phrase structure
17.3 Verb complementation
17.4 Subordinating conjunctions and prepositions
17.5 Concluding remarks
GLOSSARY
REFERENCE WORKS: DICTIONARIES, ENCYCLOPEDIAS, GRAMMARS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS ON THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANSWER KEY FOR THE EXERCISES
INDEX

Citation preview

ENGLISH SYNTAX AND ARGUMENTATION

i

Also available from Bloomsbury LINGUISTICS: AN INTRODUCTION William B. McGregor ADVANCED ENGLISH GRAMMAR Ilse Depraetere and Chad Langford AN INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH LEXICOLOGY Howard Jackson and Etienne Zé Amvela

By the same author SMALL CLAUSES IN ENGLISH Bas Aarts THE VERB IN CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH Bas Aarts INVESTIGATING NATURAL LANGUAGE Gerald Nelson, Sean Wallis and Bas Aarts FUZZY GRAMMAR edited by Bas Aarts, David Denison, Evelien Keizer and Gergana Popova SYNTACTIC GRADIENCE Bas Aarts OXFORD MODERN ENGLISH GRAMMAR Bas Aarts THE ENGLISH VERB PHRASE edited by Bas Aarts, Jo Close, Geoffrey Leech and Sean Wallis OXFORD DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR Bas Aarts, Sylvia Chalker and Edmund Weiner OXFORD HANDBOOK OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR edited by Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie and Gergana Popova THE HANDBOOK OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS edited by Bas Aarts, April McMahon and Lars Hinrichs

ii

ENGLISH SYNTAX AND ARGUMENTATION SIXTH EDITION

Bas Aarts

iii

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 1997 This edition published 2024 Copyright © Bas Aarts, 2024 Bas Aarts has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. vii constitute an extension of this copyright page. Cover design: Bas Aarts Cover image © kirstypargeter/istock All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN:

HB: PB: ePDF: eBook:

978-1-3503-5535-4 978-1-3503-5536-1 978-1-3503-5537-8 978-1-3503-5538-5

Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

iv

In memory of my father Florent Aarts (1934–2021)

v

vi

CONTENTS

Preface to the Sixth Edition

ix

Part I Grammatical Form and Grammatical Function 1

Introduction

3

2

Grammatical Form: Words, Word Classes and Phrases

8

3

Grammatical Function

35

4

More on Form: Clauses and Sentences

51

5

The Grammatical Form – Grammatical Function Interface

68

Part II Elaboration 6

Predicates, Arguments and Thematic Roles

87

7

Cross-categorial Generalisations: X-bar Syntax

98

8

More on Clauses

122

9

Movement

133

10 Tense, Aspect and Mood

159

Part III Argumentation 11 Syntactic Argumentation

175

12 Constituency: Movement and Substitution

195

13 Constituency: Some Additional Tests

222

14 Predicates and Arguments Revisited

238

Part IV Application 15 Information Packaging

253

16 Grammatical Indeterminacy

268

17 Case Studies

279

vii

Contents

Glossary Reference Works: Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, Grammars and Other Publications on the English Language Bibliography Answer Key for the Exercises Index

viii

309 321 326 330 383

PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION

This new edition has been completely redesigned and reviewed, and is now published by Bloomsbury. Readers who have used previous editions of the book will notice that I have switched round chapters 1 and 2 in the book, so that in the present edition the discussion of word classes and phrases precedes the discussion of grammatical functions. I would like to thank my editor at Bloomsbury, Morwenna Scott, for her guidance and support. I would also like to thank Paul King for copy-editing. Note: as in the previous edition, all terms in bold italic in the text of the chapters refer to Glossary items, which are also listed in the Key Concepts at the end of chapters.

ix

x

PART I GRAMMATICAL FORM AND GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION

1

2

INTRODUCTION

1

Along with sleeping, eating and drinking, talking is one of the most common of human activities. Hardly a day goes by when we don’t talk, if only to ourselves! When we speak, we utter a stream of sounds with a certain meaning, which our interlocutors can process and understand, provided, of course, they speak the same language. Naturally, language also exists in written form. It then consists of a string of letters which form words, which in turn make up sentences. Why is the study of language worthwhile? Well, first and foremost, the capacity for using language is uniquely human, and if we know how language works we get to know something about ourselves. Other animals also communicate with each other, to be sure, but their communicative and expressive powers are very limited. Thus, while dogs and cats can signal pleasure by wagging their tails or purring, there’s no way for them to tell you something more complicated; for example, that although they are generally happy, they wouldn’t mind if you turned the heating up a little. By contrast, we humans can communicate just about any meaning we wish, however complex, using language. As an example, consider the utterance Had Nick been here on time, we would not have missed the train. This is a perfectly straightforward and easily intelligible sentence, although to understand it we have to do a bit of mental computing by creating in our minds a ‘picture’ of a situation that did not obtain, a situation in which Nick was on time, and we did not miss our train. Or, consider the sentence I went to a conference on language in France. Have you noticed that it’s ambiguous? Under one reading I went to a conference on language which took place in France; under the second reading I went to a conference which was about ‘language in France’, which could have taken place anywhere. This is called a structural ambiguity, because we can group the words together differently to bring out the two meanings. There are, of course, many other reasons to be fascinated by language. If you’re a student of literature, you cannot really grasp the totality of meaning that a work of literary art communicates without knowing how language works. And if you’re interested in interpersonal relationships, you might wonder why there are so many ways to ask someone to open the window: ‘Open the window!’, ‘Can you open the window (please)?’, ‘Could you open the window (please)?’, ‘I was wondering whether you could possibly open the window?’ and ‘I’m hot’. The last example is especially interesting, because at first sight it’s a simple statement about your physical condition. For the hearer to derive the meaning ‘Open the window, please’, some mental computation is again involved. I could give endless examples to illustrate the many fascinating aspects of the field of language studies, called linguistics. In this book we focus on the structure of English. Now, if you have thought about language, you will have realised that whether it is spoken or written, it is not a hotchpotch

3

English Syntax and Argumentation

of randomly distributed elements. Instead, the linguistic ingredients that language is made up of are arranged in accordance with a set of rules. This set of rules we call the grammar of a language. Grammar is a vast domain of inquiry and it will be necessary to limit ourselves to a subdomain. In this book we will mostly be concerned with the part of grammar that concerns itself with the structure of sentences. This is called syntax. How can we go about describing the structure of sentences? Well, before we can even start, we will need to specify what we mean by ‘sentence’. This is not as straightforward as it may seem, and linguists have come up with a variety of definitions. In this book we will say that a sentence is a string of words that begins in a capital letter and ends in a full stop, and is typically used to express a state of affairs in the world. This definition is not unproblematic, but will suffice for present purposes. Let’s now see what kinds of issues syntax deals with. First of all, one of the principal concerns of syntax is the order of the units that make up sentences. In English we cannot string words into a sentence randomly. For example, we can have (1), but not (2) or (3): (1) The president ate a doughnut. (2) *The president a doughnut ate. (3) *Doughnut president the ate a. NB: An asterisk (*) placed before a sentence indicates that it is not a possible structure in English. The contrast between (1) and (2) shows that in English the word that denotes the activity of eating (ate) typically precedes the unit that refers to the entity that was being eaten (a doughnut). Furthermore, if we compare (2) and (3) we see that not only must ate precede a doughnut, we must also ensure that the two elements the and a precede president and doughnut, respectively. It seems that the and president together form a unit, in the same way that a and doughnut do. Our syntactic framework will have to be able to explain why it is that words group themselves together. We will use the term constituent for strings of one or more words that syntactically and semantically (i.e. meaning-wise) behave as units. Next, consider sentence (4): (4) The cat devoured the fish. It is possible to rearrange the words in this sentence as follows: (5) The fish devoured the cat. Notice that this is still a good sentence in English, but its meaning is different from (4), despite the fact that both sentences contain exactly the same words. (The fact that it is unlikely that a fish will eat a cat does not make (5) ungrammatical!) In (4) the Agent (perpetrator) of the attack is the cat and the Patient/Undergoer (victim) is the fish. In (5) these roles are reversed. Our rules of syntax must be set up in such a way that they can account for the fact that native speakers of English know that a reordering of units, as we have in (4) and (5), leads to a difference in meaning. 4

Introduction

However, not all re-orderings lead to a difference in meaning. An alternative ordering for (4) is given in (6) below with emphasis, indicated by capital letters, on the word fish: (6) The FISH, the cat devoured. Sentences of this type are commonly used for contrast. For example, (6) might be uttered in denial of someone saying The cat devoured the mouse. Again, the syntactic rules of our grammar must be able to characterise the regrouping that has transformed (4) into (6), and they must also be able to explain why, in this case, there is no change in meaning. The examples we have looked at so far make clear that syntax deals with the way in which we can carve up sentences into smaller constituent parts which consist of single words or of larger units of two or more words, and the way in which these units can be combined and/or rearranged. Let us look at some further simple sentences and see how we can analyse them in terms of their constituent parts. Consider (7) below. How could we plausibly subdivide this sentence into constituents? (7) The president blushed. One possible subdivision is to separate the sentence into words: (8) The – president – blushed However, clearly (8) is not a particularly enlightening way to analyse (7), because such a dissection tells us nothing about the relationships between the individual words. Intuitively, the words the and president together form a unit, while blushed is a second unit that stands alone, as in (9): (9) [The president] – [blushed] We will use square brackets to indicate groups of words that belong together. One way in which we can also show that the string the president is a unit is by replacing it with he: (10) [He] – [blushed] The subdivision in (9) makes good sense from the point of view of meaning too: the word-group the president has a specific function in that it refers (in a particular context of utterance) to an individual whose job is head of state. Similarly, the word blushed has a clear function in that it tells us what happened to the president. Let us now turn to a slightly more complex example. Consider the sentence below: (11) My best friend likes fast e-bikes. If we want to set about analysing the structure of this sentence, we can of course divide it up into words, in the way we did in (8), as follows: (12) My – best – friend – likes – fast – e-bikes But again, you will agree, this is of limited interest for the same reason as that given above: an analysis into strings of individual words leaves the relationships between words completely unaccounted for. 5

English Syntax and Argumentation

EXERCISE Can you think of a different way of analysing sentence (11) above into subparts that accounts for our intuition that certain words belong together?

Intuitively, the words my and best friend belong together, as do fast and e-bikes. The word likes seems to stand alone. We end up with (13): (13) [My best friend] – [likes] – [fast e-bikes] Again, just as in (10), we can also show that the bracketed strings behave as units, by replacing them: (14) [He] – [likes] – [them] An analysis along the lines of (13) of a simple sentence like (11) has been widely adopted, but there are in fact reasons for analysing (11) differently, as in (15): (15) [My best friend] – [ [likes] – [fast e-bikes] ] Like (13), (15) brings out the fact that my and best friend belong together, as do fast and e-bikes, but it also reflects the fact that likes forms a constituent with fast e-bikes. Why would that be? There are a number of reasons for this, which will be discussed in detail in later chapters, but we will look at one of them now. Notice that like requires the presence of a constituent that specifies what is being liked. In (11) that constituent is fast e-bikes. The sentence in (16) below, which provides no clue as to what is being liked by my best friend, is ungrammatical, i.e. not part of the grammar of English: (16) *My best friend likes. Likes and fast e-bikes are taken together as a constituent in (15) to bring out the fact that there is a close bond between like and the constituent that specifies what is being liked (i.e. the constituent that is required to complete the meaning of like). Notice that the verb blush in (7) does not require the presence of another constituent to complete its meaning. Much of this book, especially Part III, will be concerned with finding reasons why one analysis is to be preferred over another in much the same way that reasons have been given for preferring (15) over (13). Giving motivated reasons for adopting certain structures and rejecting others is called syntactic argumentation. One aim of this book is to train you in the art of being able to set up a coherent syntactic argument. We will almost exclusively be concerned with the syntax of English, not because other languages are not interesting, but because studying the syntactic properties of other languages requires a wider framework than we can deal with here. The general syntactic framework

6

Introduction

I have adopted is inspired by the theory of language developed by Noam Chomsky (1928–), the American linguist and philosopher. The main aim of the book is to make you familiar with the basics of English syntax and, as noted above, with the fundamentals of syntactic argumentation. A further aim is to enable you to move on to more advanced books and articles on theoretical syntax.

KEY CONCEPTS

constituent grammar linguistics sentence

structure syntactic argumentation syntax utterance

FURTHER READING This book focuses on a description of Standard English, as used in the UK and the US. In many ways the label ‘Standard English’ is not ideal, not least because it suggests that this is a superior variety of the English language. It would perhaps have been better to use ‘General English’. I take the view, along with most linguists, that all varieties of English, not just the varieties in what is sometimes called the ‘Inner Circle’ (e.g. British English, American English, Australian English) have equal status and are valuable in their own right. If you are interested in other World Englishes please refer to Ling Low and Pakir (2017), Lange and Leukert (2019), De Costa, Crowther and Maloney (2019) and Schneider (2021).

7

GRAMMATICAL FORM: WORDS, WORD CLASSES AND PHRASES

2

In this chapter we’ll take a closer look at the smallest building blocks of syntax, namely words. We will see how they can be classified into word classes, and how several words grouped together form phrases, which in turn combine into clauses and sentences. Word classes and phrases (and clauses and sentences too) belong to a level of analysis that we refer to as grammatical form. This is concerned with the grammatical categories that the elements of grammar can be assigned to. In Chapter 3 we will look at the grammatical functions that these units can perform. In Chapter 4 we will discuss clauses and the way these combine into sentences. Some of the concepts and ideas introduced in this chapter will only be dealt with in a preliminary way, and will receive more attention in later chapters.

2.1 The notion ‘word’ So far I have only mentioned words in passing. You may have thought this strange, because surely the most obvious way to divide a sentence up is into words. This is true, but as we will see later in this chapter, it is not the most interesting way to do it. Trying to define the notion ‘word’ is not easy. This may surprise you, as words seem to be straightforward enough entities. To give you some idea of the problems we might encounter in trying to characterise words as linguistic units, consider (1)–(3) below: (1) dog, dogs (2) eat, eats (3) duty-free Nobody would have any hesitation in calling what we have in (1) two separate words. Dogs is different from dog, because it looks different: it has an -s ending added to it. However, if you think about it, there is also a sense in which dogs is the same word as dog, in that it is simply its plural. We will say that dog and dogs belong to the same lexeme. The latter can be defined as ‘dictionary entry’: the place in a dictionary where you would look up the item in question. This reflects the sense in which they are the same word. However, you need to be aware that they are different word-forms or orthographic words. We can make the same point for eat and eats in (2): both of these belong to the verbal lexeme eat, but are different verb-forms. What about (3)? Here we seem to have two words, duty and free, but they are so closely linked in many contexts (cf. duty-free shop, duty-free perfume, duty-free allowance etc.) that they feel like one word, hence the hyphen. We need not 8

Grammatical Form: Words, Word Classes and Phrases

worry about these problems inordinately, as they really belong to the domain of morphology, the study of the internal structure of words. For our purposes it will do to use ‘word’ in the sense of ‘word-form’, unless stated otherwise. We can then say that the sentence in (4) below consists of nine words: (4) The president regularly eats big doughnuts in his limousine. Rather than counting the words contained in (4) (which in itself is not very interesting), it is far more worthwhile to investigate how these words could be said to be syntactically different from each other. Intuitively, the word regularly is grammatically different from the word eats, and this word is different again from doughnuts. But how are they different? To explain the differences linguists have proposed various ways of classifying words. The kind of classification that is chosen depends on one’s aims. For example, lexicographers (people who write dictionaries) are interested in arranging words alphabetically, and pairing them off with their pronunciation and meaning (and sometimes etymology). If we are interested in the history of a language, we might want to group words into an open class (i.e. a class of words that is constantly enlarged as time goes by) and a closed class (i.e. a class of words that is static, in that no new members are added to it). In this book we will be using a system of word classification that goes back to the ancient grammarians. It groups the words of languages into word classes (also called parts of speech). We will make use of the following word classes: noun

preposition

determinative

adverb

adjective

conjunction

verb

interjection

The word classes are notions of grammatical form, as opposed to notions of grammatical function which we will discuss in Chapter 3. Let us now take a closer look at each of the word classes listed above in turn.

2.2 Nouns and determinatives Traditionally, nouns are defined as words that denote people, animals, things or places. This definition enables us to identify Jim, dog, aeroplane, teacher, chair, London etc. as nouns. A description like this is called a notional definition, because it offers a characterisation, in this case of a word class, in terms of concepts of meaning. A problem with the notional definition of nouns is that it leaves a great number of words unaccounted for, which could also be said to belong to the class of nouns, but which do not denote people, animals, things or places. These include words that denote abstract ideas or concepts (e.g. poverty, sincerity, success), emotional states (e.g. happiness, sadness), bodily sensations (e.g. dizziness, pain), and a host of others. Of course, we could keep on extending our notional definition in such a way that eventually all these words would be incorporated into the class of nouns. 9

English Syntax and Argumentation

However, our definition would then become so stretched and vague that we would end up with little more than a list of nouns. It should be obvious that a list cannot serve as a definition of the concept noun. Why not? Well, for one, lists are seldom very interesting by themselves. What we would want to know is why a particular item is on a list together with other items, and why other items are not on the list. In the case of nouns we would want to know why all the italicised words above are on the list of nouns, but not, say, hot, eat or through. The problem with lists, then, is that they have no explanatory value. A related serious problem with lists is that they lead to circular reasoning: why is car a noun? Because it is on the list of nouns. Why is it on the list? Because it’s a noun. This gets us nowhere. A far better approach is to characterise nouns using formal and distributional criteria. From this viewpoint we look at the shape words can take, where they can occur in sentences, and the way they behave and function in sentential patterns. Let’s see how this works by discussing a few examples. Consider the words in (5), (6) and (7) below: (5) alliance, defiance, reliance bachelorhood, fatherhood, preacherhood abolition, demarcation, indication darkness, kindness, wildness lectureship, tutorship, studentship (6) actor – actors door – doors lamp – lamps room – rooms table – tables (7) man – man’s pub – pub’s sister – sister’s The items in (5) show that different words can have similar endings, or suffixes as they are known in morphology. Suffixes and their positional counterparts prefixes belong to the class of affixes. Thus, to return to (5), notice that all the words in the first set of three words have the suffix -ance. The words of the second set all end in -hood, while those of the third, fourth and fifth sets end in -tion, -ness and -ship, respectively. These are only five of quite a number of typical noun endings. The point here is that sometimes, by looking at the structure of words, we can tell which word class they belong to. The words in (6) and (7) illustrate a similar point: in (6) we have plural endings, indicating that we have more than one item of a kind, whereas in (7) we have genitive endings, which usually, although not exclusively, indicate possession (e.g. the man’s clothes, the pub’s clientele, my sister’s cat). Plural and genitive endings are also typical of nouns. It turns out, however, that morphological criteria are only of limited value. For example, many nouns do not end in any of the typical nominal suffixes such as -ance, -hood, -ion, -ness (e.g. arm, book, rain, lamp); some take an irregular plural ending (e.g. child – children, ox – oxen). 10

Grammatical Form: Words, Word Classes and Phrases

If semantic (i.e. notional) and morphological criteria are inadequate, then it seems that what we have left are distributional criteria. As we will see, these are in fact the most reliable. Recall that when we talk about distributional criteria, we are referring to the way in which words, in this particular case nouns, behave syntactically in sentences, i.e. the patterns they typically occur in. We will see that the best way to assign a word to a word class is to take a close look at the company it keeps. For example, we might observe that all the words we have labelled as nouns can be preceded by words such as the, a, this/ these, that/those etc. These words belong to the class of determinatives, which help you to identify the referents of the nouns they precede. In Table 2.1 below you’ll find a list of the most common determinatives in English. We will see presently that when they occur independently, some of the words in Table 2.1 belong to the class of pronouns (which is itself a subset of the class of nouns). Nouns can also be preceded by adjectives; for example, nice, difficult, strong (as in a nice person, a difficult problem, a strong box). These are words that in some way qualify the nouns they precede (see Section 2.3 below). What we are doing, then, is defining a word class by characterising the environments that the members of that class (in this case nouns) typically occur in. As users of the language, we know when a particular word is a noun simply by virtue of its occurring in a particular syntactic context. To give a further example, no word class other than a noun could occur in the blank of the sentence the . . . was wheel-clamped by the police. Of course, the fact that the word car or motorcycle can occur in this slot, and that therefore they are nouns, is not something

Table 2.1 Some frequently occurring English determinatives, grouped by semantic similarity Determinative

Example

a, the

a camera; the door

this, these

this film; these films

that, those

that dog; those dogs

which, whose

which house?; whose neighbours?

no

no exit

few, little, many, much

few clues; much more

each, every

each submission; every person

either, neither

either answer

any, some

any answers; some people

certain, a few, several, various

certain approaches

enough

enough time

all, both

both criteria

11

English Syntax and Argumentation

we consciously realise when we hear this sentence, but it is something that must somehow be registered in our brains in order for us to process the sentence mentally. We can illustrate the idea of definition through context further by using an example from the real world (as opposed to from the mental world to which the word classes belong). Consider the word skyscraper. We call buildings skyscrapers because of the form they take (they are usually tall and slender structures), but also, and especially, in relation to their physical environment: a skyscraper is only a skyscraper in relation to other, less tall buildings. In fact, we could go so far as to say that the notion of a skyscraper only exists in relation to these other buildings. The same point holds true for grammatical concepts such as nouns and the other word classes: they only exist in relation to other words around them. There is no point in calling a word a noun, except to make clear the relationship that particular word has to other words in the sentence which behave differently. I will now discuss ways in which we can set up a number of subclasses within the class of nouns. Table 2.2 below shows the various different types of English nouns and examples of each of them. This classification is a common, although not uncontroversial, one. As the name suggests, common nouns are ordinary, everyday nouns. Some of them can be counted (one book/two books, one cat/three cats etc.), but others as a rule cannot (*one butter/*two butters, *one flour/*three flours etc.), and this accounts for the subdivision of the class in Table 2.2. Proper nouns are names of people, places and even objects. In English they do not normally take a preceding determinative or modifying element (*the Jack, *a Sarah), nor a plural ending (*the Janets). I say ‘normally’ because in certain circumstances we can say, for example, He’s not the Jack I used to know or Would all the Janets in the room please raise their hand. Proper nouns are examples of what are called referring expressions. This is because when they are uttered in a particular context, they uniquely refer to one individual (or place or object) in the world of discourse. Pronouns are special, so much so that some grammarians have argued that they ought to be put into a class of their own. Why should that be? Consider the word pronoun a little more closely. It is made up of two parts: pro and noun. The word pro is Latin for for and so really what pronoun means is ‘for a noun’ or ‘instead of a noun’. In other words, the label pronoun suggests that these words function as noun substitutes. And indeed this seems to be the case when we look at an example like (8): (8) Jim walked into the room and everybody stared at him. Notice that here the personal pronoun him can refer either to Jim or to some other male individual mentioned in a preceding (but here omitted) context. However, the most likely interpretation of this isolated sentence is to take the pronoun to refer to Jim. We can now say that him substitutes for Jim. For this reason (8) could also have been rendered as in (9) (assuming that there is only one Jim): (9) Jim walked into the room and everybody stared at Jim.

12

Grammatical Form: Words, Word Classes and Phrases

Table 2.2 Noun subclasses Common nouns Countable: book, cat, fork, train etc.; e.g. Four trains arrived at the same time Noncountable: butter, flour, jam, soap etc.; e.g. Can you get me some flour? Proper nouns Jack, London, Cathy, Sarah etc. Pronouns General personal pronouns: I/me, you/you, she/her, he/him, it, we/us, they/ them; e.g. Give it to us. NB: the first form is called the nominative form used in Subject position (see Chapter 3); the second form is called the accusative form used in Direct Object (DO)/Indirect Object (IO) position (see Chapter 3), or after prepositions. The labels ‘nominative’ and ‘accusative’ are case forms. Possessive personal pronouns: my/mine, your/yours, her/hers, his/his, our/ours, their/theirs; e.g. The scarf is hers. NB: the first form is the dependent pronoun form which occurs before nouns (e.g. my house) which functions as Specifier, as we will see in Section 7.1. The second form is the independent form which occurs elsewhere; e.g. The house is mine. See the Further Reading section. Reflexive personal pronouns: myself, yourself, herself, himself, itself, ourselves, themselves; e.g. Look after yourself. Reciprocal personal pronouns: each other, one another Demonstrative pronouns: this/these, that/those; e.g. I like that. NB: demonstrative pronouns occur independently. The dependent forms (e.g. this/that house) occur before nouns as determinatives and function as Specifier (see Section 7.1). Relative pronouns: that, who, which; e.g. the book that I bought, the woman who bought the CD. Interrogative or wh-pronouns (i.e. pronouns that begin with the letters wh-): what, which; e.g. What did you eat? NB: interrogative pronouns occur independently. The dependent forms what and which (e.g. Which apple did you eat?) occur before nouns as interrogative determinatives and function as Specifier (see Section 7.1). Indefinite pronouns: another; (a) few, less, (a) little, many, more, most, much; either, neither; each, every, everybody, everyone, everything, everywhere; any, some, somebody, someone, something; nobody, no one, none, nothing; several; enough; all, anybody, anyone, anything, both; e.g. Did you eat any? I ate several. NB: these items are pronouns when they occur independently, but determinatives when they are placed before nouns (see Table 2.1).

13

English Syntax and Argumentation

However, although (9) is perfectly intelligible, it is stylistically very clumsy, and this is precisely because we’ve used the name Jim twice. In order to avoid this repetition, we use the pronoun him. Pronouns derive their referential content from nouns. In (8) Jim is a referring expression. In order to be able to interpret the pronoun him we need to link it to Jim (which is then said to be the antecedent of him), or to some other male person, identified by the context of utterance. So far so good, but matters are a little more complicated than I have made them out to be. I’ve been cheating a little by offering sentence (8) as an example of pronouns as noun substitutes. To see why, consider (10) below: (10) The exhibition was a success. It ran for six months.

EXERCISE Which expression does the pronoun itt refer to in (10)?

If your answer to this question was exhibition then you were wrong, because in fact it refers back to the exhibition, i.e. a determinative + noun sequence. Such determinative + noun sequences are called noun phrases (NPs), so, strictly speaking, pronouns are not pro-nouns, but pro-NPs (even in (8), as we will see in a moment). The concept ‘phrase’ is extremely important in syntax, and we will be looking at the properties of phrases in general later on in the book. Here, we’ll take a closer look at noun phrases. We can define noun phrases as strings of words whose central element is a noun. All the following are therefore NPs: (11) a [the students] b [the noisy students] c [the noisy students in the playground] In each of these strings of words the most important element is the noun students. Let’s refer to the central, obligatory element in a phrase as its Head. The label ‘Head’ is not a word class label, but indicates a grammatical function. Briefly, as we will see in Chapter 3, a grammatical function is a syntactic notion that refers to the grammatical role played by a linguistic unit inside a larger unit such as a phrase or clause, e.g. Head, Modifier and Specifier inside phrases, and Subject, Direct Object, Indirect Object and Adjunct inside clauses. Notice that the names of grammatical functions are spelt with a capital letter. This is a convention we will adopt in this book. In Chapter 3 we will look at grammatical functions in detail. As you can see from the examples in (11), noun phrases can become quite long, indefinitely long in fact, if we keep adding elements. But they can also consist of only a Head, as in (12): (12) [NP Teachers] always work hard. 14

Grammatical Form: Words, Word Classes and Phrases

Here, we have an NP consisting of an unadorned plural nominal Head. At this point you may be wondering why I am labelling teachers in (12) as a noun phrase, rather than as a simple plural noun. The motivation for this is distributional: it is because the slot in (12) in which teachers occurs can be filled by a larger NP (e.g. tall teachers) that we want to say that teachers on its own in (12) is also an NP. Example (13) shows two further possibilities of expanding the NP teachers: (13) a [NP These teachers] always make us work hard. b [NP Teachers who like music] always make us work hard. In (13)a the Head is preceded by the determinative these (‘the teachers here in front of us make us work hard’), while in (13)b a further specification has been added to the Head noun (‘not just any teachers make us work hard, only teachers who like music’). So, on the grounds that we can expand teachers in (12) into a larger string of words which is clearly an NP, and because it occurs in a typical NP position, we say that teachers too is not just a noun, but a noun phrase. As we will see in Chapter 3, the sentence-initial position in which these NPs occur is a typical noun phrase position, and these NPs carry the grammatical function of Subject. In a preliminary way, we can define the Subject of a clause as the constituent that refers to the entity that carries out the action expressed by the verb. However, as we will see in Chapter 3, the notion of Subject is really a grammatical one, so we will be defining it syntactically. We turn now to a word class that often plays a role in noun phrases: adjectives.

2.3 Adjectives We have already come across a few adjectives as words that can modify nouns: a beautiful spring, a thoughtful attitude, a constructive criticism, a friendly lecturer, a green bike, a relevant remark, an unfriendly comment, etc. As with nouns, adjectives can sometimes be identified through certain formal characteristics: in the examples above the suffixes -ful, -less and -ive are typical adjectival affixes, among others, as is the prefix un-. The adjectives green and relevant, however, make clear that not all adjectives have such endings. Most adjectives possess gradability, i.e. they can be preceded by words such as very, extremely, less etc. (cf. very helpful, extremely tasty, less hot), which indicate the extent to which the adjective applies to the word it combines with. Exceptions are normally adjectives denoting material (e.g. wooden, cf. *a very wooden floor), nationality (e.g. Russian, cf. *an extremely Russian book) and a few others, but see Exercise 12 for some discussion. Adjectives can also take comparative and superlative endings. The comparative form of an adjective indicates the greater extent to which the unmarked form of the adjective, called the absolute form, applies, while the superlative form indicates the maximal extent (cf. big–bigger–biggest). Here are some further examples: 15

English Syntax and Argumentation

(14) Absolute form great full good

Comparative form

Superlative form

greater fuller better

greatest fullest best

You will have noticed that the forms good–better–best are exceptional. This is because there is no resemblance between the absolute and the other forms of the adjective. We speak of suppletion when grammatically related words bear no resemblance to each other, whereas other words related in the same way do show a resemblance (e.g. great and full above). Not all gradable adjectives are able to form comparative and superlative forms with -er and -est. Quite a few adjectives form comparatives and superlatives analytically. This means that there is no single word-form for the comparative and superlative. Instead, the words more and most are used. Examples are beautiful, eager, hopeless, interesting, practical etc. The general rule is that adjectives with two or more syllables take analytical comparative and superlative forms. We will return to comparative and superlative forms later in the chapter, when we discuss adverbs. We now turn to the distributional characteristics of adjectives. The first thing to notice is that adjectives typically occupy two positions in English: the attributive position and the predicative position. When an adjective precedes a noun in a noun phrase, it is said to occur in an attributive position. It then supplies more information about the character, nature or state of the noun. We’ve already come across examples of adjectives modifying nouns at the beginning of the section. In English some adjectives follow the noun they modify, as in (15) below: (15) a The person responsible will be punished. b We went to a meeting attended by the attorney general. c Mr Bisibodi is the governor-elect of this province. This post-nominal attributive position is the norm for adjectives in the Romance languages, such as Italian, Spanish and French. When an adjective follows a so-called copula or linking verb, it is said to occur in predicative position. There is only a small set of linking verbs in English. Here is a selection of them, with some example sentences: (16) appear, be, become, feel, look, remain, seem, smell, sound (17) a b c d e

This film seems pretty dull. She is crazy. This fabric feels soft. These apples smell strange. The music sounds great!

We say that the adjectives in (17) are predicated of (i.e. are used to say something about) the referent of another constituent, namely this film, she, this fabric, these apples and the music, respectively. Like nouns in noun phrases, adjectives function as the Heads of adjective phrases (APs). Examples of APs are given in (18) below. In each case the Head is italicised: 16

Grammatical Form: Words, Word Classes and Phrases

(18) [AP happy] [AP extremely happy] [AP happy to be here] [AP extremely happy to be here] The strings in (18) show that an AP can consist of only a Head, a Head preceded by a modifying word, a Head followed by a Complement (see Chapter 3), or a combination of the two. It is important that you are aware that adjective phrases can occur within noun phrases. Consider the following: (19) [NP the happy actor] Quite clearly, this string is an NP since its central element, its Head, is a noun (namely actor). But what about the status of the word happy? Well, you might want to say that this is obviously an adjective. And so it is, but it is also an adjective phrase! To be precise, it is an AP that consists of only an adjective which modifies the noun actor. But why is happy an adjective phrase, and not just an adjective? The reason is that we can substitute what is clearly an adjective phrase for the bare adjective in (19), as has been done in (20): (20) [NP the [AP extremely happy] actor] Here, happy is preceded by a modifying word, namely extremely. As we saw in (18) above, a string like extremely happy is an AP. The reasoning now runs as follows: because happy in (19) can be replaced by extremely happy, which is clearly an AP, the word happy must also be an AP: (21) [NP the [AP happy] actor]

2.4 Verbs Consider the two sentences below: (22) Every day our head of department devours three pizzas. (23) The builders worked for many days. The italicised words in (22) and (23) are verbs. Verbs are often defined verbs as ‘action words’. This notional definition won’t do, and we must define verbs in grammatical terms. How can we do this? Notice that the endings -s and -ed have been appended to the words devour and work. Such endings are called inflections. They encode grammatical properties. The -s ending signals that the verb is in the present tense, and is called a present tense inflection, while the -ed ending encodes a past tense and is called a past tense inflection. Any word that can take a tense inflection is a verb. Tense is a grammatical notion that refers to the way language encodes the semantic notion of time. Verb endings do not only signal tense. The -s ending on the verb devour is referred to as the third person singular ending of the present tense. Let us take a look here at the system of person in grammar. There are three ‘persons’, both in the singular and the plural: 17

English Syntax and Argumentation

(24) 1st person: 2nd person: 3rd person:

singular I you he/she/it

plural we you they

Singular or plural referring expressions (e.g. John, Kate, Paris, The Canary Islands etc.) are also third person. We now say that in (22) above, there is agreement between the third person singular form our head of department and devour. This agreement is signalled by the -s ending for the present tense that is added to the verb. In the present tense, English only has one ending for most verbs, unlike some of the world’s other languages, and that is the third person singular ending -s. The verb-forms for the other persons are all the same, as (25) below shows for the verb devour: (25) I devour you devour he/she/it devours

we devour you devour they devour

The form of the verb other than the third person singular is often referred to as the base form. The verb be is an exception to the general pattern, in that in the present tense singular it has special forms for all three persons: (26) I am you are he/she/it is

we are you are they are

A verb that carries tense is called a finite verb, whereas a verb that doesn’t carry tense is a nonfinite verb. All the verb-forms in (25) and (26) are finite verb-forms. We have to be careful, though, because for most verb-forms tense is usually not visibly marked, except in the third person singular, as is clear from the present tense forms of the verb devour in (25). In the past tense for most verbs, all the verb-forms are the same, singular and plural, as (27) shows for devour: (27) I devoured you devoured he/she/it devoured

we devoured you devoured they devoured

What about nonfinite verb-forms? These I will discuss in a moment, after considering the different types of verbs we can distinguish in English. The verbs in (22) and (23) are called lexical verbs (sometimes called main verbs). These are verbs which can stand on their own in a sentence, without another verb preceding or following. A verb that cannot occur independently (except in cases of code, see below), but combines with at least a lexical verb, is called an auxiliary verb (or auxiliary for short). This term derives from the Latin auxiliari, ‘to help’. Consider (28): (28) Jeremy is laughing. The lexical verb in this sentence is the -ing form of the verb laugh. It is preceded by the auxiliary verb is (the third person singular form of be). An auxiliary verb can be said to 18

Grammatical Form: Words, Word Classes and Phrases

add a layer of meaning to the lexical verb that it precedes. Put differently, an auxiliary verb specifies from what point of view we should view the meaning expressed by the lexical verb. Thus, in (28) the auxiliary indicates that the laughing is ongoing, i.e. that it takes place over a certain stretch of time.

EXERCISE Is the verb be an auxiliary in the sentence below? (i) He is friendly.

Be cannot be an auxiliary verb here, because it is the only verb in the sentence. It is therefore a lexical verb. Auxiliary verbs, by definition, must accompany a lexical verb. Depending on the context, the verb be functions as a lexical verb or as an auxiliary verb. Before further elaborating on the role of auxiliary verbs, we will make a subdivision in the class of auxiliaries. Here’s an overview of the four types of auxiliary verbs, with some example sentences in which they appear in italics: Modal auxiliaries: can/could, may/might, must, ought to, shall/should, will/would (29) We can dance until midnight. (30) You may take two courses if you wish. (31) You must comply with the regulations. (32) They really should leave. (33) We shall write to you as soon as possible. (34) He will survive. Aspectual auxiliaries: be, have (35) These students are always complaining. (36) Shelley has broken two wine glasses. The passive auxiliary: be (37) This doughnut was eaten by our head of department. The dummy auxiliary: do (38) Do you like eating doughnuts? Let’s be a little bit more specific about the way in which auxiliary verbs ‘add meaning’ to the lexical verbs that they precede. I start with the modal auxiliaries (or modals for short). A quick glance at sentences (29)–(34) reveals that each of them contains one of the following elements of meaning: ‘ability’, ‘permission’, ‘possibility’, ‘obligation’, ‘necessity’, 19

English Syntax and Argumentation

‘intention’, ‘prediction’ etc. These are called modal meanings, which are concerned with expressing situations that do not obtain at the present moment (i.e. situations that have not ‘actualised’), but will, could, must or should obtain in the future. Thus, the verb can in (29) expresses the fact that the people referred to as we have the ability to dance until midnight, or, alternatively, because (29) is in fact ambiguous, that they have permission to dance until midnight. In (30) permission is given to take two courses, whereas in (31) somebody is being obliged to comply with the regulations. Sentences (32)–(34) express ‘necessity’ (or ‘obligation’), ‘futurity’ and ‘prediction’, respectively. We could say, informally, that the modals colour the meaning of the verbs they precede. Modals are always finite (i.e. they carry tense) and they do not take typical verb endings such as the third person singular present tense -s ending or the past tense -ed ending. Most of the modal verbs do have past tense forms, as the pairs of modal verbs above show, but these past tense forms are not formed by simply adding an -ed ending to the base form of the modal. (See Section 10.3 for a more detailed discussion of modality.) Let us now turn to the aspectual auxiliaries. These verbs encode aspect, a concept that refers to the way the meaning expressed by the lexical verb is viewed in time. The main categories of aspect in English are progressive aspect and perfect aspect. Progressive aspect has already been exemplified in sentence (28), where Jeremy’s laughing is presented as an ongoing process. Sentence (35) is a further example. Here, the act of complaining expressed by the lexical verb is viewed as taking place over a stretch of time: it has a certain duration. I will return to the notion of progressive aspect in Section 10.2.1. Present perfect aspect is illustrated by (36). Here, the present tense form of the auxiliary verb have in combination with the past participle form of the verb break encodes the fact that the breaking of the glasses took place in the past and has current relevance. What this means is that when we utter (36) we are indicating to our interlocutor that Shelley’s breaking of the glasses is somehow important at the time of utterance. The notion of current relevance becomes clearer if we contrast a sentence containing a past tense form with a sentence containing a perfect auxiliary: (39) Shelley broke two wine glasses last month. (40) Shelley has broken two wine glasses. = (36) The past tense in (39) is used simply to record when Shelley broke two wine glasses, whereas the perfect form in (40) is used to indicate that Shelley broke two wine glasses quite recently, and that this event is still relevant (the pieces of glass might still be lying on the floor). Notice that we cannot say *Shelley has broken two wine glasses last month.

EXERCISE Why can’t we combine perfect aspect (has broken) with a definite time reference (last weekk)?

20

Grammatical Form: Words, Word Classes and Phrases

The reason is that in the sentence *Shelley has broken two wine glasses last week there is a clash between the meaning expressed by has broken, namely that the situation has current relevance, and the meaning expressed by last month, which suggests that the event is over and done with. Be careful not to confuse the past participle form of a verb with its past tense form: for some verbs the past tense and past participle have the same form and pronunciation. Compare the past tense of dance in They danced until dawn with the past participle in He has often danced the night away. The difference between the past tense and past participle forms is that the past tense is finite, while the past participle is nonfinite. In the case of irregular verbs (those whose past tense does not end in -ed), the past tense and past participle forms can also be the same, as with the verb bend. Compare He bent the metal bar (past tense) with He has bent the metal bar (past participle). However, these past tense and past participle forms can also be different, as with break above. Compare He broke the bottle (past tense) with He has broken the bottle (past participle). For a small number of verbs, the present tense, past tense and past participle forms are the same, as with set and read. Compare They set the standards this year (present tense) with They set the standards last year (past tense), and with They have set the standards (past participle). Notice that with read the present tense is pronounced differently from the past tense and past participle forms. The difference between the past tense and the present perfect can be shown on ‘timelines’: (41) –––––––X––––––––––|––––––––– (42) –––––––X–––––––––>|––––––––– In both sentences ‘X’ indicates the moment when Shelley broke the glasses and ‘|’ indicates the present moment. In (42) the arrow indicates that the relevance of this event extends to the present moment. We distinguish the present perfect, as illustrated above, from the past perfect, as in the sentence below: (43) By the time we arrived, Shelley had broken two wine glasses. This time the auxiliary have is in the past tense. What (43) means is that Shelley broke the wine glasses prior to a reference point in the past (‘the time we arrived’), and that this event was still relevant at the reference point. The timeline for (43) is as in (44): (44) –––––––––X–––>x––––––|––––––––– As before, ‘|’ indicates ‘now’, while ‘X’ indicates the breaking of the glasses, which is still relevant at reference point ‘x’ (‘the time we arrived’). I will return to the past tense in Section 10.1.2 and to perfect aspect in Section 10.2.2.

21

English Syntax and Argumentation

EXERCISE In the following sentence we also have a form of the verb have. Is this an auxiliary verb? If not, why not? (i) Larry has two smartphones.

Because there is only one verb in this sentence, has cannot be an auxiliary. It is therefore a lexical verb. So have, like be, can function as an auxiliary verb or as a lexical verb. The modals, by contrast, can only function as auxiliary verbs. Let us now turn to the remaining types of auxiliary verbs in English: the passive auxiliary be and the dummy auxiliary do. The first of these is illustrated below: (45) Billy painted the garden shed. > The garden shed was painted by Billy. We will say that the first sentence of the pair in (45) is an active sentence, while the second is a passive sentence. We will not concern ourselves here with the different ways in which we use active and passive sentences in particular situations (on this topic, see Section 15.6), but we will concentrate instead on the syntactic differences between them. Notice that in the first sentence the noun phrase the garden shed occurs after the lexical verb paint. We will see in Chapter 3 that this NP carries the grammatical function of Direct Object. We can define a Direct Object in a preliminary way as the unit in a clause that refers to an entity that undergoes the action expressed by a verb. However, as with the notion Subject that we looked at earlier, we will see in Chapter 3 that the notion of Direct Object is really a grammatical one, so we will be defining it syntactically. In the second sentence in (45) the same NP occurs at the start of the sentence. This time it carries the grammatical function of Subject. Finally, the passive sentence contains a phrase introduced by the preposition by. This phrase can usually be left out. Apart from the fact that the Subject and Direct Object of the first sentence in (45) occur in different places, another important and necessary change has occurred in turning the active structure into a passive one, and that is the introduction of an auxiliary verb, namely the passive auxiliary verb be. This auxiliary is followed by the past participle form of the lexical verb paint. Before turning to the last type of English auxiliary verb, notice that if we want to form the negative counterparts of sentences containing a modal auxiliary, an aspectual auxiliary or a passive auxiliary, we simply add the negative particle not after the first auxiliary: (46) We will not/won’t dance until midnight. (47) These students are not/aren’t always complaining. (48) This doughnut was not/wasn’t eaten by our head of department.

22

Grammatical Form: Words, Word Classes and Phrases

As these examples show, the word not can be separate from the auxiliary, or tagged onto it. (In the latter case we say that it is cliticised onto the auxiliary.) We now turn to our last auxiliary type: the dummy auxiliary do. If we want to form the negative counterpart of a sentence that does not contain an auxiliary verb, then we cannot simply add not, as the contrast between (49)a and (49)b shows. Instead, we need to insert a form of the verb do, as in (49)c: (49) a Jon cycles to work every day. b *Jon not cycles to work every day. c Jon does not/doesn’t cycle to work every day. The process of inserting do is called do-support. As we have already seen, in forming negative sentences, do-support is not necessary if the sentence in question already contains an auxiliary verb. Do is also used to form the interrogative versions of sentences that do not contain an auxiliary verb: (50) Jon cycles to work every day. > Jon does cycle to work every day. > Does Jon cycle to work every day? Example (50) shows that to form the interrogative version of a sentence that does not contain an auxiliary verb, we first insert do before the lexical verb, and then we invert this verb with the Subject. This inversion process is called Subject-Auxiliary Inversion. Dosupport is not necessary in forming the interrogative versions of sentences that already contain an auxiliary, as (51)–(53) show. (51) Jon will ride a bike all his life. > Will Jon ride a bike all his life? (52) Jon is always riding his bike in his spare time. > Is Jon always riding his bike in his spare time? (53) Jon has cycled to work since he got his first job. > Has Jon cycled to work since he got his first job? The third use of the dummy auxiliary is in contexts where auxiliaries get ‘stranded’. To illustrate this, consider the sentences below: (54) Does Jon cycle to work every day? He does. (55) Jon cycles all the way to work every day, and so does Tim.

23

English Syntax and Argumentation

Here, in the strings He does and so does Tim the auxiliary occurs without its lexical verb. This property has rather opaquely been referred to as code. Examples (56)–(61) show that the other auxiliary types also display the phenomenon of code: (56) Will Jon ride a bike all his life? He will. (57) Jon will ride a bike all his life, and so will Harry. (58) Is Jon always riding a bike in his spare time? He is. (59) Jon is always riding his bike in his spare time, and so is Harry. (60) Has Jon cycled to work since he got his first job? He has. (61) Jon has cycled to work since he got his first job, and so has Harry. There is a fourth use of the dummy auxiliary, namely in so-called ‘emphatic contexts’. Imagine a situation in which someone has just denied the truth of the sentence Jon cycles to work every day. If we are nevertheless convinced that this statement is true, we might indignantly respond by saying: (62) Jon DOES cycle to work every day! Here, the capital letters indicate the heavy stress with which the auxiliary is pronounced. Again, in sentences that already contain an auxiliary do-support is not required to create emphasis: (63) Jon WILL cycle to work every day! (64) Jon IS cycling to work every day! (65) Jon HAS cycled to work since he got his first job!

EXERCISE Consider the following sentences: (i) Kathy did her homework. (ii) Francisco did today’s dinner. Is the verb do in these sentences an auxiliary verb? If not, why not?

The verb do in these sentences is the only verb, and for that reason cannot be said to be a auxiliary verb. We must therefore regard do in (i) and (ii) as lexical verbs. From the observations on the behaviour of the auxiliary verb do, we can make a generalisation regarding the auxiliary verbs collectively. What distinguishes auxiliaries from lexical verbs is that they can: 1. carry the negative enclitic particle not 2. invert with the Subject 24

Grammatical Form: Words, Word Classes and Phrases

3. manifest code 4. carry emphatic stress. Points 1–4 are referred to as the NICE properties. NICE is an acronym made up of the first letters of each of the italicised properties above: negation, inversion, code and emphasis. You may have wondered why do has constantly been referred to as a dummy element. The reason is that it doesn’t really carry any meaning by itself, but is inserted simply to aid lexical verbs in forming negative or interrogative sentences, and also to allow code and emphasis. So far we’ve looked at sentences that contain only one auxiliary verb, but it is quite common for auxiliaries to combine. Here are a few examples of some possible combinations: (66) The company is being taxed three times this year. (67) The company has been taxed three times this year. (68) The company has been being taxed three times this year. (69) The company will have been being taxed three times this year. In (66) there are two auxiliaries: the progressive auxiliary be and the passive auxiliary be. In (67) the perfect auxiliary have combines with the passive auxiliary been. In (68) we have perfect, progressive and passive auxiliaries. And in (69) we have no fewer than four auxiliaries: the modal will combines with the perfect, progressive and passive auxiliaries. In each case the verb-form taxed, as we have seen, is the past participle of the lexical verb tax. Structures like (68) and (69) are rare in English. From the sentences above a number of important facts emerge. First, notice that it is always the first auxiliary that carries tense (and is therefore finite). All the other verbs are nonfinite. As we have seen, finite verb-forms occur either in the present tense or the past tense. Nonfinite verb-forms come in four types. For the verb dance these are given in (70): (70) to dance

to-infinitive

example: I wanted him to dance.

dance

bare infinitive

example: I saw him dance.

dancing

present participle

example: He is dancing.

danced

past participle

example: He has often danced.

The to-element of the to-infinitive is called the infinitival particle. The bare infinitive is not preceded by this particle, hence its name. Second, in (66)–(69) each auxiliary verb determines the form of the verb that follows it. Thus, in (66) the progressive auxiliary be determines the -ing ending on the passive auxiliary being. The passive auxiliary in its turn determines the -ed ending on the past participle form of the lexical verb taxed. Third, notice that there is a strict order of auxiliary verbs. As we can see in (69), the modal auxiliary comes first and is followed by the perfect, progressive and passive auxiliaries, although these need not all be present. 25

English Syntax and Argumentation

EXERCISE Form the negative counterparts of sentences (66)–(69) above. What conclusion can you draw about the position of nott in sentences with more than one auxiliary verb?

Your conclusion should be that the negative particle not always follows the first auxiliary verb. As with nouns in noun phrases and adjectives in adjective phrases, we would expect verbs to be able to head a verb phrase (VP). And this is indeed the case. However, VPs are a little more complicated than the other phrase types. The reason is that it is not immediately obvious which elements should be part of the VP of a particular sentence. Let’s take a concrete example and try to establish what is its verb phrase. Consider (71): (71) The library recalled these books. One possibility would be to say that a verb phrase contains only verbs, and this has indeed been suggested by several linguists. Under this approach the VP in (71) would only consist of the verb recalled. However, just as NPs may contain elements other than nouns, and APs may contain elements other than adjectives, there would be nothing odd about allowing verb phrases to contain elements other than verbs.

EXERCISE Try to establish which elements other than verbs we might want to include in the VP. Hint: notice that we cannot say *The library recalled d (cf. also (16) in Chapter 1).

The hint I gave suggests that there is a bond of some sort between recall and the noun phrase these books that follows it, which functions as its Direct Object. The nature of this bond is such that the verb syntactically requires the presence of a Direct Object in the form of a noun phrase. Another way of putting this is to say that the verb recall in (71) subcategorises for an NP. I will have more to say about subcategorisation in future chapters. For now it will suffice to observe that the existence of the subcategorisation relation between recall and its Direct Object is a reason for taking the DO to be part of the verb phrase. We can now represent (71) as follows: The library [VP recalled [NP these books]]. The VP here contains an NP (these books) which functions as Direct Object (cf. also (15) in Chapter 1).

2.5 Prepositions The word class of prepositions cannot easily be defined by making reference to formal characteristics, in that prepositions do not have typical endings like the word classes we 26

Grammatical Form: Words, Word Classes and Phrases

discussed above. At most we can say that prepositions tend to be very short, often consisting of only two or three letters. Here are a few examples: at, behind, beside, by, for, in, like, of, on, through, with, without, under etc. Prepositions can be simple, i.e. consisting of only one word, as in the list above, or complex, i.e. consisting of more than one word as in by means of, in front of, in spite of etc. They often combine with noun phrases to form prepositional phrases (PPs); e.g. [PP with [NP the dog]], [PP on [NP her bicycle]], [PP through [NP the glass]] etc. The NP in these examples carry the grammatical function of prepositional Object or, equivalently, as a prepositional Complement. From the point of view of meaning, we can say that prepositions often denote a relationship of some sort between two entities. Thus, in a simple sentence like The book is on the table, the preposition signals a spatial relationship between the book and its location, which is denoted in this sentence by the prepositional Complement. This relationship can also be a metaphorical one as in the sentence She is in big trouble.

2.6 Adverbs Adverbs can modify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs. This definition enables us to identify the words merrily, extremely, very and hard as adverbs in (72)–(74) below: (72) Our colleague from Paris merrily marks student essays in his bath. (73) The teachers are extremely unimpressed by his efforts. (74) Our new professor works very hard. In (72) merrily tells you more about how the marking was performed, namely in a happy way, while in (73) and (74) we are supplied with more specific information about the extent to which the teachers were unimpressed and the new professor works hard. The ending -ly which we find tagged onto the adjectives merry and extreme in (72) and (73) is a typical adverb ending. Caution is in order here, as there are also a number of adjectives that end in -ly; e.g. friendly, goodly, lively, masterly, woolly. Other adverb endings are -wards, -wise, -ways (e.g. homewards, clockwise, sideways) and a few others. However, as you can see from (74), not all adverbs are formed with these suffixes, so looking at the suffix alone is not a foolproof test for adverbhood. Further caution is needed when looking at comparative and superlative forms. As you will remember from our discussion of adjectives, one of the characteristics of this word class is that they can form comparative and superlative forms by making use of the suffixes -er and -est, as in the sequence clean–cleaner–cleanest. However, some adverbs also take comparative and superlative forms. Examples are fast–faster–fastest, soon– sooner–soonest and well–better–best. Notice that fast can also be an adjective (a fast train). Let us now turn to some subclasses of adverbs, shown in Table 2.3. The class of circumstantial adverbs is semantically very heterogeneous: its members can specify a variety of different types of circumstantial information; e.g. frequency and manner. Included here are the interrogative adverbs why, when and how. These are used 27

English Syntax and Argumentation

Table 2.3 Adverb subclasses Circumstantial adverbs: often, gleefully, intentionally, reluctantly Degree adverbs: extremely, extraordinarily, less, more, quite, too, very Sentence adverbs: however, probably, perhaps

in interrogative clauses when such clauses are used to ask questions. See Section 4.3.2 for discussion. Degree adverbs, as the name suggests, specify the degree to which the adjective they modify applies. Thus, in the AP extremely rude, the adverb extremely specifies the extent to which the epithet ‘rude’ applies. Sentence adverbs differ from circumstantial and degree adverbs semantically: either they have a linking function, or they modify whole sentences. Here are some examples: (75) James’s past is not unblemished. However, we will disregard this for now. (76) Perhaps you can sign on the dotted line. (77) Probably, we will not be able to go on holiday this year. In (75) however links the content of the first sentence to that of the second sentence, while in (76) perhaps expresses tentativeness over the following proposition. Finally, in (77) the use of the adverb probably indicates that the speaker regards the proposition that follows (we will not be able to go on holiday this year) as likely. We say that in (76) and (77) the adverbs have scope over a whole sentence (and carry modal meaning). The three groups of adverbs also differ syntactically: degree adverbs cannot themselves be modified (*very extremely), while circumstantial and sentence adverbs can (very often, quite intentionally, very probably). Sentence adverbs are syntactically detached from the sentences they modify, unlike circumstantial adverbs and degree adverbs. Adverbs function as the Heads of adverb phrases (AdvPs). Many AdvPs consist of a Head only, but, as in the other phrase types we looked at, the Head can be modified, as in (74) above.

2.7 Conjunctions Conjunctions belong to a closed class of words that have a linking function. There are two types of conjunctions: coordinating conjunctions (e.g. and, or, but) and subordinating conjunctions (e.g. that, if, whether, for, because, although, when etc.) Let us begin by looking at some examples of structures containing coordinating conjunctions. The bracketed portions of the sentences below are coordinated structures. The coordinating conjunction is shown in italics: (78) (I bought) [NP [NP a computer] and [NP a keyboard]] (79) (These articles were) [AP [AP old] and [AP useless]] 28

Grammatical Form: Words, Word Classes and Phrases

(80) (He is) [AP [AP pretty stupid] but [AP quite eager]] (81) (She) [VP [VP likes tea] but [VP hates coffee]] (82) (The books are) [PP [PP on the table] or [PP in the cupboard]] (83) (He killed the fly) [AdvP [wilfully] and [AdvP quite mercilessly]] (84) [S [S They arrived at 10 am] and [S they left at 6 pm]] (85) [S [S We will not offer this student a place] but [S we can recommend a college that will]] In (78) the conjunction and links two noun phrases, while in (79)–(83) we have examples of coordinated APs, VPs, PPs and AdvPs, respectively. In (84) and (85) sentences (S) are linked. As noted above, and, or and but are referred to as coordinating conjunctions (or simply coordinators). The units that are being coordinated we will call conjoins. A defining characteristic of conjunctions of this type is that they link units of equal syntactic status; e.g. phrases and sentences. We treat coordination as an instance of parataxis, a term deriving from the Greek roughly meaning ‘syntactic side-by-side arrangement’. Notice that two coordinated phrases form a new phrase of the same type as the two constituent conjoins. This is because the larger phrase functions in the same way as each of the conjoins would do if there had been no coordination. Compare (86) to (87) and (88): (86) [NP [NP Philosophy] and [NP linguistics]] are fascinating subjects. (87) [NP Philosophy] is easy. (88) [NP Linguistics] is tough. The string Philosophy and linguistics in (86) occurs in the Subject position before the lexical verb of the sentence, as do Philosophy and Linguistics on their own in (87) and (88). Notice also that the NP in (86) determines the form of the verb be in the same way that the singular NPs in (87) and (88) do. Because the conjoined string syntactically behaves in the same way as non-conjoined NPs, we conclude that it is also a NP. We also speak of coordination in cases where more than two items are being strung together, as in the sequence cheese, nuts and crisps. Whenever there are two or more items, there is usually only a coordinator between the last two items in the list. All cases of coordination that involve an overt coordinator are referred to as syndetic coordination. Where there is no overt coordinator, as in (89), we speak of asyndetic coordination: (89) Speaker A: Speaker B:

What’s on your shopping list? Cheese, nuts, crisps.

We return to coordination in a later chapter, when we will be discussing the possibility of using it as a test for constituenthood. Consider now the following sentences: (90) He thinks [that we will agree]. (91) I wonder [if it will ever change]. 29

English Syntax and Argumentation

(92) We don’t know [whether he will come]. (93) I am hoping [for Helen to arrive today]. (94) She left the course, [because she didn’t like living in a big city]. (95) [Although they are also very supportive], my teachers are very strict. (96) They are going to meet her, [when she arrives]. (97) [In order that he is cared for properly], he has been moved to hospital. The italicised elements in (90)–(97) are called subordinating conjunctions, as we have already seen. They are mostly short single words, but there is also a small group of subordinating conjunctions that consist of more than one word; e.g. as if, as long as, in order that, so that etc. Subordinating conjunctions (or subordinators for short) are elements that introduce subordinate clauses, which we define provisionally as sentences within sentences. Notice that, with the exception of the clause introduced by for, all the bracketed subordinate clauses in (90)–(97) are finite. I will discuss subordinate clauses in more detail in Chapter 4. Subordinators are quite different from coordinating conjunctions in that they link units of unequal syntactic status. Another way of putting this is to say that subordination is a type of hypotaxis, originally a Greek term meaning ‘syntactic underneath arrangement’. In sentences (90)–(97) the string of words introduced by the subordinator is syntactically subordinate to the other part of the sentence. It is important to realise that the nature of the subordination in (90)–(93) is different from that in (94)–(97): in (90) the clause introduced by that completes the meaning of the verb think, and it therefore functions as its Direct Object. The clauses introduced by if, whether and for are also clauses that function grammatically as Direct Object. Because that, if, whether and for introduce Complement clauses, they are called complementisers. These elements comprise a subclass of the subordinating conjunctions. In (94)–(97), by contrast, the clauses introduced by because, although, when and in order that supply circumstantial information: they specify a reason, a contrast of some sort, ‘time when’ and purpose, respectively. These clauses function as Adjuncts. (See Chapters 3 and 5, where this issue will be dealt with in detail.) There is no generally accepted label to refer to subordinators that introduce clauses functioning as Adjuncts, so I’ll coin the term adjunctiser to refer to them. Schematically, the word class of conjunctions can be represented as follows:

We will return to subordination in later chapters, and in Chapter 15 we will see that there are reasons for classifying the adjunctisers as prepositions. 30

Grammatical Form: Words, Word Classes and Phrases

2.8 Interjections Interjections are expressions of emotion, physical state, agreement, disagreement and such like. Here are a few examples: ah, erh, hmm, no, oh, ouch, phew, shit, yes, yuck etc. They are regarded as a separate word class, but really only in deference to traditional grammarians. If you think about it, they are not really part of the sentences in which they occur, but literally thrown in (inter-jected). This concludes our survey of word classes and their associated phrases in English. Remember that nouns and noun phrases, adjectives and adjective phrases, verbs and verb phrases etc. belong to a level of analysis that we referred to as grammatical form, whereas Subject, Direct Object, Adjunct etc. belong to the level of grammatical function, which we will discuss in detail in the next chapter. In Chapter 4 we will look at clauses and sentences, two further notions of grammatical form. Then, in Chapter 5, we will look at ways in which we can relate the levels of form and function.

KEY CONCEPTS absolute form comparative form superlative form accusative case adjective/adjective phrase adjunctiser adverb/adverb phrase affix prefix suffix agreement aspect perfect aspect progressive aspect attributive position auxiliary verb aspectual auxiliary dummy auxiliary do modal auxiliary passive auxiliary be

base form case complementiser conjoin conjunction coordinating conjunction subordinating conjunction coordination determinative Direct Object (DO) do-support finite/nonfinite grammatical form grammatical functions genitive case gradability Head Indirect Object (IO) interjection lexeme

linking verb/copula lexical verb morphology NICE properties nominative case noun/noun phrase past participle person predicative position preposition/prepositional phrase pronoun referring expression scope tense verb/verb phrase word word class

31

English Syntax and Argumentation

EXERCISES NB: In this book the exercises are graded, such that the starred ones are slightly more difficult. 1. Assign word class labels to the words in the sentences below. Be as precise as possible. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

Did he answer you directly? James flew to Greece last Wednesday. It was a sunny day in Balamory. Sadly, we had problems when we arrived. Why did you say that?

2. Assign a word class label to the italicised elements in the sentences below. Give syntactic arguments for your answers. (i) Did your bookk arrive yesterday? (ii) Did you bookk that flight yesterday? 3. Consider the following sentence All shopping centres in the world look exactly alike. True or false? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

Alll is a determinative. In is an interjection. The is an adjective. Exactlyy is a verb. Alike is an adjective. The Subject of this sentence is all shopping centres.

d by Gerald Manley Hopkins: 4. Here’s the poem Inversnaid This darksome burn, horseback brown, His rollrock highroad roaring down, In coop and in comb the fleece of his foam Flutes and low to the lake falls home. A windpuff-bonnet of fáwn-fróth Turns and twindles over the broth Of a pool so pitchblack, féll-frrówning, It rounds and rounds Despair to drowning. Degged d with dew, dappled with dew Are the groins of the braes that the brook treads through, Wiry heathpacks, flitches of fern, And the beadbonnyy ash that sits over the burn. What would the world be, once bereft Of wet and of wildness? Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet; Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet. There are many words in this poem whose meaning we don’t know, but, surprisingly, establishing the word class to which they belong is unproblematic. Determine the word class of each of the italicised words in the poem, and give reasons for your choices.

32

Grammatical Form: Words, Word Classes and Phrases

5. Assign the following nouns to one of the categories given in Section 2.2. Take care: some of these nouns can be assigned to more than one category! everybody, y, New Yorkk, he, mine, each other taxii, nobodyy, some, page, everybody 6. Cardinal numerals (one, two, three) are sometimes assigned to the word class of determinatives. This is controversial. How can you use the data below to argue either for or against this view? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Thousands came to see the exhibition. The group divided into twos and threes. The house was bought by the three of us. She was wrong by a factor of five.

7. Now use the data in the sentences below to decide which word class ordinal d, third d) belong to: numerals (firstt, second d train on platform 4 is the 16.43 to Brussels. (i) The second (ii) The very firstt time I saw you, I was in love. 8. People sometimes ask: ‘What is the longest sentence in English?’ Is it possible to answer this question? 9. Underline the auxiliary verbs in the following sentences and identify the category they belong to (choosing from modal auxiliary, progressive auxiliary, perfect auxiliary, passive auxiliary or dummy do). (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

We will assign a new tutor to this student. Seamus is playing in the garden. She can’t have been being interrogated again. She mustn’t wait any longer. She may have been abroad. Janet hasn’t done her homework.

10. The following sentences contain aspectual auxiliaries. Explain in which situations we would use them. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

She is laughing. She was laughing. He has eaten all the biscuits. He had eaten all the biscuits by the time his mum arrived.

11. In the text we distinguished between countable and noncountable nouns. The noun sugarr is generally classed as a noncountable noun. Is the following example a problem for this view? (i) I take three sugars in my tea. *12. You probably agreed that the phrase *a very wooden floorr mentioned in Section 2.3 is not possible in English, but what about a very wooden performance? Can you think of any reasons why this is OK? *13. Assign word class labels to the italicised items in the phrases below: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

a done deal the then president a moving target a moving film

33

English Syntax and Argumentation

*14. Consider the following examples, taken from McCawley (1998): (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Blue is my favorite color. The yellows in van Gogh’s paintings are striking. John’s necktie was deep blue. John’s shirt is blue.

Assign word class labels to the italicised words above. Give reasons for your choices. Now do the same for the examples below: (v) John is wearing the bluestt shirt that I have ever seen. (vi) Ted wore a deep blue necktie. (Notice that *deeply blue necktie is impossible.) (vii) In the living room they hung light green curtains. (Notice that *lightly green curtains is impossible.) In what way are examples (vi) and (vii) problematic for the answers you gave in the first part of this exercise? How can we solve the problem?

FURTHER READING All major English reference grammars discuss word classes extensively, but see especially Aitchison (2012), chapters 3 and 9 in Huddleston (1984), Huddleston and Pullum (2002), Burton-Roberts (2016) and Aarts (2011). For a discussion of the problems we face in distinguishing the word classes in English, see Crystal (1967) and Aarts (2007a). In line with Huddleston and Pullum’s (2002) Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, I use the term ‘determinative’ as a grammatical form label for a, the, this/those etc. occurring before nouns, rather than ‘determiner’, as I did in some previous editions of this book. As we will see in Section 7.1, these determinatives function as Specifier. I do not follow Huddleston and Pullum here, since they use ‘determiner’ as a grammatical function label instead. Confusingly, many books on grammar use ‘determiner’ as both a form and a function label, whereas Quirk et al.’s (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, and its derivatives, use ‘determiner’ as a grammatical form label, and ‘determinative’ as a grammatical function label. In the text I treat this/thatt (and other items that behave similarly) as determinatives when they are positioned before nouns (this/that bookk), but as pronouns when they occur independently (I don’t like this/thatt). You may have noticed that I treat the possessive words my/mine, our/ours etc. differently. I regard these as pronouns, whether they occur dependently or independently. The reason for this is that these words occur in the genitive case, and since pronouns can carry case, but determinatives cannot, they must always be pronouns. Morphology has not been discussed in any detail in this book. For introductory texts, see Bauer (2003), Katamba and Stonham (2006), Lieber (2022) and Spencer (1991). Katamba (2005) is a book on English words in general. On word-formation see Adams (1973, 2001) and Plag (2018).

34

GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION

3

In Chapters 1 and 2 we saw that sentences are not random collections of words, but strings of words that are organised according to certain rules. It is the task of syntax to give an account of those rules. We also saw that words can be classified into word classes depending their syntactic behaviour, i.e. on the company they keep, and that sentences can be analysed into subparts, which we referred to as constituents. In Chapter 4 we will look at clauses and sentences, but before we do so, in this chapter we will discuss the grammatical functions that constituents in sentences can perform.

3.1 Subject and Predicate Consider again the pair of sentences below, which we first came across in Chapter 1: (1) The cat devoured the fish. (2) The fish devoured the cat. The structure of these sentences can be represented as in (3) and (4) below using brackets: (3) [The cat] [devoured [the fish]] (4) [The fish] [devoured [the cat]] As we have already seen, these sentences contain exactly the same words, but differ quite radically in meaning. This meaning difference comes about as a result of the different roles played by the various constituents. In (3) and (4) distinct entities, namely the cat and the fish, respectively, carry out the action denoted by the word devoured. We called words that denote actions verbs. Also, notice that we could say that (3) is concerned with telling us more about the cat, while (4) is concerned with telling us more about the fish. We can now provisonally define the function Subject of a sentence as the constituent that tells us not only who performs the action denoted by the verb (i.e. who is the Agent), but also who or what the sentence is about. So, to find out what is the Subject of a particular sentence, we can ask two questions: ‘Who or what carried out the action denoted by the verb?’ ‘Who or what is this sentence about?’ The answers will pinpoint the Subject. The second bracketed units in sentences (3) and (4) above are devoured the fish and devoured the cat, respectively. These constituents tell us more about the Subject of the sentence, namely what it was engaged in doing (or, to be more precise, what its referent was engaged in doing). In (3) the Subject (the cat) was engaged in eating a fish, whereas in (4) the Subject (the fish) was engaged in eating a cat. We will use the term Predicate

35

English Syntax and Argumentation

for the unit in a sentence whose typical function is to specify what the Subject is engaged in doing. The notion Predicate is therefore a second type of grammatical function. In any given sentence the Predicate is everything in the sentence except the Subject.

EXERCISE In each of the following sentences determine what is the Subject and what is the Predicate: (i) The police arrested the bank robber. (ii) This factory produces a revolutionary new type of smartphone. (iii) That stupid waiter gleefully spilt soup all over my trousers. (iv) The stuntman smashed sixteen cars in five minutes. (v) She probably painted the president’s portrait at the palace.

The Subjects are: the police, this factory, that stupid waiter, the stuntman and she. The Predicates are: arrested the bank robber, produces a revolutionary new type of smartphone, gleefully spilt soup all over my trousers, smashed sixteen cars in five minutes and probably painted the president’s portrait at the palace. Remember that grammatical function labels are spelt with capital letters. You will no doubt have noticed that the subdivision of sentences into Subjects and Predicates is very rough and ready and can be established quite mechanically. You will also have noticed that the strings of words you identified as Predicates in the exercise above differ in their internal structure. We will need to account for these different internal structures, and this we will do in later chapters. Just now we saw that the Subject of a sentence is often defined as the unit that indicates who or what is engaged in carrying out the action specified by the verb, and also as the unit that tells you what the sentence is about. In each of the sentences we looked at so far, the referent of the Subject was indeed engaged in performing the action denoted by the verb, and the Subject also indicated what the sentence was about. However, referents of Subjects need not always be doing something. Consider sentences (5)–(8) below, and think about why they are problematic for our initial definition of the notion Subject: (5) My brother wears a green overcoat. (6) The committee disliked her proposal. (7) The girl with the red hat stood on the platform. (8) This flower smells nice. Although the italicised Subjects do have a relationship with their Predicates, their referents cannot be said to be instigating any kind of action: ‘wearing a coat’, ‘disliking a proposal’, ‘standing on a platform’ and ‘smelling’ are not activities. What these sentences

36

Grammatical Function

show, then, is that Subjects can also precede stative Predicates. By contrast, the Predicates we have encountered up to now were dynamic. Our initial definition of the notion Subject turns out to be problematic in another respect: in addition to the referent of a Subject sometimes not performing any kind of action, Subjects can be elements that are meaningless because they do not tell us what the sentences are about. Consider the following: (9) It is raining in England. (10) It was hot. (11) There were three lions in the cage. (12) There exist ways of making you talk. The element it in (9) and (10) is often called weather it, because it is used in expressions that tell us about the weather. It is also called nonreferential it and dummy it. The last two terms bring out the important fact that this element does not refer to anything in the way that referential it in (13) does: (13) Where did I put my hat? Ah, I put it in the car. Here, it refers back to the string of words my hat, which in its turn refers to a concrete object in the real world. There in sentences (11) and (12) is called existential there because it is used in propositions that have to do with existence. Existential there should be kept apart from locative there, which, as the name implies, specifies a location, as in (14): (14) I saw the cat a minute ago. There it is! Nonreferential it and existential there are said to be meaningless because all they seem to be doing in the sentences in which they occur is fill the Subject slot. It would be odd to say that it and there tell us what sentences (9)–(12) are about. What emerges from sentences (5)–(12) is that although our earlier (semantic) definition of Subject is practical and useful, we must use it only as a general guideline. If we want to define the notion Subject more precisely, we will need to do so in structural terms, i.e. in terms of syntactic configurations. The first thing to note about the Subjects of the sentences we have looked at so far is that they predominantly consist of groups of words whose most important element denotes a person (that stupid waiter, the stuntman, she, my brother, the girl with the red hair), an animal (the cat, the rat), a group of people (the police, the committee), an institution (this factory) or a plant (this flower). We saw in Chapter 2 that these words can be classified as nouns. Furthermore, we saw that groups of words such as the cat, that stupid waiter, the girl with the red hair etc. are noun phrases (NPs). The generalisation we can now make is to say that Subjects are usually noun phrases. Second, in straightforward sentences, i.e. those that are used to make a statement, the Subject is the first NP we come across.

37

English Syntax and Argumentation

Third, with the exception of what we will call imperative clauses in Section 4.3.3 (e.g. Open the door; Listen to me.), Subjects are obligatory. Notice that if we leave out the Subjects from (5)–(12), we derive ungrammatical sentences. Fourth, Subjects determine the form of the verb in such cases as the following: (15) She never writes home. (16) James always sulks. (17) This book saddens me. (18) Our neighbour takes his children to school in his car. We say that the verbs (write, sulk, sadden, take) in these sentences agree with the Subjects (she, James, this book, our neighbour). This agreement is visible through the -s ending on the verbs. Such agreement occurs only if we have a third person singular Subject in the present tense. As we saw in Chapter 2, such a Subject does not denote the speaker or the hearer (i.e. a third person is not me or you), but someone (or something) else. Any Subject other than a third person singular Subject takes what is called the base form of the verb, i.e. a form of the verb that has no endings: (19) I like tea. (20) You like tea. (21) We like tea. (22) They like tea. Here we have Subject-verb agreement as well, although it is not visible as an ending on the verb. Before presenting a fifth characteristic of Subjects, compare sentences (23)–(26) with (27)–(30): (23) This teacher is a genius. (24) The kids have arrived safely. (25) Your brother can be serious. (26) Our parents should inform the police. (27) Is this teacher a genius? (28) Have the kids arrived safely? (29) Can your brother be serious? (30) Should our parents inform the police? Sentences (23)–(26) are straightforward sentences, each of which makes a statement about some state of affairs in the world. Sentences (27)–(30) are concerned with asking questions. More specifically, they are used to ask questions that elicit either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ response. Thus, the fifth characteristic of Subjects is that in sentences that are used to ask questions with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as an answer, the Subject changes position: the verb is then in

38

Grammatical Function

the initial slot of the sentence, and the Subject is in the second slot. I will return to clauses that are used to ask questions (called interrogative clauses) in Section 4.3.2. Finally, we can identify the Subject of a sentence by adding a so-called interrogative tag (sometimes called a tag question) to it. An interrogative tag is tagged onto a statement. One of its uses is to seek the hearer’s confirmation of what is being stated. If we add interrogative tags to sentences (23)–(26), we derive (31)–(34): (31) This teacher is a genius, isn’t she? (32) The kids have arrived safely, haven’t they? (33) Your brother can be serious, can’t he? (34) Our parents should inform the police, shouldn’t they? The generalisation is that the Subject of a sentence is identified by the unit which is being referred back to by means of words like she, they and he in an interrogative tag. As we saw in Chapter 2, these words are all pronouns, so another way of expressing the generalisation above is to say that an interrogative tag must contain a pronoun that identifies the Subject of the sentence which it is tagged onto. The six tests we have just looked at define the notion of Subject by referring to the distribution of the constituent parts of sentences, rather than to vague semantic notions. In most cases, if we apply the semantic and syntactic criteria discussed above in conjunction, we can unambiguously identify the constituent that functions as Subject in a particular sentence. If we apply only the semantic criteria, this can lead to an incorrect identification of some constituent as Subject, or we may possibly not even be able to identify a Subject at all. We have already come across some examples of this happening. In (5)–(8) above, if we were to use only our semantic characterisation of the notion Subject as the unit in the sentence that refers to the entity that performs the action denoted by the verb, then we would conclude that these sentences do not contain a Subject. This is because they do not contain a constituent that can be said to refer to an entity that performs an action. In (9)–(12) the units we identified as Subjects again do not refer to entities that do something, and additionally, unlike the Subjects in (5)–(8), they are not the topics of the sentences in which they occur. However, if we also apply one or more of the distributional tests we discussed, then we have no problems in identifying the Subjects of sentences. Take example (5), repeated here: (35) My brother wears a green overcoat. My brother is the Subject of this sentence for the following reasons: 1. This constituent is a noun phrase. 2. It is the first NP in the sentence. 3. It is obligatory: *wears a green overcoat is not a possible sentence. 4. My brother is a third person singular phrase and the verb in the present tense wear agrees with it, witness the -s ending. 39

English Syntax and Argumentation

5. In a question, my brother swaps places with an inserted verb does: Does my brother wear a green overcoat? (I referred to this as do-support in section 2.4.) 6. If we add an interrogative tag to (35), we must include a pronoun (in this case he), and this pronoun refers back to my brother: My brother wears a green overcoat, doesn’t he? Let’s look at a further example whose Subject may be tricky to identify. Consider (36): (36) Last night, the teachers were very merry.

EXERCISE What do you think is the Subject of sentence (36) above?

First, notice that the referents of the NPs last night and the teachers are not engaged in doing something. We cannot therefore use agenthood as a diagnostic for subjecthood. Furthermore, despite the fact that arguably ‘last night’ is what the sentence is about, and despite the fact that this string of words is not only an NP, but also the first NP in the sentence, the Subject is in fact the NP the teachers. The following are the reasons for this: 1. The NP the teachers is obligatory, the NP last night is not: *Last night were very merry./The teachers were very merry. The fact that last night can be left out indicates that this NP plays a peripheral role in the sentence. Further evidence for the peripherality of last night lies in the fact that it is followed by a comma. This comma indicates a pause in the pronunciation of the sentence and sets last night apart from what follows. Subjects are never peripheral; they play an integral part in every sentence. Notice also that last night can be moved to the end of the sentence: The teachers were very merry last night. 2. It is the plural NP the teachers that determines the form of the verb be. We can’t have a singular verb-form: *Last night the teachers was very merry. If last night had been the Subject, the verb-form was would have been expected. 3. In a yes/no interrogative sentence, it is the NP the teachers that swaps places with were: Last night, were the teachers very merry? 4. In the tagged version of (36), they refers back to the teachers not to last night: Last night, the teachers were very merry, weren’t they? The tag wasn’t it?, in which it would refer back to last night, is impossible: *Last night the teachers were very merry, wasn’t it? 40

Grammatical Function

EXERCISE Using one or more of the criteria we have discussed, find the Subjects of the sentences below: (i) My friend travelled around the world on a bicycle. (ii) It was freezing cold in Moscow. (iii) The supporters of the football club down the road destroyed our fence. (iv) In the Middle Ages people often burnt books. (v) There is a rat in the room. (vi) Yesterday at midnight Harry fell down the stairs.

The Subjects are the following phrases: my friend, it, the supporters of the football club down the road, people, there, Harry.

3.2 Predicator So far we have looked at the way in which the bracketed strings in (37) and (38) function: (37) [The cat] Subject

[devoured the fish]. Predicate

= (1)

(38) [The fish] Subject

[devoured the cat]. Predicate

= (2)

We should now take a closer look at the elements inside the Predicate. Can we assign further functions to them? Yes, we can. In each of the Predicates above there is a verb, devoured, and a noun phrase, namely the cat and the fish, respectively. Here we will concentrate on the function of the verb. We will say that devoured in (37) and (38) functions as a Predicator. Predicators are pivotal elements that specify what we could call the bare-bones content of the sentences in which they occur, that is, the main action, event or process denoted by the verb. As their name suggests, Predicators are in the business of predicating something, i.e. saying something of something else. Thus, the bare-bones content of (37) and (38) is ‘devouring’. This devouring activity is predicated of the Subjects of these sentences, which specify who or what was engaged in the activity of devouring. The NPs that specify what was being devoured have a function we haven’t discussed so far, and we turn to it in the next section. Be careful to distinguish Predicates from Predicators. We can now refine (37) and (38) as follows: (37') [The cat] Subject

[devoured the fish] Predicator |—Predicate—|

41

English Syntax and Argumentation

(38') [The fish] Subject

[devoured the cat] Predicator |—Predicate—|

3.3 Direct Object After our discussion of Subjects, Predicates and Predicators, we now turn to a fourth type of grammatical function: the Direct Object (DO). Consider the following sentences: (39) His girlfriend bought this computer. (40) That silly fool broke the teapot. (41) Our linguistics lecturer took this photograph. (42) My sister found this book. The Subjects of these sentences are the first NPs in each case: his girlfriend, that silly fool, our linguistics lecturer and my sister. The Predicates are: bought this computer, broke the teapot, took this photograph and found this book. The Predicators are: bought, broke, took and found. We now assign the function of Direct Object to the NPs this computer, the teapot, this photograph and this book. How can we characterise the notion Direct Object? In semantic terms, Direct Objects are said to be constituents that refer to entities that typically undergo the activity or process denoted by the verb. Using (39)–(42) above, we can say that in (39) the referent of the NP this computer undergoes a buying activity; in (40) the referent of the NP the teapot undergoes a breaking process; in (41) the referent of this photograph undergoes a picture-taking process, and in (42) the referent of this book undergoes a process of being found. The characterisation of Direct Objects I have just given is in terms of the kind of role they play in sentences: in the same way that Subjects typically play an Agent (i.e. instigator) role, Direct Objects have a Patient role (although not, of course, not in the medical sense!). As we have just seen, what this means is that the referent of the constituent that we can identify as Direct Object typically undergoes the action or process denoted by the verb. However, although this semantic characterisation is useful, and in most cases enables us to find the Direct Object of a sentence, we will also need to define DOs syntactically, i.e. in terms of their structural properties. So, what can we say about the structural properties of Direct Objects? First, like Subjects, DOs are often noun phrases (although not exclusively, as we will see in Chapter 5). Second, their usual position, as (39)–(42) show, is after the lexical verb. Third, Direct Objects have a strong relationship with the verb that precedes them. Recall my discussion in Chapter 1 of the following sentence: 42

Grammatical Function

(43) My best friend likes fast e-bikes. We saw that the verb like requires the presence of a noun phrase. We can now be a little more precise and say that like requires a Direct Object in the shape of a noun phrase. In (39)–(42) we have the same situation: each of the verbs in these sentences requires the presence of a Direct Object. If the DO is left out, the results are bad: (44) *His girlfriend bought. (45) *This silly fool broke. (46) *Our linguistics lecturer took. (47) *My sister found. A verb that requires a Direct Object to complement its meaning is a transitive verb. Not all verbs are transitive. We also have intransitive verbs. These are verbs that do not need a following constituent to complete their meaning. Below are some sentences whose lexical verb is intransitive: (48) William blushed. (49) Sean cried. (50) Thomas slept. (51) Lee dreamt. (52) Garry jumped. Unlike in the cases of (44)–(47), we do not have a sense of incompleteness with these sentences. Some verbs appear to be able to function both transitively and intransitively, as the sentences in (53) and (54) show: (53) a Harold moved the table. b Harold moved. (54) a Jake walked the dog. b Jake walked. Saying that in each case the verb can function both transitively and intransitively amounts to saying that we have two different verbs move and two different verbs walk. Following dictionary practice, let’s call these two sets of verbs move1/move2 and walk1/walk2. Move1 and walk1 in (53)a and (54)a are transitive, whereas move2 and walk2 in (53)b and (54)b are intransitive. Positing the existence of two verbs move is not implausible, given that the meaning of move in (53)a is different from the meaning of move in (53)b; witness the fact that we can substitute another verb, for example displace, for move in (53)a, but not in (53)b: Harold displaced the table/*Harold displaced. A change of meaning can also be detected in contrasting (54)a with (54)b. We can replace walk in (54)a by the near-equivalent escort, but not in (54)b: Jake escorted the dog/*Jake escorted.

43

English Syntax and Argumentation

Now consider (55) and (56): (55) a Goneril was reading a book. b Goneril was reading. (56) a Pat was eating a sandwich. b Pat was eating. Here again we might surmise that we have two verbs read and two verbs eat. However, more plausibly, we might say that although the Direct Object is missing in (55)b, it is nevertheless felt to be there. After all, Goneril must have been reading something. The same is true for (56)b. Rather than positing the existence of two different verbs in (55) and (56), we will say that the Direct Objects here are understood or implicit. This solution is preferable because in the a- and b-sentences of (55) and (56) the meanings of read and eat stay constant. So far we have seen that Direct Objects are constituents that are closely related to the verb that precedes them. A fourth syntactic characteristic of DOs is brought out by comparing the a-sentences below with the b-sentences: (57) a His girlfriend bought this computer. b This computer was bought by his girlfriend. (58) a That silly fool broke the teapot. b The teapot was broken by that silly fool. (59) a Our linguistics lecturer took this photograph. b This photograph was taken by our linguistics lecturer. (60) a My sister found this book. b This book was found by my sister. What is happening here? Clearly, in each of these cases the a-sentence is related to the b-sentence. The question is: how? We already came across this alternation in Section 2.4 when we referred to the a-sentences as being active, and to the b-sentences as being passive. Active sentences present their Subject as being actively engaged in something, whereas passive sentences present their Subject as undergoing something. (Incidentally, this is another reason for not defining Subjects exclusively as Agents.) As for the syntactic differences between active and passive sentences, notice that if we turn an active sentence into a passive sentence, the Direct Object of the active sentence becomes the Subject of the passive sentence, and the Subject of the active sentence ends up in an optional phrase introduced by the word by. Notice that in each of the passive sentences, a form of the verb be has appeared (in the guise of was in these particular cases) which we called the passive auxiliary verb be.

44

Grammatical Function

EXERCISE Produce passive versions of the following active sentences: (i) I drank this bottle of juice. (ii) My son found a wallet. (iii) The inspectors checked the tickets. (iv) This store sells only silk shirts.

You should not have experienced any problems in producing the passives of these sentences. They are: This bottle of juice was drunk by me, A wallet was found by my son, The tickets were checked by the inspectors and Only silk shirts are sold by this store. We saw above that Direct Objects complete the meaning of the verbs that precede them. Another way of putting this is to say that Direct Objects function as Complements to verbs. When we talk about Complements, we’re using a cover term to denote any constituent whose presence is determined (or licensed) by another element. As we saw in sentences like (39)–(42) and (44)–(47), the Direct Objects are required to the extent that they typically complete the meaning of an active verb. They are not, however, the only units that can function as Complements of verbs. I will now discuss an additional type of Complement, namely the Indirect Object.

3.4 Indirect Object In this section we will be looking at a further type of verbal Complement: the Indirect Object (IO). In the sentences below the IOs have been italicised: (61) We gave the boys the CDs. (62) The publisher sent her a review copy of the book. (63) She lent the student an iPad. (64) My father always told us stories. When we discussed Subjects and Direct Objects in the previous sections, we saw that Subjects typically have the role of Agent and that Direct Objects typically have the role of Patient/Undergoer. In (61)–(64) the typical role associated with the italicised Indirect Objects is Goal/Receiver or Beneficiary. Notice that (61)–(64) also contain Direct Objects, namely the phrases the CDs, a review copy of the book, an iPad and stories. Verbs that take a Direct Object and an Indirect Object are called ditransitive verbs. Apart from their semantic properties, Indirect Objects have a number of syntactic characteristics. First, they are usually noun phrases.

45

English Syntax and Argumentation

Second, they cannot occur without a following Direct Object. Compare (65)–(68) with (61)–(64): if we leave out the Direct Objects, the sentences become ungrammatical: (65) *We gave the boys. (66) *The publisher sent her. (67) *She lent the student. (68) *My father always told us. Of course, (65)–(66) are possible, but only if we interpret the NPs following the verbs as Direct Objects. Third, Indirect Objects always precede Direct Objects. We cannot have sentences (69)–(72) where the order of IOs and DOs has been reversed: (69) *We gave the CDs the boys. (70) *The publisher sent a review copy of the book her. (71) *She lent an iPad the student. (72) *My father always told stories us. Notice that we can ‘repair’ (69)–(72) by adding the word to: (73) We gave the CDs to the boys. (74) The publisher sent a review copy of the book to her. (75) She lent an iPad to the student. (76) My father told stories to us. However, you should be aware of the fact that the prepositional phrases in these sentences no longer carry the function of Indirect Object. See Exercise 10. A final syntactic characteristic of Indirect Objects is that, like DOs, they can become the Subjects of passive sentences. Compare (77)–(80) with (61)–(64): (77) The boys were given the CDs by us. (78) She was sent a review copy of the book by the publisher. (79) The student was lent an iPad by her. (80) We were always told stories by our father. Notice that the Subject of the active sentence again ends up in an optional by-phrase. The Direct Objects stay in place. Now, compare (77)–(80) with (81)–(84): (81) The CDs were given to the boys by us. (82) A review copy of the book was sent to her by the publisher. (83) An iPad was lent to the student by her. (84) Stories were always told to us by our father.

46

Grammatical Function

Here, the Direct Objects of (61)–(64), rather than the Indirect Objects, have become the Subjects of passive sentences. In passivising (61)–(64) to become (81)–(84), not only have the Direct Objects of active sentences become the Subjects of passive sentences, but another change has also occurred: the Indirect Objects have ended up in phrases beginning with to: to the boys, to her, to the student and to us. The generalisation is that if we passivise the Direct Object of a sentence which also contains an Indirect Object, then the Indirect Object ends up in a to-phrase.

3.5 Adjunct We turn now to a final grammatical function. Consider the following sentences: (85) The bus stopped suddenly. (86) Shakespeare wrote his plays a long time ago. (87) They went to the theatre in London. (88) He hates maths because he can’t understand it. The italicised strings of words in these sentences have the function of telling us about the how, when, where or why of the situations expressed by the respective sentences. Constituents that have this function we will call Adjuncts. We can test to see if a particular sentence contains an Adjunct by asking how?, when?, where? or why? For example, if we want to know what is the Adjunct in (85), we ask: ‘how did the bus stop?’ The answer is ‘suddenly’, and this phrase therefore functions as an Adjunct. Similarly, in (86) we can ask: ‘when did Shakespeare write his plays?’ The answer is ‘a long time ago’. Adjuncts are always optional, and express peripheral information. Another characteristic of Adjuncts is that they can be ‘stacked’, which means that more than one of them can appear in a sentence: (89) Last year I saw this film several times. Finally, Adjuncts are mobile, as the following examples show: (90) Greedily Andy ate all the biscuits. (91) Andy greedily ate all the biscuits. (92) Andy ate all the biscuits greedily. Notice, however, that the position between the lexical verb and Direct Object is excluded: (93) *Andy ate greedily all the biscuits. In Chapter 7 we will distinguish between sentence-level Adjuncts and phrase-level Adjuncts.

47

English Syntax and Argumentation

KEY CONCEPTS active Adjunct Complement Direct Object (DO) distribution ditransitive verb existential there Indirect Object (IO) interrogative tag intransitive verb

license locative there nonreferential it passive Predicate Predicator referential it Subject transitive verb

As noted earlier in the text, in this book all function labels will be written with a capital letter. You will have noticed that I also spelt terms like ‘Agent’, ‘Patient’, etc. with a capital letter. I will return to this point in Chapter 6. Remember that function labels are mutually exclusive: if a string of words is a Subject, it cannot also be a DO, an Adjunct or anything else.

EXERCISES 1. Assign function labels (Subject, Direct Object, Adjunct etc.) to the italicised phrases in the following sentences: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii)

Greg opened a bottle of lemonade. week. k. She arrived last week You will need a comprehensive travel insurance. d that? Who said d in a shoe factory when he was a student student. t. Benny worked Who will do the cleaning? The lecturer from France who talked about Wittgenstein yesterdayy left.

2. Construct sentences containing: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

a Subject, a Predicator, an Indirect Object and a Direct Object a Subject, a Predicator, a Direct Object and an Adjunct a Subject, a Predicator and an Adjunct a Subject and a Predicator

3. In the text we said that Subjects are obligatory. In this context, look at sentence (i) below: (i) Read Chapter 5 for tomorrow’s class. Is this an exception? Explain your answer. (Sentence (i) is an imperative clause, which will be discussed further in Section 4.3.) 4. Consider the following sentence This summer all the students will have vacation jobs in their home towns. True or false? (i) The Subject is this summer. (ii) This summerr is an Adjunct. (iii) Vacation jobs is an Indirect Object.

48

Grammatical Function

(iv) The students is the Subject. (v) In their home towns functions as Adjunct. (vi) The Direct Object is vacation jobs. 5. Identify the Adjunct(s) (if any) in the sentences below: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

Gradually, the train accelerated. It finally hurtled through the landscape at great speed. Then, suddenly there was a loud bang at the back of the train. It startled all of us. It turned out that there had been an animal on the tracks. Why does this happen each time I travel?

*6. Consider sentence (i): (i) In August we always go to France. What would you say is the grammatical function of the italicised string? Give reasons for your answer. *7. In the text we saw that there are reasons for saying that the verb move in (i) below is different from the verb move in (ii): (i) Harold moved the table. = (53)a (ii) Harold moved. = (53)b The reason for having two verbs was that move in (i) means ‘displace’, whereas it means something like ‘stir’ in (ii). However, you may want to argue that move d and eatt discussed in the same section, if we simply is, in fact, exactly like read assume that move in (ii) involves an implied DO, namely himselff. Sentence (ii) would then mean ‘Harold moved/displaced himself’. Is this a plausible line of reasoning? Give reasons for your answer. *8. Why is assigning the grammatical function of Direct Object to the italicised strings in the sentences below problematic? Is there another function we can assign instead? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

This computer weighs twenty kilograms. Each of these oranges costs ten pence. The information booklet contains four pages. That jacket suits you.

*9. Apply the criteria for subjecthood presented in Section 3.1 to sentence (i) below: (i) There is a rat in the kitchen. You will have reached the conclusion that the Subject is there. How can we square this conclusion with the fact that it doesn’t make sense to say that there ‘is’ in the kitchen, whereas it does make sense to say that a ratt ‘is’ in the kitchen? In other words, wouldn’t it make more sense to say that a ratt is the Subject in (i)? *10. Consider again the following sentences from Section 3.4: (i) (ii) (iv) (v)

We gave the CDs to the boys. boys. The publisher sent a review copy of the book to her. herr. student. t. She lent an iPad to the student My father told stories to us.

In the text I wrote that the prepositional phrases in these sentences no longer carry the function of Indirect Object. Why not?

49

English Syntax and Argumentation

FURTHER READING For other overviews of grammatical functions consult a reference grammar of English, e.g. Quirk et al. (1985), Huddleston (1984), Huddleston and Pullum (2002), Aarts (2011). You will also find the reference works listed at the end of this book useful. When you consult these books, be aware that there are variations in the use of grammatical terminology. For example, Quirk et al. use two additional functional labels, namely Subject Complement and Object Complement, which we have not adopted (see Section 11.2.2.2). Also, the term ‘Adjunct’ is used by them in a narrower sense than in this book. For them, an Adjunct is one type of ‘Adverbial’, along with Disjuncts, Conjuncts and Subjuncts. Huddleston (1984) uses the term ‘Adjunct’ more or less in the same way as I have done here, but there are still differences. In Section 3.1, I assumed that ‘weather itt’ is meaningless. Not all linguists would agree with this. See, for example, Bolinger (1977) for a diverging viewpoint.

50

MORE ON FORM: CLAUSES AND SENTENCES

4

In this book our approach to analysing sentences has been to start with the smallest syntactically meaningful units (i.e. words). We then investigated how these words combine into phrases. We referred to an analysis in terms of word classes and phrases as a formal analysis. In this chapter we extend the formal analysis of sentences. We will see how phrases combine into clauses, and how clauses in their turn combine into sentences. We can then set up a rank scale accommodating words, phrases, clauses and sentences. We will also establish a typology of clauses in terms of their syntactic characteristics. Finally, we will take a closer look at the way in which we can represent sentences in the form of tree diagrams.

4.1 Clauses and clause hierarchies Consider sentence (1): (1) Tim thought that Kate believed the story. We will say that the string of words in (1) collectively forms a sentence, which contains two clauses: a main clause, which is coextensive with (i.e. contains the same elements as) the overall sentence, and a subordinate clause, namely that Kate believed the story. Main clauses, by definition, are superordinate clauses that are not themselves subordinate to any other clause. The element that in (1) is a complementiser, which embeds the subordinate clause in the main clause. We can graphically illustrate all this as follows: (2) sentence main clause subordinate clause

Tim thought that Kate believed the story |_______________________________| |_______________________________| |_____________________|

Now consider sentence (3): (3) Tim thought that Kate believed that Greg is a liar. This sentence contains three clauses, as (4) shows: (4) sentence main clause

Tim thought that Kate believed that Greg is a liar |______________________________________| |______________________________________|

51

English Syntax and Argumentation

subordinate clause 1 subordinate clause 2

|____________________________| |_____________|

In this sentence, the main clause is superordinate to subordinate clause 1. In turn, subordinate clause 1 is superordinate to subordinate clause 2. We have seen that in both our examples the main clauses are coextensive with the overall sentence. Thus, in (1) the main clause is Tim thought that Kate believed the story, and in (3) the main clause is Tim thought that Kate believed that Greg is a liar. Within these main clauses the clauses introduced by that are subordinate clauses. You may find it odd that main clauses are coextensive with the sentences that contain them, because this means that the term ‘main clause’ is redundant. Strictly speaking, this is true, but it is nevertheless useful to be able to refer to the ‘top’ clause in any sentence that we are analysing and its relationship to the subordinate clauses contained within it. We can now also define the notion of matrix clause. This is a clause which contains a subordinate clause within it. Some matrix clauses are also main clauses. Thus, in (3) the overall sentence is a main clause, but it also functions as the matrix clause for the subordinate clause that Kate believed that Greg is a liar. This clause in turn is the matrix clause for that Greg is a liar. It is important that you realise that in using the terms ‘main clause’, ‘matrix clause’, ‘superordinate clause’ and ‘subordinate clause’, we are only concerned with the hierarchical relations between the clauses. We still need to assign form and function labels to the various clauses contained within a sentence. We refer to the subordinate clauses in both (1) and (3) as that-clauses (named after their first element, the complementiser that). Their function in each case is Direct Object. Thus, for (1) we can ask: ‘What did Tim think?’, and the answer is: ‘That Kate believed the story’. And for (3) we can ask: ‘What did Kate believe?’, and the answer is: ‘That Greg is a liar’. You may be surprised by the fact that Direct Objects can be something other than NPs. Although it is true that DOs are typically NPs, they can be realised in different ways. I will return to this point in Chapter 5. Before moving on, recall that in Chapter 2 we said that verbs can be finite or nonfinite. A finite verb is a verb that carries tense, while a nonfinite verb is tenseless. We now extend this terminology to apply to clauses. We can thus speak of finite clauses and nonfinite clauses. Finite clauses are clauses that contain a finite (tensed) verb, whereas nonfinite clauses do not contain a finite verb. Main clauses are always finite, although they may of course contain nonfinite subordinate clauses (as well as finite clauses). Sentences (1) and (3) are examples of finite matrix clauses which contain finite subordinate clauses. That-clauses are a frequently occurring type of finite subordinate clause. If-clauses are also always finite: (5) I don’t know [if he is happy or sad]. The bracketed subordinate clause is finite because is (the third person singular form of the verb be) is a present tense form. We’ll come across further instances of finite subordinate clauses as we go along. 52

More on Form: Clauses and Sentences

We haven’t yet seen any instances of nonfinite clauses, so here are some examples. (Recall that the nonfinite forms of the verb are the to-infinitive, the bare infinitive, the -ing participle and the -ed participle.) In each case I’ve given examples of nonfinite clauses with and without Subjects. The nonfinite clauses are in brackets and the nonfinite verbs are italicised: to-infinitive clause (6) They would hate [Jim to sell his boat].

[+Subject]

(7) He likes [to be in Italy in the spring].

[–Subject]

bare infinitive clause (8) She made [Otto polish his shoes]

[+Subject]

(9) I would rather [dance the night away].

[–Subject]

-ing participle clause (10) [Billy discussing politics] is rather funny.

[+Subject]

(11) [Walking with your lover in the rain] is romantic.

[–Subject]

-ed participle clause (12) [The song finished], he switched off the radio.

[+Subject]

(13) [Incensed by his comments], he stormed out.

[–Subject]

For convenience, the terms ‘-ing participle clause’ and ‘-ed participle clause’ are used, rather than the somewhat clumsy ‘present participle clause’ and ‘past participle clause’. Notice that, like finite subordinate clauses, nonfinite subordinate clauses can also be introduced by a complementiser, as in (14) below: (14) I don’t know [whether to laugh or cry at his jokes]. Whether can, however, also introduce finite subordinate clauses, as in (15): (15) She didn’t know [whether he would come]. We need to add to the list of nonfinite clause types a fifth type which is rather special in that it does not contain a verb. Here are some example sentences: (16) Martin considers [Tim a creep]. (17) Phil deems [Henry foolish]. The bracketed clauses have been called verbless clauses, but a more recent term, which we will adopt in this book, is small clause (SC). Small clauses are clauses that lack an overt verb, but can be said to contain an implicit verb be. We can show that this is the case by paraphrasing (16) and (17) as in (18) and (19): (18) Martin considers [Tim to be a creep]. (19) Phil deems [Henry to be foolish]. 53

English Syntax and Argumentation

4.2 The rank scale Every sentence can be analysed at four distinct form levels: word level, phrase level, clause level and sentence level. (I am disregarding the morphological level.) This is called the rank scale. The representation in (20) below uses so-called labelled bracketings to show the rank scale of (1). This is a notation method – I’ve already used it on occasion – where words that belong together in a constituent are enclosed in square brackets. The formal status of the constituent is indicated by attaching a subscript label to its leftmost bracket: (20) Tim thought that Kate believed the story. word level [N Tim] [V thought] [Comp that] [N Kate] [V believed] [Det the] [N story] phrase level [NP [N Tim]] [VP [V thought] [Comp that] [NP [N Kate]] [VP [V believed] [NP [Det the] [N story]]]] clause level [MC [NP [N Tim]] [VP [V thought] [SubC [Comp that] [NP [N Kate]] [VP [V believed] [NP [Det the] [N story]]]]]] sentence level [S/MC [NP [N Tim]] [VP [V thought] [SubC [Comp that] [NP [N Kate]] [VP [V believed] [NP [Det the] [N story]]]]]] S = Sentence, N(P) = noun (phrase), V(P) = verb (phrase), Det = determinative, A(P) = adjective (phrase), Comp = complementiser (see Section 2.7), MC = main clause, SubC = subordinate clause Observe that each time lower levels have been included in higher levels. You will no doubt have struggled trying to read the clause and sentence levels, because of the many details contained in them. It is for this reason that linguists have devised a method of representing syntactic structures in the form of so-called tree diagrams (also called simply trees or phrase markers). Using a tree diagram we can obtain a much clearer representation of (1):

54

More on Form: Clauses and Sentences

(21)

Notice that in (21) the subordinate clause is a constituent of the VP for a reason already mentioned: the that-clause specifies what it is that Tim thought, and it is therefore the Direct Object of the verb thought. Just like other DOs it is positioned inside the VP. The rank scale for (3) is shown in (22): (22) Tim thought that Kate believed that Greg is a liar. word level [N Tim] [V thought] [Comp that] [N Kate] [V believed] [Comp that] [N Greg] [V is] [Det a] [N liar] phrase level [NP [N Tim]] [VP [V thought] [Comp that] [NP [N Kate]] [VP [V believed] [Comp that] [NP [N Greg]] [VP [V is] [NP [Det a] [N liar]]]]] clause level [MC [NP [N Tim]] [VP [V thought] [SubC [Comp that] [NP [N Kate]] [VP [V believed] [SubC [Comp that] [NP [N Greg]] [VP [V is] [NP [Det a] [N liar]]]]]]]] sentence level [S/MC [NP [N Tim]] [VP [V thought] [SubC [Comp that] [NP [N Kate]] [VP [V believed] [SubC [Comp that] [NP [N Greg]] [VP [V is] [NP [Det a] [N liar]]]]]]]] Again, because of the wealth of details, especially in the higher levels of representation, the labelled bracketings are almost impossible to read. A tree diagram provides a better representation of (3):

55

English Syntax and Argumentation

(23)

In this tree both subordinate clauses are inside the VP, in a position adjacent to the verb that ‘selects’ them. In Section 4.4 we’ll discuss the geometry of tree diagrams in more detail. For now, it will be clear that they are a useful way of representing the hierarchical relations between the various constituent parts of a sentence. In the remainder of the book I will not explicitly label main clauses as ‘MC’ in tree diagrams, unless it’s relevant.

4.3 Clause types Clauses can be classified on the basis of their syntactic properties. There are four clause types: declarative, interrogative, imperative and exclamative clauses. 4.3.1 Declarative clauses Declarative clauses are the most straightforward clause type. They are syntactic configurations which usually display an unmarked (i.e. expected) order of the functional categories Subject, Predicator, Direct Object etc. This means that the Subject comes first in the sentence, followed by the Predicator, which in turn is followed by an Indirect Object (if there is one) and a Direct Object (again, if present), and possibly also one or more Adjuncts. Non-declarative clauses, by contrast, display marked (i.e. in some way out-of-the-ordinary) configurations. Here are two examples of declarative clauses: (24) My aunt likes books. (25) You haven’t closed the door.

56

More on Form: Clauses and Sentences

Declarative clauses are normally understood to make statements. However, it is important to realise that declaratives are not always used to make statements. Notice that the context in which (24) and (25) might be uttered affects their interpretation. For example, if I uttered (24) with a rising intonation, it would become a question: My aunt likes books? Similarly (25), while ostensibly a statement about the addressee not having closed the door, could, in a suitable context, be taken to be a directive (i.e. an order) to close the door. For example, if the speaker looks sternly from the addressee to the door, and then utters (25), the addressee is likely to interpret this as an order to close the door. Here too tone of voice makes all the difference. 4.3.2 Interrogative clauses Interrogative clauses are normally used to ask questions: (26) Can you see this? (27) Do you agree? (28) Will you dance with me? (29) What did you eat? (30) Why did you leave? (31) How did you open the door? (32) Do you want lasagne or spaghetti? (33) Is it red or is it blue? (34) Should I turn left or right? We will refer to the interrogatives in (26)–(28) as yes/no interrogatives because they elicit either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as answers, and to the interrogatives in (29)–(31) as open interrogatives or wh-interrogatives because they can potentially elicit an infinite range of answers. Thus, in answer to (26), (27) and (28) we could say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (but not, say, ‘Christmas Day’), and in answer to (29) we could say ‘bacon and eggs’, ‘cornflakes’, ‘toast and jam’ etc. (but not ‘yes’ or ‘no’). In answer to (30) I could give a variety of reasons why I left the party (‘because I was tired’, ‘because I can’t stand Tristram’ etc.), and in (31) I could give different explanations of how I opened the door. Yes/no interrogatives and open interrogatives display inversion of the Subject with an auxiliary verb (see Section 2.4). The open interrogatives are additionally characterised by the initial question words starting with the letters ‘wh-’. These are called wh-words. Notice that how is also considered a wh-word. In (32), (33) and (34) we have what are called alternative interrogatives: the possible answers to such interrogatives are given in the way the question is asked. So, the possible answers to (32) are ‘lasagne’ and ‘spaghetti’, to (33) they are ‘red’ and ‘blue’, and I can answer ‘left’ or ‘right’ to (34). As with the declaratives, there is no watertight one-to-one relationship between syntactic form and the use this form might be put to. Thus, although the interrogatives in (26)–(30) are difficult to interpret other than as questions, there are situations in which 57

English Syntax and Argumentation

interrogatives are not used to ask questions at all. The clause in (35) is an example of a rhetorical question: (35) How many times do I have to tell you not to lick your plate! A parent saying this to a child would not expect to get the answer ‘sixteen times’ (and if the child does give that answer it would be considered rude). Sentence (35) is clearly an enjoiner not to lick plates. Similarly, if someone utters (36), you do not take it to be a question enquiring about your ability to be quiet: (36) Can you be quiet? Instead, you take (36) to be a request (or order) to be quiet. Syntactically, (35) and (36) are interrogative (by virtue of the Subject-Auxiliary Inversion), but they have the import of directives. (Notice that in (36) we can add please, which is common in requests.) 4.3.3 Imperative clauses Imperative clauses are normally interpreted as directives, i.e. as someone telling someone else to (not) do something: (37) Go home. (38) Mind your own business. (39) Shut up. (40) Don’t eat that sandwich. Notice that what syntactically characterises imperative clauses is the fact that they do not normally contain Subjects (an example of an exception is Don’t you start whingeing as well!), and that their verb is in the base form. As with the declarative and interrogative clause types, sometimes imperatives do not receive the default directive interpretation. Consider the sentence below: (41) Take care of yourself. If someone says this to you, you’re hardly likely to interpret it as an order to look after yourself, but rather as a wish of some sort. 4.3.4 Exclamative clauses Exclamative clauses, like the open interrogatives, are formed with an initial wh-word: (42) What a load of nonsense he talks! (43) How absolutely disgraceful he looks! Recall that how is standardly also regarded as a wh-word. Exclamatives differ from interrogatives in that in the former, the wh-word usually functions as a modifying 58

More on Form: Clauses and Sentences

element inside a phrase (NP and AP respectively in the sentences above), whereas in the latter the wh-word is an NP, as (29) shows. There are cases where the wh-element is a modifier in interrogative sentences too, but this modifying element then occupies a slightly different syntactic position. Compare (44) and (45): (44) What book did he buy? (45) What a book he bought!

Interrogative (not *What a book did he buy?) Exclamative (not *What book he bought!)

In (44) there is only one modifying element (what), whereas in (45) there are two, namely what and the determinative a. Exclamative clauses are used almost exclusively as exclamations. They can, however, also be questions, as B’s response in (46) shows: (46) A: What an extraordinary lecturer Kate is! B: What an extraordinary lecturer who is? Additionally, we could take A’s exclamation to be making a statement (‘Kate is an extraordinary lecturer.’). 4.3.5 The pragmatics of the clause types It is important for you to realise that the terms declarative, interrogative, imperative and exclamative are syntactic labels that refer to clause types that have certain syntactic characteristics (e.g. Subject-Auxiliary Inversion in the case of interrogatives; no Subject in the case of imperatives etc.). The notions statement, question, directive and exclamation, by contrast, are pragmatic notions. Pragmatics is the study of the meaning of linguistic expressions in context. In other words, pragmatics is concerned with language use. With regard to each of the clause types discussed above, we have observed that they all have a typical use. This typical use is often called a speech act. Thus: syntax declaratives interrogatives imperatives exclamatives

are typically used to make are typically used to ask are typically used to issue are typically used to utter

pragmatics statements questions directives exclamations

I have highlighted the word ‘typically’ because there is no one-to-one relationship between the clause types and the uses that are made of them. Let’s take a closer look at questions. Be aware that this notion is used in its technical linguistic sense here. Questions need not always be syntactically interrogative. As we saw above, if we add a rising intonation to a declarative sentence, a question results, as has happened in (47), the question version of (25): (47) You haven’t closed the door? 59

English Syntax and Argumentation

This last example we refer to as a yes/no question. A yes/no question is an utterance that has the force of a question and elicits a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. Its syntactic form can be, but does not need to be, interrogative. Question (47), then, is an example of a declarative clause with the force, not of a statement, but that of a question. Be careful to distinguish yes/no questions from yes/no interrogatives. To reiterate: the former need not be syntactically interrogative; the latter, by definition, always are. We also have open questions. These are utterances that have the force of questions, which elicit a potentially infinite variety of answers. An example is (48), which might be uttered in disbelief at someone else having just said Tom likes sea urchins. (48) Tom likes WHAT? Notice that (48) is syntactically declarative, but pragmatically an open question. Finally, there are alternative questions: (49) You want beer or kir? This clause is syntactically declarative (compare the alternative interrogative Do you want beer or kir?). It could be used in a situation in which a person hasn’t quite heard what another person has said. For example, one speaker might utter (50)a to which another speaker might respond with (50)b. (50) a I would like some kir. b Sorry, I didn’t catch that. You want beer or kir? Again, (49) is syntactically declarative, as we have just seen, but pragmatically it is a question.

4.4 More on tree diagrams In this section I will discuss in more detail the ways in which we can represent syntactic structures. We’ve already come across the concept of tree diagrams as visual representations of hierarchical linguistic structures. We now need some terminology to talk about them in a more precise way. Consider first (51) below: (51)

In this abstract tree we call X, Y and Z nodes. We will say that X dominates Y and Z. What this means is that we can draw a line from the higher position X in the tree to the lower positions Y and Z. Furthermore, Y precedes Z. This means simply that Y occurs to the left of Z in the tree structure. Consider next the tree in (52):

60

More on Form: Clauses and Sentences

(52)

The relationships between X, Y and Z are the same, except that we can be a little more precise. In (52) X still dominates Y and Z, but it also dominates T, U, V and W. To distinguish the dominance relationship between X and Y/Z from that between X and T/U/V/W, let us draw a distinction between dominate and immediately dominate: X dominates all the nodes below it, but immediately dominates only Y and Z. Using family terminology, we say that X is the mother of Y and Z, and, conversely, that Y and Z are the daughters of X. Furthermore, Y and Z are sisters of each other. Analogous to the terminology concerning dominance, we say T precedes U, V and W, but immediately precedes only U. The new terminology allows us to be more precise about the notion constituent. We defined constituents in Chapter 1 as strings of one or more words that syntactically and semantically behave as a unit. Formally, we now define a constituent as follows: Y is a constituent of X if and only if X dominates Y. Thus, in (52) all of Y, Z, T, U, V and W are constituents of X. Notice in addition that the nodes T and U make up the constituent Y, and that V and W make up the constituent Z. We define immediate constituents as follows: Y is an immediate constituent of X if and only if X immediately dominates Y. Thus, Y and Z are immediate constituents of X; T and U are immediate constituents of Y; and V and W are immediate constituents of Z. In addition, consider (53) below: (53)

Here T, U and V together form the constituent Z, but T and U do not form a constituent. The reason for this is that: A set of nodes A forms a constituent B, if B dominates all and only the nodes of A. I will discuss the notion of constituency in much greater detail in Chapters 12 and 13.

61

English Syntax and Argumentation

EXERCISE Answer the following questions with either yes or no using the tree diagram in (52). Explain your answers. (i) Does T dominate U? (ii) Does Z dominate U? (iii) Does Z dominate W? (iv) Does Z immediately dominate W? (v) Does T precede W? (vi) Does T precede Y? (vii) Is U a sister of T? (viii) Is V a sister of T? (ix) Is V a daughter of X? (x) Is V a daughter of Z? (xi) Do T and U form a constituent? (xii) Do U and V form a constituent? (xiii) Do T, U, V, W form a constituent? (xiv) Do Y and T form a constituent?

Tree diagrams are a very clear way of representing syntactic structure graphically. They have a disadvantage, though, which is that they can take up a lot of space on the printed page, as the tree below for the sentence Tim thought that Kate believed the story shows. (54) (=(21))

One way of getting round this is to use triangles (sometimes called clothes hangers). We use these when we are not interested in the structure of a particular constituent. Using triangles we can also represent (54) as in (55), or as in (56): 62

More on Form: Clauses and Sentences

(55)

(56)

It is important for you to realise that tree diagrams are a different way of representing syntactic structures from labelled bracketings, but they are otherwise equivalent.

EXERCISE ‘Translate’ the following labelled bracketings into tree diagrams (cc = coordinating conjunction). (i) [AP [AP old] [cc and] [AP useless]] (ii) [NP [NP a computer] [cc and] [NP a keyboard]] (iii) [AP [AP pretty stupid] [cc and] [AP quite eager]] (iv) [VP [VP likes tea] [cc and] [VP hates coffee]] (v) [PP [PP on the table] [cc and] [PP in the cupboard]] (vi) [AdvP [AdvP wilfully] [cc and] [AdvP mercilessly]] (vii) [S [S They arrived at 10 a.m.] [cc and] [S they left at 6 p.m.]] (viii) [S [S we will not offer this student a place] [cc and] [S we can recommend a college that will]]

To round off this section I will briefly discuss the question of how the grammatical functions (GFs) of constituents in sentences are represented in tree diagrams. You may already have noticed that they aren’t. We will assume that functions can be ‘read off ’ tree diagrams by looking at the structural configuration of the constituents. The GF of Subject can then be defined as the NP immediately dominated by the S-node, notated as [NP, S], whereas the GF of Direct Object is an NP immediately dominated by a VP, notated [NP, VP]: 63

English Syntax and Argumentation

(57)

Let us now take a step back and see what we have achieved so far. In Chapters 2 and 3 we took a preliminary look at the elements that make up sentences in English (word classes and phrases) and at the way these elements function. In this chapter the nature of these building blocks has been scrutinised in more depth by looking at clauses and sentences. We also took a closer look at the way in which we can represent sentences in tree diagrams. Chapter 5 relates the function and form levels in a more systematic way than has been done so far.

KEY CONCEPTS clause clause types declarative clause/statement exclamative clause/exclamation imperative clause/directive interrogative clause/question Dominate immediately dominate finite/nonfinite clause intonation main clause matrix clause

node daughter node mother node sister node phrase markers pragmatics precede rank scale small clause (SC) subordinate clause tree diagram wh-words yes/no interrogative yes/no question

EXERCISES 1. Consider the following sentence: I suggest that we have some lunch now now. w. True or false? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

64

This sentence contains only one clause. This sentence contains two VPs. The DO of suggestt is an NP. The matrix clause is nonfinite.

More on Form: Clauses and Sentences

2. Produce labelled bracketings for the trees below. Underline the Heads.

3. Identify the subordinate clause(s) in the sentences below. Are the subordinate clauses finite or nonfinite? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

She believes that he is devious. I made her laugh. Sara concluded that Jamie heard that the story was untrue. She wanted me to sell my bike.

4. Using labelled bracketings, analyse the following sentences at the word, phrase, clause and sentence levels, as in Section 4.2. Then produce tree diagrams. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

The giraffe ducked. Television destroys relationships. Freddy sent the doctor a postcard. I believe that Geri adores gherkins. I know that Krum likes New York.

5. Assign the following sentences to one of the clause types. Can they be used in situations other than the ones they are typically used for? Explain your answers. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

You may leave. Could you be quiet, please? Enjoy your meal! This is a pavement! (Imagine a pedestrian saying this to a cyclist using the pavement.) (v) Who likes right-wing dictators? (vi) It’s so hot in here. 6. In Chapter 3 we referred to the italicised portions in the sentences below as interrogative tags. In earlier editions of this book I used the label tag question. In view of the discussion in this chapter, why is this perhaps not such a good label?

65

English Syntax and Argumentation

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

This teacher is a genius, isn’t she? The kids have arrived safely, haven’t theyy? Your brother can be serious, can’t he? Our parents should inform the police, shouldn’t they? theyy?

*7. Identify the correct tree diagram for sentence (i). What’s wrong with the other trees? (i) Doctors cure patients.

*8 Huddleston and Pullum (2002) recognise five clause types: declarative, open interrogative, closed interrogative, imperative and exclamative. Why do you think they prefer to recognise two different types of interrogative clauses?

66

More on Form: Clauses and Sentences

FURTHER READING Clause types are sometimes also called sentence types. However, as Huddleston and Pullum (2002) make clear, the system of classification really applies to clauses, both superordinate and subordinate. Tree diagrams are found mostly in more theoretically oriented approaches to language.

67

THE GRAMMATICAL FORM GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION INTERFACE

5

In Chapters 2–4 we discussed the various components that make up clauses and sentences in English. We were concerned with two levels of analysis. First we examined the grammatical form of the constituent parts of sentences. Remember that this notion refers to word classes (noun, adjective, verb etc.), phrases (NP, AP, VP etc.), clauses (matrix clause, subordinate clause) and sentences. Then we investigated the concept of grammatical function, which refers to notions such as Subject, Direct Object, Adjunct etc. Because I dealt with grammatical form and grammatical function in separate chapters, you may have got the impression that these levels of analysis are quite distinct and unrelated. Quite the contrary! The interrelationships between grammatical form and grammatical function are of immense importance, and a good grasp of the issues involved is essential to a proper understanding of sentence structure. This is why I will devote an entire chapter to a detailed discussion of how we can link these two levels more systematically than we have done so far.

5.1

Grammatical form–grammatical function relationships

Before turning to a discussion of the linguistic notions of grammatical form and grammatical function, let’s first consider the general notion ‘function’ in connection with ordinary three-dimensional objects. Rather superficially, an observation we can make is that most objects perform a certain practical function. Consider, for example, a pencil. What is its function? Depending on the person you are, your circumstances, your interests, your profession etc. you may give a variety of answers to this question; e.g. ‘writing’ (if you’re a student), ‘drawing’ (if you’re an artist), or perhaps ‘designing’ (if you’re an architect). Or take a rather more complex object, a personal computer. Again we might ask: what is its function? There is no uniform answer. We can use a computer for word processing, making calculations, sending email messages etc. Notice that as regards objects and the functions we can carry out with them, the reverse situation also holds: for most functions that we may want to perform, a variety of objects can be used. For example, the function ‘transportation’ can be performed by a car, a train, a bus, a boat, a bicycle etc. The point is that there is no one-to-one relationship between a particular function (writing, drawing, word processing etc.) and the object used (pencil, computer) to carry out that function. Having said that, of course it is true that there is often a salient function for any one object. For example, the salient function of buses is ‘transportation’. 68

The Grammatical Form–Grammatical Function Interface

For present purposes it is important for you to see that in language too there is a lack of a one-to-one relationship between the various grammatical forms we encounter and the grammatical functions that they perform. The converse also holds: a particular grammatical function may be performed by different grammatical forms. This is why we need to distinguish between the two levels of analysis, grammatical form and grammatical function. It is time now to become a little more concrete and see what exactly is meant when we say that there is no unique relationship between grammatical form and grammatical function in language. In the remainder of this chapter I will discuss the several ways in which each grammatical function can be realised.

5.2

Realisations of the Subject

Recall that we can identify the Subject of a sentence by asking: ‘Who or what carried out the action denoted by the verb?’ ‘Who or what is this sentence about?’ So, in a simple sentence like Fred eats his breakfast in bed we can identify the expression Fred as the Subject, because this NP refers to the individual who is doing the eating, and because the sentence can be said to be about him. We saw in Chapter 3 that this semantic characterisation of the notion Subject was not enough, and we therefore also characterised Subjects in terms of the kinds of syntactic structures they occur in. In most cases, however, asking the two simple questions above leads to a correct identification of the Subject. In this section we will concern ourselves with the following question: Which are the particular forms that Subjects can assume? We will see that Subjects can be realised by the following range of phrases and clauses: noun phrases, prepositional phrases, finite clauses and nonfinite clauses, and these are discussed below. 5.2.1

NPs functioning as Subject

When we discussed Subjects in Chapter 3 we saw that they are typically noun phrases: (1) [NP The hedgehog] ate the carrot. (2) [NP A rat] bit my toe. (3) [NP This shoe] hurts me. (4) [NP Teachers] never lie. However, Subjects can also be realised by other phrase types. 5.2.2

PPs functioning as Subject

In (5)–(8) the Subjects are realised as prepositional phrases: (5) [PP Under the stairs] was a safe area to be during the war. (6) [PP Outside the fridge] is a bad place to keep milk. 69

English Syntax and Argumentation

(7) [PP After Saturday] would be a good time to go away for a few days. (8) [PP Between eleven and midnight] suits him. Notice that we can turn each of these sentences into interrogative structures: Was under the stairs a safe area to be during the war? Is outside the fridge a bad place to keep milk? Would after Saturday be a good time to go away for a few days? Does between eleven and midnight suit him? There are some restrictions on PPs as Subjects in English. First, they are usually phrases that specify a location, as in (5) and (6), or a time interval, as in (7) and (8). Second, the lexical (main) verb of the sentence is often, although not exclusively (cf. (8)), a form of the verb be. 5.2.3 Finite clauses functioning as Subject Consider next some examples of finite clauses functioning as Subject: (9) [That he will go to New York soon] is obvious. (10) [That the people adore her] will no doubt boost her ratings. (11) [That this policy is ludicrous] doesn’t need to be demonstrated. (12) [What the terrorists said] puzzled the police. (13) [Whoever emerges as the winner] will earn a lot of money. (14) [Why she consented] remains a mystery. The bracketed Subject clauses in (9)–(11) are introduced by a conjunction, while those in (12)–(14) are introduced by a wh-word, i.e. a word that begins with the letters wh; e.g. who, what, where, why etc. (see Section 4.3.2). These clauses are called wh-clauses. The syntax of wh-clauses needs special attention, and we’ll therefore return to them in Section 9.5. 5.2.4

Nonfinite clauses functioning as Subject

Nonfinite clauses too can perform the function of Subject. Recall from Chapter 4 that such clauses can be of five types: to-infinitive clauses, bare infinitive clauses, -ing participle clauses, -ed participle clauses and small clauses. Three of these types of clauses can perform the function of Subject: to-infinitive clauses, -ing participle clauses and small clauses. I will discuss them in turn. 5.2.4.1 To-infinitive clauses functioning as Subject In (15)–(18) the to-infinitive clauses take a Subject of their own. This Subject is always preceded by for. with a Subject of their own: (15) [For Judith to buy that house] would spell disaster. (16) [For us to understand the issues] requires a major mental effort. 70

The Grammatical Form–Grammatical Function Interface

(17) [For Janet to go to college] would be a good idea. (18) [For Karl to visit art galleries] would not be desirable. In (19)–(22) the Subject clauses do not have their own Subject. To-infinitive clauses without a Subject can be of two types: they are either not introduced at all, as in (19)–(22), or they are introduced by a wh-word, as in (23)–(26), in the same way as in (13) and (14), except that this time we are dealing with verbs that do not carry tense. without a Subject of their own: (19) [To be a good teacher] is more difficult than people think. (20) [To see her] is to love her. (21) [To surrender our arms] will seem cowardly. (22) [To break down this fence] could lead to a conflict with the neighbours. without a Subject of their own, introduced by a wh-word: (23) [What to read during the holidays] is the question all students are asking. (24) [Who to ask for permission] seems unclear. (25) [Where to sleep in this town] will not be an easy problem to solve. (26) [Whether to teach grammar or not to schoolchildren] is a hotly debated issue. Notice that where the Subject clause has no Subject of its own, one is usually implied and can easily be inferred. Thus, in (19) the implied Subject of the bracketed clause is someone: For someone to be a good teacher is more difficult than people think. 5.2.4.2 -ing participle clauses functioning as Subject Sentences (27)–(35) instantiate Subjects in the form of -ing participle clauses, both with a Subject of their own, and without a Subject of their own. with a Subject of their own: (27) [Otto playing the guitar] has made the whole family happier. (28) [Pete breaking the rules] is unacceptable. (29) [Students walking on the roof ] poses a safety risk. (30) [Damien fooling around] embarrasses his friends. (31) [George buying all those books] will cost his father a fortune. without a Subject of their own: (32) [Going on holiday] always creates tensions. (33) [Running a business] is hard work. 71

English Syntax and Argumentation

(34) [Swimming in this lake] will make you ill. (35) [Refusing to help the needy] is selfish. As with the to-infinitive clauses, if there is no Subject, it can be inferred from the context or from one’s knowledge of the world. 5.2.4.3 Small clauses functioning as Subject In (36) the Subject is a small clause (SC). You will remember from Chapter 4 that SCs are clauses without an overt verb, but in which the verb be is implied. SC Subject clauses are rare. They always have a Subject of their own. (36) [The kitchen free of cockroaches] is a welcome prospect.

5.3

Realisation of the Predicate and Predicator

Recall that the Predicate in a sentence consists of everything except the Subject. Thus, in (37) Eric is the Subject and lost his keys yesterday is the Predicate. Inside the Predicate, we distinguish the Predicator (the verb lose), the Direct Object (the NP his keys) and an Adjunct (the noun phrase yesterday): (37) Eric lost his keys yesterday. Predicates are verb phrases, and Predicators are always lexical verbs.

5.4

Realisations of the Direct Object

Direct Objects are usually constituents which refer to an entity that can be said to undergo the action denoted by the verb. The way we put it in Chapter 3 was to say that Direct Objects typically have the semantic role of Patient. A simple way of determining what is the Direct Object in a particular sentence is to ask: ‘Who or what is affected by the action denoted by the verb?’ Thus, in (37) if we ask: ‘What is affected by the process of losing?’, the answer is his keys. This NP is therefore the DO of the sentence. Now we must address the question how DOs can be realised syntactically. Direct Objects can be realised by the following range of phrases and clauses: noun phrases, prepositional phrases, finite clauses and nonfinite clauses. 5.4.1 NPs functioning as Direct Object Let’s start with some simple examples of NPs as Direct Objects: (38) Monica admires [NP the president]. (39) Ralph enjoys [NP her company]. (40) William lit [NP the barbecue]. (41) Nina described [NP the event]. 72

The Grammatical Form–Grammatical Function Interface

5.4.2

PPs functioning as Direct Object

Prepositional phrases as DO are even rarer than prepositional phrases as Subject, but some possible structures are shown in (42) and (43): (42) Speaker A: Where will the new discotheque be built? Speaker B: I don’t know, but the council rejected [PP behind the church]. (43) Speaker A: Are you going on holiday before or after Easter? Speaker B: I prefer [PP before Easter]. Like PPs as Subjects, PPs as Direct Objects tend to be locative phrases or phrases specifying a timespan. Let us now turn to examples of Direct Objects in the form of clauses. 5.4.3

Finite clauses functioning as Direct Object

First, I will give some examples of finite DO clauses. In (44)–(47) we have that-clauses as Direct Objects, and in (48)–(51) we have wh-clauses. 5.4.3.1

That-clauses functioning as Direct Object

(44) The government believes [that the voters are stupid]. (45) She admits [that she ignored the red light]. (46) Maggie doubts [that her boyfriend will ever change]. (47) We regret [that we appointed you]. 5.4.3.2

Finite wh-clauses functioning as Direct Object

(48) He knows [what she means]. (49) He explained [who would be in charge of the investigation]. (50) I don’t remember [why Paul said that]. (51) They finally decided [where they will send their child to school ]. 5.4.4

Nonfinite clauses functioning as Direct Object

Nonfinite clauses functioning as Direct Object can be realised by all five types of nonfinite clause: to-infinitive clauses, bare infinitive clauses, -ing participle clauses, -ed participle clauses and small clauses. We’ll start with examples of to-infinitive clauses functioning as Direct Object, both with a Subject of their own, and without a Subject of their own. 5.4.4.1

To-infinitive clauses functioning as Direct Object

with a Subject of their own: (52) Ann considers [Helen to be an excellent director]. (53) They believe [the tabloid newspapers to contain nothing but smut]. 73

English Syntax and Argumentation

(54) The company expects [its employees to dress smartly]. (55) Ivan wants [the train to depart]. In American English for is possible in the subordinate clause (see also Section 2.7). To-infinitive DO clauses without a Subject of their own can be of two types: either they are not introduced at all, as in (56)–(59), or they are introduced by a wh-word, as in (60)–(63): without a Subject of their own: (56) Gary wants [to leave]. (57) We hope [to see you soon]. (58) They expect [to leave the country within twenty-four hours]. (59) She proposed [to open a restaurant in London]. without a Subject of their own, introduced by a wh-word: (60) He forgot [what to say to the examiners]. (61) The dentist couldn’t decide [who to see next]. (62) They told their family [when to come over]. (63) You should know [how to do arithmetic without a calculator]. You will remember from Section 5.2.4, when we were looking at nonfinite clauses functioning as Subject without a Subject of their own, that a Subject was nevertheless recoverable from the context, or from our knowledge of the world. Thus, in (21), repeated here as (64), the understood Subject of the subordinate clause is ‘us’: ‘for us to surrender our arms will seem cowardly’: (64) [To surrender our arms] will seem cowardly. We are faced with a similar situation in the case of nonfinite Direct Object clauses without a Subject, except that now a Subject is recoverable from the main clause. So, the implied Subject of each of the subordinate clauses in (56)–(63) is the Subject of the main clause. To illustrate this, consider (56) above: here, it is clear that Gary is the Subject both of the ‘wanting’ and of the ‘leaving’. Let us turn now to bare infinitive clauses as Direct Objects. 5.4.4.2 Bare infinitive clauses functioning as Direct Object You will recall that bare infinitive clauses contain an infinitive without the particle to. Bare infinitive clauses as DO always contain a Subject: (65) We saw [the sun rise]. (66) Rick could hear [his tutor rage with anger]. (67) She made [her boyfriend cry]. (68) I let [the situation pass]. 74

The Grammatical Form–Grammatical Function Interface

The verbs that take bare infinitive clauses as DO are mostly verbs of perception (see, hear) and so-called causative verbs, i.e. verbs that denote a process of causation (make, let). There are three remaining types of Direct Object clause: -ing participle clauses, -ed participle clauses and small clauses. 5.4.4.3 -ing participle clauses functioning as Direct Object Like to-infinitive clauses, Direct Object -ing participle clauses can occur both with and without a Subject of their own. Where the subordinate clause has no Subject, it is interpreted as being the same as the main clause Subject. with a Subject of their own: (69) I heard [ Jamie singing in the bath]. (70) The witness saw [someone running away]. (71) They remember [the cast rehearsing for days]. (72) We could smell [something burning]. without a Subject of their own: (73) She abhors [eating meat]. (74) Willy intended [registering for the exams]. (75) Ray regrets [buying a sports car]. (76) I can’t imagine [travelling to Moscow]. 5.4.4.4 -ed participle clauses functioning as Direct Object Direct Object clauses can also come in the form of an -ed participle clause. Like bare infinitive DO clauses, -ed participle clauses always take a Subject: (77) We had [the prisoners jailed ]. (78) She watched [the ship moored]. (79) I need [my watch repaired]. (80) They found [the front door locked]. 5.4.4.5 Small clauses functioning as Direct Object Finally, here are some examples of SCs functioning as Direct Object: (81) Martin considers [SC Tim a creep]. = (16) of Chapter 4 (82) Larry judges [SC the head of department a genius]. (83) Phil deems [SC Henry foolish]. = (17) of Chapter 4 (84) Katie thinks [SC us clever]. 75

English Syntax and Argumentation

5.5

Realisations of the Indirect Object

The function of Indirect Object was characterised in Chapter 3 as the Goal/Receiver or Beneficiary of the activity denoted by the verb. Thus, in The boss paid Roland a lot of money the NP Roland is the Indirect Object because it is the Goal/Receiver of the paying activity. Indirect Objects are very restricted in their realisation. They are almost always noun phrases. Occasionally they are wh-clauses. 5.5.1 NPs functioning as Indirect Object (85) She told [NP her brother] a lie. (86) Gertrude gave [NP her friend] a birthday present. (87) We sent [NP the committee] an angry letter. (88) The curator of the museum showed [NP the party] some rare paintings. 5.5.2

Wh-clauses functioning as Indirect Object

(89) Sean told whoever wanted to hear it his story.

5.6

Realisations of Adjuncts

From Chapter 3 you will remember that Adjuncts are constituents that tell you more about the how, when, where or why of the activity or situation expressed by the sentences they occur in. Thus, in I left London on Saturday the PP on Saturday is an Adjunct, because it tells you when I left London. Let’s now take a look at the ways in which Adjuncts can be realised. There are no fewer than six ways. Adjuncts can be adverb phrases, prepositional phrases, noun phrases, finite clauses, nonfinite clauses and small clauses. 5.6.1

AdvPs functioning as Adjunct

Let’s start with some examples of Adjuncts realised as adverb phrases: (90) He cleaned the house [AdvP quite cheerfully]. (91) The company [AdvP officially] denied all responsibility. (92) He [AdvP urgently] needed to see a doctor. (93) [AdvP Repeatedly] they had their car stolen. Adjuncts realised as AdvPs can express a variety of meanings: in (90) quite cheerfully communicates the ‘manner’ in which the cleaning of the house was carried out, while the 76

The Grammatical Form–Grammatical Function Interface

AdvPs in (91)–(93) express ‘viewpoint’, ‘degree’ and ‘frequency’. Notice the various positions the Adjuncts can occupy.

5.6.2

PPs functioning as Adjunct

Adjunct-PPs too can express a multiplicity of semantic notions: ‘manner’ (94), ‘location’ (95), ‘instrument’ (96) and ‘time’ (97), among others: (94) Otto cooked his evening meal [PP in a rush]. (95) We met [PP outside Paris]. (96) [PP With a penknife], Frank cut the bread. (97) They always drink sherry [PP before dinner]. 5.6.3

NPs functioning as Adjunct

NPs as Adjunct usually specify ‘time when’: (98) Helen discovered the Italian restaurant [NP yesterday]. (99) The crisis began [NP last year]. (100) He resigned [NP the month before last]. (101) He wants me to do it [NP this second]. We now turn to clauses that function as Adjuncts.

5.6.4

Finite clauses functioning as Adjunct

We begin with finite clauses introduced by a subordinator (see Section 2.7 if you’ve forgotten what a subordinator is). Again, as with AdvPs, PPs and NPs functioning as Adjuncts, there is a wide variety of meanings that such clauses can express. The most important of these are ‘time’ (introduced by as soon as, before, since, till, until, when, whenever, while, among others), ‘reason’ (introduced by because, as or since), ‘condition’ (introduced by if, even if or unless), ‘result’ (introduced by so or so that), and ‘purpose’ (introduced by so that or in order that). Here are some examples. Notice that the Adjunct clause can be in sentence-initial or sentence-final position: (102) They will be cooking the meal, [when we arrive]. (103) [While Francis was watching TV ], Paul was peeling the potatoes. (104) Gay doesn’t like Mark, [because he gives her the creeps]. (105) [Since he never used his card], the library cancelled his membership. (106) We’ll go to Paris, [if you promise to take me out to dinner]. (107) [Unless you object], I’ll keep my shoes on. (108) Tell Nelly to hurry up, [so that we can go out]. 77

English Syntax and Argumentation

(109) [So she doesn’t have to carry around her spectacles], Emily wears contact lenses. (110) She’ll give the money to a charity, [in order that they will spend it on a good cause]. (111) [In order that his son might take over the shop], Jack retired.

EXERCISE Classify the bracketed Adjunct clauses above in terms of the semantic notions of ‘time’, ‘reason’, ‘result’, ‘purpose’ or ‘condition’.

Some subordinators can introduce Adjunct clauses of more than one semantic type. Consider the sentences below, both of which contain an Adjunct clause introduced by since: (112) Charlie has never been back, [since he last visited us in the spring]. (113) We didn’t ask Neil to come, [since nobody likes him].

EXERCISE Determine which semantic type of Adjunct clause we are dealing with in sentences (112) and (113) above.

In (112) the clause introduced by since is a temporal Adjunct clause. It tells us that Henry hasn’t been back since the occasion on which he visited us in the spring. In (113), by contrast, the since-clause gives the reason why Neil wasn’t asked to come. We turn now to nonfinite Adjunct clauses. 5.6.5

Nonfinite clauses functioning as Adjunct

All types of nonfinite clause can function as an Adjunct: to-infinitive clauses, bare infinitive clauses, -ing participle clauses, -ed participle clauses and small clauses. They can express the same range of meanings as their finite counterparts: ‘time’, ‘reason’, ‘purpose’ etc. 5.6.5.1

To-infinitive clauses functioning as Adjunct

with a Subject of their own: (114) We need some music [for us to enjoy the evening]. (115) [For Marie to pass her driving test] she will need to take many more lessons.

78

The Grammatical Form–Grammatical Function Interface

(116) Catherine will need to work harder [for her to reach her life’s ambition]. (117) [For Rick and Rachel to appreciate oysters] they will need to overcome their revulsion for eating raw fish. without a Subject of their own: (118) Alex replaced the lock on the door [in order to make the house more secure]. (119) [So as to move about more easily], Robert bought himself a car. (120) You will need to travel to the United States [to hear him lecture]. (121) [To produce an essay every two weeks] you will have to work very hard. Notice that in (118)–(121) the Subjects of the Adjunct clauses are interpreted as being the same as the Subjects of the main clauses. 5.6.5.2 Bare infinitive clauses functioning as Adjunct These are very rare. Only bare infinitive clauses introduced by rather than and sooner than can function as Adjunct. They have no Subject. (122) [Rather than sell the painting] Ike preferred to destroy it. (123) Ray wants to travel by train [sooner than fly]. 5.6.5.3

-ing participle clauses functioning as Adjunct

with a Subject of their own: (124) [The streets being completely empty], Jackie preferred to take a cab. (125) Sally stared out of the window, [her thoughts drifting away dreamily]. (126) [His dog scampering beside him], Leonard walked home. (127) Henry will send the manuscript of his novel to a publisher, [his wife persuading him that it was a good piece of work]. without a Subject of their own: (128) [Working on his essay late], Tom was quickly becoming tired. (129) Bob talked to his girlfriend on the phone, [watching TV at the same time]. (130) [Standing on a table], Dawn addressed the crowd. (131) Gus got off the train, [buttoning up his coat]. The Subjects of the Adjunct clauses are understood as being the same as the Subjects of the main clauses.

79

English Syntax and Argumentation

5.6.5.4

-ed participle clauses functioning as Adjunct

with a Subject of their own: (132) [The attack averted], the people of the town could come out of hiding. (133) We were all excited, [the plan accepted by the government]. (134) [The trees chopped down], the park looked miserable. (135) She went home, [all the work completed]. without a Subject of their own: (136) [Disgusted by what he had witnessed], Frank left the party. (137) Meg joined Amnesty International, [convinced that this would bene-fit political prisoners]. (138) [Formulated clearly], this form will cause no problems. (139) She died in her car, [suffocated by exhaust fumes]. 5.6.5.5

Small clauses functioning as Adjunct

(140) He is from a wealthy background, [SC his father a businessman]. (141) [SC The doctor ill], we had no-one to look after my sister. (142) She went back to her homeland, [SC her mind free of hate]. (143) [SC The police unrepentant], we took them to court.

5.7

Motivating the analyses in this chapter

For each of the example sentences in this chapter I have indicated a particular analysis, using labelled bracketings. What I have not done so far is justify why a particular analysis was chosen in preference to another. For example, take sentence (52), repeated here for convenience: (144) Ann considers [Helen to be an excellent director]. The analysis of constructions like this is controversial. In (144) I take the string Helen to be an excellent director to be the Direct Object of the verb consider, and Helen to be the Subject of the DO clause. You may have wondered why I haven’t analysed Helen as the DO instead. There are linguists who would argue that such an analysis is to be preferred (see the Further Reading section at the end of the chapter). However, there are a number of reasons for rejecting the view that Helen is a Direct Object, and in favour of adopting the analysis indicated in (144). Part IV of this book will cover the area of verb complementation extensively, and we will discuss the justification for analyses like (144) 80

The Grammatical Form–Grammatical Function Interface

in detail. Anticipating that discussion, let us here take a brief look at one of the arguments in favour of the bracketing in (144). Remember that one way of finding out what is the Direct Object of a sentence is to ask: ‘Who or what was affected by the action denoted by the verb?’ Thus, if we have the simple sentence Joe kicked the stone, and we ask: ‘Who or what was affected by the kicking?’, the answer is the stone.

EXERCISE With regard to (144) above, think for a moment about the question of who or what is affected by the ‘considering’ that Ann is engaged in. In other words, what is the answer to the question: ‘Who or what is Ann considering?’

The answer is not Helen: Ann is not considering Helen as such, she is considering a proposition, namely the proposition ‘that Helen is an excellent director’. This means that the DO of (144) is the nonfinite to-infinitive clause. Consider next (145): (145) Larry considers [my brother a genius]. The analysis of sentences like (145) is also controversial because linguists do not agree about the functional status of the NP my brother that follows the verb. Some grammarians would argue that it is a Direct Object, while others would say that it is the Subject of a small clause, as in (146): (146) Larry considers [SC my brother a genius]. The analysis of (145) as in (146) may seem novel to you, but if you think for a moment what (145) actually means, then perhaps the reason for this analysis will become clear. In (145) Larry is not considering a person (my brother); what he is considering is a proposition, namely the proposition ‘that my brother is a genius’. For this reason (147), which contains a finite that-clause as Direct Object, is a perfect paraphrase of (145): (147) Larry considers [clause that my brother is a genius]. Because Larry is not considering a person in (145), but a proposition, the DO of the verb consider is not the NP my brother but the (verbless) small clause my brother a genius. In further support of the analysis in (146), observe that, in addition to (147), we can paraphrase (145) as in (148): (148) Larry considers [clause my brother to be a genius]. The analyses proposed in this chapter will require a more detailed justification. As noted above, this will be provided in Part IV.

81

English Syntax and Argumentation

To end this chapter, Table 5.1 below summarises the main grammatical form – grammatical function relationships (the functions Predicate and Predicator have been left out). The central concern of this chapter has been to demonstrate that there exists no oneto-one relationship between grammatical form and grammatical function in language, and this is why the two levels of analysis need to be kept apart. With the exception of Predicators, all grammatical functions can be performed by different form classes, and most form classes can perform a variety of grammatical functions, as Table 5.1 shows. Table 5.1 Grammatical form – grammatical function relationships Grammatical function Grammatical form

Subject

Direct Object Indirect Object

Adjunct

noun phrase (NP)

✓

✓

✓

✓

adjective phrase (AP)

–

–

–

✓*

prepositional phrase (PP)

✓

✓

–

✓

adverb phrase (AdvP)

–

–

–

✓

finite clauses that-clause wh-clause clauses introduced by because, while etc.

✓ ✓ –

✓ ✓ –

– ✓ –

– – ✓

✓ – ✓ – ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

– – – – –

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

nonfinite clauses to-infinitive clause bare infinitive clause -ing participle clause -ed participle clause small clause (SC)

* Although not discussed in this chapter, I will argue in Chapter 7 that APs that modify nouns are also Adjuncts.

KEY CONCEPTS grammatical form and grammatical function the syntactic realisation of the grammatical functions Subject Predicate and Predicator Direct Object

82

Indirect Object Adjunct the lack of a one-to-one relationship between grammatical form and grammatical function.

The Grammatical Form–Grammatical Function Interface

EXERCISES 1. Identify the grammatical functions of the italicised constituents in the following sentences, and then specify how they are syntactically realised: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x)

The doctorr uses a bicycle to get to work. What to do at this pointt is a big mystery. They sold the headmasterr faulty computers. We deem her very competentt. Gleefullyy, Henry ran out of the house. Jake left because he was angryy. He leftt his car in front of the cinema. He doesn’t understand what he wants. cry. y. I would hate to see you cry The policeman made me pay the fine.

2. Think of two examples of each of the following: A sentence with its Subject realised as a clause. A sentence with its Direct Object realised as a clause. A sentence with its Indirect Object realised as a clause. A sentence with an Adjunct realised as a clause. 3. Consider the following sentence The monks regularly brew beer on their premises. True or false? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

The sentence contains two Adjuncts. w functions as Predicator. The verb brew The Subject is monks. The Direct Object is beer on their premises.

4. Consider the following sentence After seeing the film we had a meal in a restaurant. True or false? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

The VP of this sentence is had d. After seeing the film is the matrix clause. In a restaurantt is a PP. A meal in a restaurantt is a DO. The film is a DO.

5. Identify the clauses in the following examples (don’t forget the main clause). Then assign grammatical function labels to all the subordinate clauses (Subject, Direct Object etc.) and give them a grammatical form label (e.g. finite thatt-clause, nonfinite to-infinitive clause etc.): (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

We all think that Dan is a bore. She hates to go to the beach. Having dressed herself, Rachel thought that she would be late for work. When he was young, Pete liked to go to the movies. I consider him dim.

83

English Syntax and Argumentation

*6. Draw trees for the following sentences: (i) He claims that he knows the answer. (ii) They believe that she thinks that he eats meat. *7. Table 5.1 suggests that Indirect Objects cannot be realised as PPs. But what about the PP to Phill in (i) below? (i)

Gerry gave the book to Phil. Phill.

*8. In previous editions of this book I allowed for adjective phrases, adverb phrases and bare infinitive clauses to function as Subject, and I used the examples below to illustrate these possibilities: (i) (ii) (iii)

[AP Restless] is what you would call him. [AdvP Cautiouslyy] is how I would suggest you do it. [bare infinitive clause Party the night awayy] is a nice thing to do.

However, the italicised strings in these examples are best not regarded as Subjects. Why not? Review Section 3.1 to remind yourself of the distributional properties of Subjects.

FURTHER READING The grammatical form – grammatical function interface is dealt with extensively in Aarts and Aarts (1982); see especially Chapter 8. Clauses that perform a grammatical function in sentence structure (other than as Adjunct) are arguably NPs. This is particularly true for strings like whoever wanted to hear itt in Sean told d whoever wanted to hear itt his storyy (= d what she wants (= (viii) of Exercise 1 (89)), or what she wants in She doesn’t understand above). The latter are called free relative clauses (Quirk et al. 1985) or fused relative clauses (Huddleston and Pullum 2002). The analysis in which the NP following considerr in (144) above is regarded as a Direct Object can be found in Quirk et al. (1985), Huddleston and Pullum (2002) and Aarts (2011). On small clauses, see Aarts (1992).

84

PART II ELABORATION

85

86

PREDICATES, ARGUMENTS AND THEMATIC ROLES

6

In this chapter we will look at an area of grammar where syntax interacts with semantics.

6.1 Predicates and arguments Up to now, we have described each sentence of English in two separate ways: from the point of view of grammatical form and from the point of view of grammatical function. Consider (1) below: (1) The crocodile devoured a doughnut. This sentence consists of a Subject (the crocodile), a Predicator (devoured) and a Direct Object (a doughnut). Both the Subject and Direct Object are realised by noun phrases, whereas the Predicator is realised by a verb. Let us now consider (1) from a different angle. Notice that the verb devour cannot form a sentence on its own: it requires the presence of other elements to form a meaningful proposition. As will be clear from (2) and (3) below, devour requires that it be specified who was engaged in the act of devouring something, and what it was that was being devoured: (2) *Devoured a doughnut. (3) *The crocodile devoured. In (2) there is no Subject, whereas (3) lacks a Direct Object. Both situations lead to ungrammaticality. We will refer to elements that require the specification of the participants in the proposition expressed as predicates (e.g. devour), and we will refer to the participants themselves as arguments (the crocodile, a doughnut). Below you will find some further examples of sentences containing argument-taking predicates. Each time the predicates are in bold and the arguments are in italics: (4) Henry smiled. (5) The police investigated the allegation. (6) Sara gave [Pete] [a parcel]. (7) Melany bet [Brian] [a pound] [that he would lose the game of squash]. Sentence (4) has a predicate that takes only one argument. We will call such predicates one-place (monadic) predicates. Sentence (5) is like (1) above: the predicate investigate requires the presence of two arguments, so it is a two-place (dyadic) predicate. In (6) the verb give takes three arguments, and is called a three-place (triadic) predicate. Sentences 87

English Syntax and Argumentation

like (7) are exceptional in English; a verb like bet can be said to take four arguments: three NP arguments (Melany, Brian, a pound) and one clausal argument (that he would lose the game of squash). In each of the cases above, we refer to the arguments inside the VP (i.e. following the verb) as internal arguments and the Subject argument as the external argument. It is important to see that the semantic notions one-place predicate, two-place predicate and three-place predicate correspond to the syntactic notions intransitive verb, transitive verb and ditransitive verb. Two caveats are in order at this point. First, you may remember that we already used the term Predicate in Chapter 3. We said that we can subdivide sentences into Subjects and Predicates. In the sense of Chapter 3, Subject and Predicate are grammatical function labels; the term Predicate refers to everything in a sentence except the Subject, i.e. the verb together with its Complements (if present) and Adjuncts (if present). This is a syntactic use of the term Predicate. In this chapter the term ‘predicate’ is used in a semantic sense. It would have been better if we had two different terms for the syntactic and semantic notions, but unfortunately this is not the case. Notice that when I use Predicate as a grammatical function term it is written with a capital ‘P’, and when I use it as a semantic term it is written with a lowercase ‘p’. Second, do not confuse the terms predicate and Predicator: predicate is a semantic label, while Predicator is a grammatical function label. Review Chapter 3 if you’ve forgotten about the earlier functional notions of Predicate and Predicator. We can represent predicates and their arguments in a formal notation, used in a branch of philosophy called predicate logic. Sentences (1) and (4)–(7) can be represented as follows: (8) D (c, d) (9) S (h) (10) I (p, a) (11) G (s, p, p) (12) B (m, b, p, c) (c = clause) Semantic predicates are represented by a single capital letter, corresponding to the first letter of the verb in (1) and (4)–(7). Arguments are represented by lowercase letters, which indicate the first letter of the associated argument(s), and they are enclosed in parentheses. Thus, (8) can be read as follows: Devour (crocodile, doughnut). Notice that this notation enables us to represent only predicates and their associated arguments. We have no way of making clear the categorial status of the arguments. For this reason, representations like (8)–(12) are inadequate for syntactic purposes. We would like to be able to make more informative statements about the argument-taking properties of particular predicates. In linguistics an alternative way of representing predicates and their arguments has been developed. Each predicate is associated with a unique argument structure, which specifies the number of arguments a predicate takes and their categorial status. The predicates in (1) and (4)–(7) can be represented as follows: 88

Predicates, Arguments and Thematic Roles

(13) devour (verb) [1 , 2 ] (14) smile (verb) [1 ] (15) investigate (verb) [1 , 2 ] (16) give (verb) [1 , (2 ), 3 ] (17) bet (verb) [1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] These argument structures indicate not only the number of arguments each predicate takes, but also their categorial status. In addition, in each case the external argument is underlined. Notice that in (16) the second argument is in round brackets. This is because with the verb give it is possible to leave the Indirect Object argument implicit, as in B’s response below to A’s statement: (18) A Ivan gave me a book for Christmas. B Ivan is so boring: he always gives books! The implicit Indirect Object can be interpreted here as ‘his friends’ or ‘people’. It is important to realise that not only verbs can be predicates. Nouns, adjectives and prepositions can too, as (19)–(21) make clear: (19) Paul’s study of art history. (20) Freddy is fond of his sister. (21) The bird is inside the house. In (19) the noun study requires the specification of a Subject expression, i.e. it requires the specification of a student, in this case Paul. It also requires the specification of an internal argument, i.e. what is being studied, namely art history. Compare (19) to the sentence Paul studies art history. In (20) and (21) the Subject expressions are Freddy and the bird, respectively, whereas (of) his sister and the house specify who Fred is fond of, and where the bird is located. The verb be in (20) and (21) is semantically empty; it only serves as a carrier of the present tense inflection.

6.2 Thematic roles Arguments are participants in what one linguist has called ‘the little drama’ that a proposition expresses. To be a participant in a drama you must be playing a role. What sort of roles are we talking about here? We have already alluded to the notion of participant roles in Chapter 3. We talked there about Agents and Patients, and we saw that these roles are typically fulfilled by Subjects and Objects, respectively. We now 89

English Syntax and Argumentation

elaborate on this, and say that each argument carries at most one thematic role (as we will call participant roles from now on). Apart from Agents and Patients, there are a number of other roles. Linguists don’t agree exactly how many there are, nor do they agree exactly which roles we should recognise. However, the following thematic roles (also known as semantic roles, theta roles and Θ-roles) are widely accepted: Agent

The ‘doer’ or instigator of the action denoted by the predicate.

Patient

The ‘undergoer’ of the action or event denoted by the predicate.

Theme

The entity that is moved by the action or event denoted by the predicate.

Experiencer

The living entity that experiences the action or event denoted by the predicate.

Goal

The location or entity in the direction of which something moves.

Benefactive

The entity that benefits from the action or event denoted by the predicate.

Source

The location or entity from which something moves.

Instrument

The medium by which the action or event denoted by the predicate is carried out.

Locative

The specification of the place where the action or event denoted by the predicate is situated.

Proposition

The specification of a state of affairs.

EXERCISE Consider the sentences below and determine which thematic roles the bracketed phrases can be said to carry. (i) [His mother] sent [David] [a letter]. (ii) [David] smelled [the freshly baked bread]. (iii) [We] put [the cheese] [in the fridge]. (iv) [Frank] threw [himself] [onto the sofa]. (v) [Greg] comes [from Wales].

In (i) the Subject noun phrase carries the role of Agent, as do the Subjects in (iii) and (iv). The role of David in (ii) is that of Experiencer. Sentence (v) illustrates that it is not always easy to determine the thematic role of a particular phrase: which theta role do we assign to the NP Greg? None of the roles on our list is quite appropriate. We can adopt two possible solutions to this problem. Either we say that Greg marginally carries one of the ten listed thematic roles, say, Theme, or we invent a new role altogether, say, Topic. The first solution has the advantage that we keep our list of thematic roles short; the second allows us to make finer distinctions. In this book we won’t worry too much about such 90

Predicates, Arguments and Thematic Roles

problems, and we will use the list as given above. What’s important is to know which elements bear a thematic role in a particular sentence. We have yet to discuss the roles of the non-Subject phrases in the exercise. In (i) David is the Goal of the act of sending. The NPs a letter in (i), the cheese in (iii) and himself in (iv) are Themes. They could also be said to be Patients, and it is for this reason that you will often find the Theme and Patient thematic roles lumped together in textbooks. In the fridge and onto the sofa are Goals (or perhaps Locative in the case of in the fridge), while from Wales in (v) clearly carries the role of Source. That leaves the NP the freshly baked bread in (ii). Again, it is not entirely clear which thematic role we are dealing with here. Is it a Patient, or some other role? We won’t rack our brains too much, and settle for Patient. Once again, the important thing is to be aware that this NP carries a thematic role. We can add the thematic information about predicates, which we will refer to as their thematic structure, i.e. the number and types of thematic roles they assign, to their argument structures. If we do this for the predicates in (13)–(17), we derive the following results: (22) devour (verb) [1 , 2 ] (23) smile (verb) [1 ] (24) investigate (verb) [1 , 2 ] (25) give (verb) [1 , (2 ), 3 ] (26) bet (verb) [1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] What we have now in (22)–(26), in the angled brackets following the numbered arguments, are combinations of the argument structures of the predicates in question with their thematic structures. Frames like this can be hypothesised to be the kinds of specifications that are attached to the lexical items that are part of our mental lexicon, i.e. the list of words (dictionary) stored in our brains. Let us now turn to elements in sentences that do not receive thematic roles. Above, we defined arguments as participants in a propositional drama. From this it follows that an element in a sentence that does not refer to a participant is not an argument. Instead, we could say that such an element is merely part of the scenery. What type of expression would qualify for non-participant status? In Chapter 3 we discussed sentences like (27) and (28): (27) It always rains in London. (28) There were six policemen on the bus. The grammatical Subjects in these sentences are it and there, respectively. We called it in (27) weather it, because it often occurs in sentences that tell you about the weather, and 91

English Syntax and Argumentation

we called there in (28) existential there, because it is used in propositions about existence. Notice that unlike referential it and locative there in (29) and (30) below, the Subjects in (27) and (28) do not refer to entities in the outside world. They are purely Subject slot fillers. (29) I hate the number 29 bus, it is always packed! (30) I’ll put your coffee over there. Other non-arguments are expressions in sentences that furnish only circumstantial, non-participant, information. In English, these are typically phrases or clauses that grammatically function as Adjunct. If we modified sentence (1) above as in (31), then the italicised phrases would not be arguments: (31) Last night, the crocodile greedily devoured a doughnut. Neither of the phrases last night and greedily can be said to participate in the mini-scene enacted by the crocodile and the doughnut. They merely tell us when it took place and how. In the formal notation we developed in this chapter, Adjuncts are ignored, and (31) receives the same notation as (1), namely (22) above. Adjuncts are never arguments, and it follows that not all grammatical functions are linked to argument positions. The reverse, however, does hold true: each argument realises a grammatical function.

6.3 Grammatical functions and thematic roles Why do we need thematic roles? To answer this question, consider (32)–(35) below, all of which contain the verb smash: (32) David smashed the window. (33) The window was smashed by David. (34) A brick smashed the window. (35) David used a brick to smash the window. Notice that although the grammatical functions of the argument expressions David, the window and a brick can be different in each of the sentences in which they appear, their thematic roles are the same. So, the NP David carries the role of Agent in each case, despite the fact that it has two different grammatical functions, namely Subject in (32), (34) and (35), and Complement of a preposition in (33). Similarly, in all sentences the NP the window is a Patient, regardless of the grammatical function it carries – Direct Object in (32) and (35); Subject in (33). Finally, the NP the brick carries the role of Instrument and appears in two different grammatical function slots – Subject in (34) and Direct Object in (35). What these examples clearly show, then, is that there is no one-to-one relationship between grammatical functions and thematic roles, and we therefore need to distinguish these notions. Remember that grammatical function is primarily a syntactic notion, whereas thematic roles are first and foremost semantic in nature. 92

Predicates, Arguments and Thematic Roles

6.4 Selectional restrictions Consider the sentences below: (36) The keyboard designed some clothes. (37) The stapler took a break. (38) My colleague broke his feelings. You will agree that in the world we live in there is something odd about these sentences: keyboards are not in the habit of designing clothes, staplers don’t take breaks, and feelings aren’t entities that can be broken. We refer to the restrictions imposed by the predicates of the sentences above on their arguments as selectional restrictions. Linguists have suggested that one way of dealing with selectional restrictions is to assign features to predicates and their arguments. Thus, we might say that the verb design carries a feature [+animate] and that its Subject must also carry this feature. If it doesn’t, the resulting sentence is deviant. Clearly, in (36) the Subject expression the keyboard is not an animate entity and the sentence is odd as a result, and (37) is strange for the same reason. Sentence (38) can also be handled in terms of features: we might say that the verb break carries the feature [+concrete] which must be matched by a Direct Object that carries the same feature. In (38) the DO is an abstract NP, and this accounts for its peculiarity.

EXERCISE Before reading on, first underline the argument expressions in (36)–(38), and then determine which thematic role they carry.

Handling selectional restrictions in terms of features is a syntactic method: we require particular units to be properly matched in terms of the features they carry. Over time, the perspective on selectional restrictions has changed. It is now thought that they can be handled in a way that does not assume a complicated array of syntactic features. If we regard them as being a semantic, rather than a syntactic, phenomenon, we can account for the fact that (36)–(38) are syntactically well formed, although odd from the point of view of meaning. We can bring this about by handling selectional restrictions in terms of thematic roles. We have already seen that the grammar specifies, in its thematic structure, which thematic roles a predicate assigns. One possible way of dealing with selectional restrictions is to see whether we can predict which restrictions a predicate imposes on its arguments simply by looking at the thematic roles those arguments carry. Consider again sentence (36) above. We have seen that the verb design in (36) requires a Subject with an Agent role. In general it is reasonable to say that Agents are typically animate entities. This being so, there is no need to stipulate what particular feature the verb design carries. The meaning of (36) is deviant simply because the Subject of design is not animate. The advantage of handling selectional restrictions in this way is that there 93

English Syntax and Argumentation

is no longer a reason to set up a separate mechanism in the grammar that handles them in terms of features, and the result is that the grammar is simpler and more streamlined. Henceforth, then, we will assume that selectional restrictions can be handled in terms of thematic roles and their typical realisations.

6.5 Three levels of description I started this chapter with the observation that sentences can be analysed at two levels: by assigning grammatical form labels and grammatical function labels to constituents. In this chapter we saw that sentences can be described at a third level, namely the level of thematic roles. A sentence like (32) above can be represented at the following three levels of description:

Remember that grammatical form and grammatical function are syntactic notions, while the thematic level of representation is semantic in nature.

KEY CONCEPTS Argument internal argument external argument argument structure predicate one-place (monadic) predicate two-place (dyadic) predicate three-place (triadic) predicate selectional restrictions semantics thematic roles Agent

94

Benefactive Experiencer Goal Instrument Locative Patient Proposition Source Theme thematic structure

Predicates, Arguments and Thematic Roles

EXERCISES 1. In Section 6.1 we looked at one-place, two-place, three-place and, exceptionally, four-place predicates. Consider the sentences below: (i) it rained (ii) it snowed Can weather verbs like rain and snow w be classified into one of the predicate types mentioned above? If your answer is ‘yes’, which type is it? If your answer is ‘no’, why not? activo-passives:: 2. The following constructions have been called activo-passives (i) This book reads well. (ii) This car steers poorly. Why is this an appropriate label? In answering this question pay particular attention to the thematic role of the Subjects. In which situations would we use such constructions? Can you think of other verbs that can occur in this type of construction? 3. In Section 6.2 we listed Locative as being one of the thematic roles. Would you assign this role to the italicised phrase in the sentence below? Why (not)? (i) Kids love to swim in the sea. 4. Describe the following sentences as in (39) above. You may ignore the internal structure of subordinate clauses. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

Jane saw a UFO last night. Bill used a penknife when he cut the bread. The footballer stumbled. Penny put the bread on the table. I believed him. I thought that he was wrong.

5. Produce representations like those in (22)–(26) above to show the combined argument structure and thematic structure of the main clause verbs in Exercise 4. Use curly brackets {. . .} if an argument can be syntactically realised in more than one way. *6. Frawley (1992: 205) contrasts the thematic role of Agent with that of Authorr: ‘whereas the agent is the direct doer, the author is simply the enabler, or the indirect cause’. He claims that distinguishing these roles allows us to account for the differences between (i) and (ii) below: (i) Bill floated down the river. (ii) The canoe floated down the river. From the point of view of thematic roles, which differences can you detect between the Subject expressions of these sentences? Do you feel that adding a new thematic role of Author to the list in the text is justified? *7. Both the following are possible sentences in English; they have the same meaning: (i) The government faces a difficult debate. (ii) A difficult debate faces the government.

95

English Syntax and Argumentation

First analyse these sentences functionally, then discuss the thematic properties of the verb face. Can you think of any other verbs that behave like face? *8. In the text we saw that there is no agreement among linguists about which thematic roles we should recognise, or indeed how many. Consider the following query, which appeared on LINGUIST List, an internet discussion group (for more details, see the Further Reading section below): If John is an Agent in John opened the doorr, and John is an Experiencer in John saw the movie, what is John in John weighs 200 pounds? pounds? Try to answer this question, and then see below the answers some linguists have given to this question (LINGUIST List, https://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-1076. html): According to Jackendoff (1972: 44), the theta-role of John in the above sentence is theme. Jackendoff follows Gruber (1965) in assuming the following definition for theme: Theme is defined as either an NP which undergoes physical motion, or as the NP whose location is being asserted (Jackendoff 1972: 29–30). The use of John in the above sentence falls under the latter definition. Jackendoff says that the above sentence corresponds with the following sentence: John weighs in at 200 pounds. Hence, John is a theme by virtue of the fact that its location is being asserted, the location being 200 pounds on the scale. One final note is that elsewhere in the literature, theme and patient are often used interchangeably. However, Jackendoff (1987: 394–5) makes a distinction between these two theta-roles. He defines patient as the ‘object affected’, and he reserves theme only to refer to NPs undergoing movement or whose location is being asserted. (L. Kaiser) I suggest that John in your sentence John weighs 200 lb. is a patient, which these days is more usually called theme. (L. Connolly) In John weighs two hundred pounds [the NP] John bears no special thematic role, John is merely the subject of a predicate. That is, John bears the same role or nonrole that he bears in John is male, John is a mason, John is good at crossword puzzles. Consider that: John weighs two hundred pounds is rather close to the purely copular/predicative construction: John is two hundred pounds in weightt. (B. Ulicny) Overweight. (A. Marantz) What conclusions can you draw from these quotations? *9. Consider this headline from a newspaper: ‘Police knife purchases will check if websites are selling to juveniles.’ Stop and think about what it actually means. Would you agree that, on first reading, it is hard to interpret? The first line of the article then reads: ‘Police are to make secret knife purchases on internet shopping sites to check whether firms such as Amazon and eBay are complying with the law banning sales of blades to juveniles.’

96

Predicates, Arguments and Thematic Roles

FURTHER READING On predicates and arguments, consult any textbook on semantics, e.g. Riemer (2010), Valenzuela (2017). See also Allwood et al. (1977). The classical references for thematic roles are Fillmore (1968), who refers to them under the heading of ‘case’, and Gruber (1976). An excellent and very accessible discussion of the grammatical function of Direct Object, and why it is difficult to associate it with a particular thematic role, can be found in Schlesinger (1995). The syntactic feature-based treatment of selectional restrictions was first proposed in Chomsky (1965). In Exercise 8, I mentioned the LINGUIST List, an internet forum that deals with all branches of linguistics. You need an email account to use this service. You can subscribe for free by visiting www.linguistlist.org

97

CROSSCATEGORIAL GENERALISATIONS: XBAR SYNTAX

7

In our discussion of English syntax in the preceding chapters we’ve learnt how to parse sentences at the level of grammatical form, the level of grammatical function level, and the thematic level. What we haven’t done in any great depth so far is look inside the various constituents that sentences are composed of to see how they are structured. The internal structure of English phrases is the topic of this chapter.

7.1 Heads, Complements and Specifiers In Chapter 2 we saw that all phrases have something in common, namely that they must minimally contain a Head. In the bracketed phrases in the sentences below, the Heads are shown in bold type: (1) The defendants denied the charge: they claim that they did [VP not destroy the garden] (2) She proposed [NP an analysis of the sentence] (3) Jack is [AP so fond of coffee] (4) They are [PP quite in agreement] (5) My sister cycles [AdvP much faster than me] Notice that apart from the obligatory presence of the Heads, there are further similarities between these phrases. First, there appears to be a strong bond between the Head and the constituent that follows it in each case. Thus, in (1) the verb destroy requires the presence of a noun phrase that refers to an entity that is destroyable. Similarly, in (2) the PP of the sentence complements the noun analysis in that it specifies what is being analysed. Notice that in this case the noun analysis with its associated Complement of the sentence can be contrasted with a verb + Complement sequence: analyse the sentence. Compare (2) with (6): (6) She proposed to analyse the sentence. In (3)–(5) something analogous to (1) and (2) is happening: in each case the constituent that follows the Head is required to complete the sense of the Head. In Chapter 3 we briefly introduced the notion Complement as a general term to denote any constituent whose presence is required by another element. We now see that all the major syntactic

98

Cross-categorial Generalisations: X-bar Syntax

categories can take a Complement. This is an important generalisation captured by the notion of subcategorisation, which was introduced in Chapter 3, and to which we will return in Section 7.4. How can we represent the close bond between a Head and its Complement in a tree diagram? One way of doing this is to assume that the two together share a node (i.e. they are sisters), as in (7) below: (7)

Of course, this can only be a partial representation of the structure of phrases like those in (1)–(5). What about the elements that immediately precede the Heads, such as not, an, so, quite and much in (1)–(5)? Unlike Complements, these seem to relate not so much to the Head, but to the Head and Complement taken together. Thus, in (1) we could say that not adds something to the sequence destroy the garden: it negates it. We can ask the question: ‘what did the defendants not do?’, and the answer would be ‘destroy the garden’. In (2) the determinative an relates to the sequence analysis of the sentence, not just to the Head. And in (3)–(5) the adverbs so, quite and much intensify the strings fond of coffee, in agreement and faster than me, respectively. We will say that the elements that precede the Head in (1)–(5) specify the Head + Complement sequence; thus, we will refer to them as Specifiers (abbreviated as ‘Spec’). We can now expand our partial tree in (7) for each of the phrases in (1)–(5) as follows: (8)

(9)

99

English Syntax and Argumentation

(10)

(11)

(12)

Notice that there is a generalisation to be made here. In each case the configuration of the various phrasal components is identical. The generalised structure for each of the phrases above is as follows: (13)

In this tree ‘XP’ is a phrase headed by X, where X stands for V, N, A, P or Adv. The Specifier is a sister of the node that dominates the Head + Complement sequence, indicated by ‘?’. What is the nature of this unlabelled node? It doesn’t seem to have the status of something we have come across before. From the tree in (13), it appears that ‘?’ is at a level that is intermediate between the phrase XP and the Head X. Let us call this level X' (read: X-bar). We can now present a full representation of the bracketed phrases in (1)–(5):

100

Cross-categorial Generalisations: X-bar Syntax

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

101

English Syntax and Argumentation

(18)

There are two important points to make at this juncture. First, notice that in the tree in (14) the auxiliary verb did is not part of the VP. I will return to this issue in due course. Second, I have included Specifier nodes in the trees above. Strictly speaking, this is inappropriate, because the notion Specifier is a functional one, and we saw in Chapter 4 that functional labels do not appear in trees. However, by including Specifiers in tree diagrams, I follow common practice in linguistics.

EXERCISE Why would a ‘flat’ representation like (i) below for the NP an analysis of the sentence not be a satisfactory way of showing the relationships between the various components of this phrase? (i)

‘Flat’ representations are unsatisfactory because they do not account for the fact that phrases are structured hierarchically, i.e. the relationships between the various elements that make up a phrase are not the same. In the NP an analysis of the sentence, we want to account for the fact that the determinative an bears a relationship to the Head noun and PP taken together. Structure (15) is able to account for this, whereas (i) in the exercise above does not. I will return to ‘flat’ structures below. Observe that in the trees in (14)–(18) the Specifiers are different types of elements. The Specifier position of VPs has been the subject of much current research, which we can’t go into here. In this book we will assume that in VPs negative elements such as not and never are in the Specifier position of the VP (abbreviated as ‘Spec-of-VP’). In NPs determinatives are Specifiers, and in the remaining phrasal categories the Specifier position contains intensifying elements. You will have noticed that both the Specifier and Complement positions in (13) are in brackets. This indicates that they are optional. Specifiers appear only if the meaning of the phrase requires it. Thus, in the case of VPs, a Specifier not appears only if we want to 102

Cross-categorial Generalisations: X-bar Syntax

express a negative VP. The Specifier position is left empty if the VP does not contain not, but is nevertheless shown in the associated tree diagram. Similarly, in the case of NPs without determinatives (e.g. trains in Trains are slow), we will assume that the Specifier position of NP remains empty. As for Complements, these appear only if the Head of a phrase requires their presence. What exactly is meant by ‘requires their presence’ will be clarified in Section 7.4. In (13) above we regard each of the levels XP, X' and X as projections of the Head. To be more precise, XP is the maximal projection of the Head (also called a double-bar projection, sometimes written as X"), while the X' level is a single-bar projection. The Head itself is a zero-bar projection (or lexical projection). Every phrase, then, has three levels of structure: X", X' and X.

EXERCISE Assign tree structures to the bracketed phrases below: (i) [the destruction of Carthage] (ii) He is [so envious of his sister] (iii) We are [citizens of the world] (iv) She [travelled to Rome] (v) He walked [straight through the door]

Your answers should look like this: (19)

(20)

103

English Syntax and Argumentation

(21)

(22)

(23)

We end this section with two tables showing typical Specifiers and Complements for the different phrase types. Complements in the form of a clause will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 8.

Table 7.1 Typical Specifiers for the major phrase types NP, VP, AP and PP Phrase type

Specifier

Example(s)

NP

determinatives

[the examination] [this book] [those bicycles] [many answers] [this city] [these people] [that event] [those flowers] [my phone] [her dad] [our neighbour]

possessive pronouns (See Table 3.2 for further possibilities) 104

Cross-categorial Generalisations: X-bar Syntax

VP

negative elements

He does [not like planes] She [never eats meat]

AP

degree adverbs

[how nice] They are [so eager to please] [too bad] That’s [rather/quite disgusting] She is [as rich as the Queen]

PP

adverbs

The supermarket is [right up your street] The wedding ring went [straight down the drain] The office is [just to your left]

Table 7.2 Typical Complements for the major phrase types NP, VP, AP and PP Phrase Head Complement Example(s) type NP

N

PP

his insistence [PP on the arrangement] (cf. He insists on the arrangement.) their specialisation [PP in wines] (cf. They specialise in wines.)

clause

their realisation [that-clause that all is lost] (cf. They realise that all is lost.) her question [whether-clause whether the expense was worth it] (cf. She questioned whether the expense was worth it.) their requirement [for-clause for all candidates to comply with the rules] (cf. They require all candidates to comply with the rules.)

NP

a literature teacher (cf. He teaches literature/a teacher of literature)

Note: Complement-taking nominal Heads often have a verbal counterpart (cf. (2) and (6)). VP

V

NP

She placed [NP an advertisement].

clause

They know [that-clause that the sun will shine tomorrow]

PP

He looked [PP at the picture]

AP

He is [AP very healthy]

Note: For many more examples of verbal Complements, see Chapter 4. AP

A

PP

glad [PP about your decision] pleased [PP with the result] dependent [PP on his brother]

clause

I am so eager [to-infinitive clause to work with you] He’s engaged [-ing clause teaching the students] She’s unsure [wh-clause what we should do next] 105

English Syntax and Argumentation

Table 7.2 (Continued) Phrase Head Complement Example(s) type PP

P

NP 

in/under/behind [NP the car]

PP

out [PP of love] from [PP behind the bookcase] down [PP by the sea]

clause

He is uncertain about [wh-clause what you said to me]

7.2 Adjuncts The phrases we have looked at so far contained only a Specifier, a Head and a Complement. Phrases can, however, be structurally more complicated. Consider first the bracketed VP below: (24) The defendants denied the charge: they claim that they did [VP not destroy the garden deliberately] In this sentence the AdvP deliberately modifies the sequence destroy the garden, and is positioned after the Head destroy and its Complement the garden. This AdvP functions as Adjunct. Disregarding the AdvP for a moment, the structure of the VP in (24) is as in (25) below (= (14)): (25)

How can we now add the Adjunct? One way of doing this is simply to have a third branch coming from V' for the AdvP, as in (26):

106

Cross-categorial Generalisations: X-bar Syntax

(26)

However, this representation cannot account for the fact that deliberately modifies destroy and the garden taken together: ‘what did the defendants not do deliberately?’ Answer: ‘destroy the garden’. Another way of positioning Adjuncts in VPs is to adjoin them to V'. This is done as follows: (27)

What we have done here is repeat the V'-node, and add the AdvP as its daughter. This process is called adjunction and is defined as follows: Category B is adjoined to category A by: ●

making B a sister of A

●

making A and B taken together daughters of a copy of the original node A.

We can have adjunction to the right, as in (27) above, shown schematically in the definition above, but also adjunction to the left, as in (28) below, where deliberately is left-adjoined to the lower V':

107

English Syntax and Argumentation

(28)

In this case the Adjunct is positioned between the Specifier and the Head. Notice that in both (27) and (28) the Complement the garden is closer to the Head destroy than the Adjunct deliberately: the Complement is a sister of V, whereas the Adjunct is a sister of the V' that immediately dominates V. This situation is exactly what we want: deliberately is not an argument of destroy and hence more peripheral to it than the garden, which is an argument of the verb. Up to now we have used the term Adjunct in a somewhat restricted sense to refer to the grammatical function of a constituent that specifies the ‘how’, ‘when’, ‘where’ or ‘why’ of the situation expressed by a sentence. Under this definition, the AdvP deliberately in (24) clearly qualifies as an Adjunct. We will now widen the notion of Adjunct, in such a way that not only VPs can contain them, but other phrase types as well. Consider the strings below: (29) [NP an analysis of the sentence with tree diagrams] (30) [AP so fond of coffee after dinner] (31) [PP quite in agreement about this] (32) [AdvP much faster than me by far] The italicised strings in the bracketed phrases above, like deliberately in (27) and (28), have a modifying function, and we will therefore analyse them as Adjuncts. Like Adjuncts in VPs, they are adjoined to a bar-level category in tree structures, as follows: (33)

108

Cross-categorial Generalisations: X-bar Syntax

(34)

(35)

(36)

Consider next (37)–(40): (37) [NP a silly analysis of the sentence] (38) [AP so terribly fond of coffee] (39) [PP quite unhesitatingly in agreement] (40) [AdvP clearly faster than me] In these cases we have Adjuncts that are positioned before the Head (compare the VP in (28)). Tree structures (41)–(44) are the representations for these phrases:

109

English Syntax and Argumentation

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

110

Cross-categorial Generalisations: X-bar Syntax

In all these cases, just as in (28), the Adjuncts are left-adjoined to a bar-level category. Notice that Adjuncts are often adverb phrases, but can be of any category. We can now make a generalisation and say that Adjuncts are always sisters of barlevel categories in phrases. They are adjoined either to the right or the left of single-bar categories, and have a modifying function. Complements, as we have seen, are always sisters of Heads. There are a number of important points to bear in mind about Adjuncts. First, they can be stacked. In other words, several of them can appear in any one phrase. Here are two examples of phrases containing multiple pre-Head Adjuncts: (45) The defendants denied the charge: they claim that they did [VP not unthinkingly, deliberately destroy the garden] (46) [NP a silly, preposterous analysis of the sentence] In (47) and (48) we have phrases that contain both a pre-Head and a post-Head Adjunct: (47) [AP so terribly fond of coffee after dinner] (48) [PP quite unhesitatingly in agreement with each other] The structure of such phrases is simple: all we need to do is add more single-bar levels. These are the tree diagrams for the bracketed portions of (45) and (47): (49)

(50)

111

English Syntax and Argumentation

EXERCISE Draw the tree structures for (46) and (48). You may use triangles for the PPs.

Your answers should look like this: (51)

(52)

The property of being stackable differentiates Adjuncts from Complements and Specifiers: while phrases can, in principle, contain an unlimited number of Adjuncts (although they can become stylistically clumsy), lexical Heads, e.g. verbs, are restricted in the number of Complements they can take (rarely more than three), while Specifiers are generally not recursive (cf. *The my dog). A second point to observe about Adjuncts, already mentioned in connection with verb phrases, is that the bond between them and their associated Heads is less close than the bond between Heads and their Complements. This fact is reflected in tree diagrams: as we have seen, Complements are sisters of Heads, whereas Adjuncts are sisters of a single-bar level above a Head. We can demonstrate the closer bond between Heads and their Complements by reversing the order of Complements and post-Head Adjuncts, as has been done below: (53) *they did [VP not destroy deliberately the garden] (54) *[NP an analysis with tree diagrams of the sentence] (55) *[AP so fond in the morning of coffee]

112

Cross-categorial Generalisations: X-bar Syntax

(56) *[PP quite with each other in agreement] (57) ?*[AdvP much faster by far than me] The results of reversing the order of Complements and Adjuncts in (53)–(57) are clearly ungrammatical, or of dubious acceptability, and this is because Complements must be adjacent to their Heads. To end this section, Table 7.3 shows typical Adjuncts for the different phrase types. Adjuncts in the form of a clause will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 8. Table 7.3 Typical Adjuncts for the major phrase types NP, VP, AP and PP Phrase type

Head

Adjunct

Examples

NP

N

AP

the warm summer

NP

the woman bus driver

PP

the tiles on the floor

clause

my youngest sister, who lives in Italy the information that you supplied

AdvP

He quickly absconded. She read the prospectus eagerly.

PP

We came here in the summer.

clause

She phoned because she likes you.

AdvP

We were inconsolably disappointed.

PP

He was kind to the extreme.

AdvP

I was totally over the moon.

PP

They designed the museum in tandem with an Italian architect.

VP

V

AP

A

PP

P

7.3 Cross-categorial generalisations Let us now return to our schematic tree in (13), modified as in (58) below: (58)

113

English Syntax and Argumentation

This tree embodies what has been called a cross-categorial generalisation, which is part of X'-syntax or X-bar syntax, a theory of syntax which stipulates that all the major phrase types are structured in the same way, namely as in (58). Notice that the labels Specifier, Adjunct, Head and Complement are functional notions, and that of these four, only the Head is always obligatory. I have positioned the optional Adjunct to the right of the lower X' in (58), but bear in mind that Adjuncts can also be left-hand sisters of X' (see e.g. (41)–(44) in Section 7.2). The existence of the single-bar level in phrases was posited largely on intuitive grounds, but we will obviously need to justify its existence on syntactic grounds as well. For now, we will simply assume that this intermediate category exists, and will present syntactic evidence for it in Chapter 12. The phrase structure that X-bar syntax posits is a major improvement on so-called ‘flat’ structures, i.e. structures where all the elements are on the same level. To see this, consider the NP in (59): (59) a silly analysis of the sentence with tree diagrams From what has been said so far it will be clear that the words in this phrase bear different relationships to each other. The most important element is the Head analysis, and there are various additional words that relate in different ways to this Head: some have a modifying function (e.g. silly, with tree diagrams), others have a complementing function (e.g. of the sentence). In other words, (59) is structured. Moreover, it is structured hierarchically, as becomes clear when we compare two different representations of (59): (60)

(61)

Diagram (60) is a flat structure, where all the elements are positioned at the same level, whereas (61) is a hierarchical structure which conforms to X-bar syntax. Looking at (60) from left to right, we first come across the determinative a. This element has the function of adding indefinite meaning to the rest of the phrase. In (61) this is brought out by

114

Cross-categorial Generalisations: X-bar Syntax

making it the sister of the N'-constituent silly analysis of the sentence with tree diagrams. (Recall that Spec is the functional label associated with the word class of determinative. Exceptionally, it is the only functional label that appears in trees, as we have seen.) In (60) all we have is a linear sequence of words that all seem to have the same relationship to each other. Turning to the words following the determinative, we have already seen that the relationship between the Head analysis and the Complement of the sentence is closer than that between the Head and the Adjunct with tree diagrams. Tree (60) does not bear out this fact, but tree (61) does: here the Complement is analysed as a sister of the Head, whereas the Adjunct is analysed as a sister of the N' that dominates the Head. What is clear, then, is that representations in the X-bar format enable us to graphically represent the hierarchical relationships that hold between the various elements of phrases. What’s more, these kinds of relationships are identical for all the phrase types, and this is why we can use XP, as in (58) above, when we talk about syntactic structure in general.

7.4 Subcategorisation In this section we will take a closer look at the tight bond that exists between Heads and their Complements. In Section 7.1 we saw that this bond is so strong that a Complement must always be adjacent to its Head, and that an Adjunct may not intervene. Another way of claiming that there is a strong connection between Heads and Complements is to say that Heads subcategorise for (i.e. syntactically require the presence of) their Complements. Different Heads subcategorise for different Complements, and we can use so-called subcategorisation frames to specify exactly which Complements a Head takes. Here’s the subcategorisation frame for the verb destroy: destroy (verb) [–, NP] This frame contains two parts: on the top line we have the element that is subcategorised, with a word class label. On the bottom line, inside square brackets, we have a dash, indicating the position of the subcategorised element, followed by a comma and the category whose presence is required by the subcategorised element. Destroy is a verb that takes only one Complement. A ditransitive verb like send in the sentence He sent her some details of the plan takes the following frame: send (verb) [–, NP NP] This frame indicates that send takes two Objects as its Complements: an Indirect Object (her) and a Direct Object (some details of the plan). However, send does not always

115

English Syntax and Argumentation

require two Complements. Thus, we can say the following: Martin didn’t come to the party, but he sent his sister, where the verb send takes only one Complement. We revise the subcategorisation frame for send as follows: send (verb) [–, (NP) NP] Here the first NP is placed inside round brackets to indicate its optionality. Of course, some Heads do not take Complements at all, and this will be indicated in the subcategorisation frame by the zero symbol (Ø). The frame for blush looks like this: blush (verb) [–, Ø] For some verbs there is a choice of Complements. As an example, consider the sentences below that contain the verb believe: (62) I believed the allegations. (63) I believed that the allegations were true. (64) I believed the allegations to be true. The subcategorisation frame for believe is as follows: Believe (verb)

The curly brackets indicate that a choice should be made from one of the items inside them. Verbs are not the only word classes that can be subcategorised. Nouns, adjectives, prepositions and adverbs also occur in subcategorisation frames. However, as we have already seen, the extent to which these word classes take Complements varies enormously. Here are some examples: fact (noun) [–, (that-clause)] e.g. She hates the fact that he is a genius. appreciative (adjective) [–, of-NP] e.g. She is appreciative of classical music. 116

Cross-categorial Generalisations: X-bar Syntax

behind (preposition) [–, NP] e.g. The bike is behind the shed. fortunately (adverb) [–, ( for-NP)] e.g. Fortunately for me the train departed late.

EXERCISE Produce subcategorisation frames for hitt, putt, idea and smile smile.. You will need to think of sentences or phrases containing these lexical items. Alternatively, consult a dictionary that gives information about complementation patterns; e.g. the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Dictionaryy.

Your answers should look like this: hit (verb) [–, NP] e.g. You should never hit animals. put (verb) [–, NP PP] e.g. He put the glasses on the table. idea (noun) [–, (that-clause)] e.g. The idea that we will all go to heaven is absurd. smile (verb) [–, Ø] e.g. She smiled. 7.4.1 Subcategorisation versus argument/thematic structure You will have noticed that the subcategorisation frames we introduced in Section 7.4 are reminiscent of the frames we used to represent the argument/thematic structure of predicates. What exactly is the difference between these two kinds of frames? Let’s start with subcategorisation. What does this term actually mean? The point about subcategorisation is that by assigning an element to a particular subcategorisation frame, we create a subcategory for the word class that this element belongs to. Thus, 117

English Syntax and Argumentation

by assigning a verb like destroy to the frame [–, NP], we create a subcategory for the word class of verbs, namely a subcategory of verbs that takes an NP Complement. This is the subcategory of transitive verbs. Similarly, by assigning a verb like smile to the frame [– , Ø], we create a subcategory of intransitive verbs.It’s important to remember that subcategorisation concerns only the internal arguments, i.e. the Complements, of the element that is being subcategorised. The reason for this is that only internal arguments are capable of creating subcategories. You will have noticed that external arguments, i.e. Subjects, are conspicuously absent from subcategorisation frames. This is because if an element, e.g. a verb, takes a Subject expression, no subcategory of verbs is established for it. So, the fact that the verb drive must have a Subject in any main clause in which it occurs does not create a special class of ‘Subject-taking verbs’. This is because all verbs take Subjects. Unlike in subcategorisation frames, external arguments do appear in the frames that specify the argument/thematic structure of lexical items (cf. (22)–(26) of Chapter 6). In these frames all arguments are listed, together with the thematic roles that are assigned to them.

KEY CONCEPTS adjoin/adjunction cross-categorial generalisations Head Complement Projection lexical projection: X bar-level projection: X' maximal projection: X"/XP

Specifier subcategorisation subcategorisation frame X-bar syntax

EXERCISES 1. Explain how X-bar syntax can account for the parallel interpretation of the italicised phrases below: (i) (ii) (iii)

(He) appreciates good wine. (He is) appreciative of good wine. His appreciation of good wine.

Draw the tree for each of the italicised phrases. 2. Draw the tree for the sentence Geri completely adores pickled vegetables. Then decide whether the statements below are true or false: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

118

The NP pickled vegetables is a sister of a lexical category. d is adjoined to the N vegetables. Pickled Vegetables is an N' and an N at the same time. Adores pickled vegetables is a V'.

Cross-categorial Generalisations: X-bar Syntax

3. We have seen that Adjuncts are optional in sentences, and that they are excluded from subcategorisation frames. How might the sentence below pose a problem for this claim? Is there a way around this problem? (i) Jimmy treats his cat badly. 4. Consider the following mini-exchange: Jane: Caroll: Jane:

I feel so cheerful! Cheerful? Yes, do you remember cheerful?

On the basis of Jane’s last contribution to this conversation, we might want to say that the verb rememberr can subcategorise for an adjective phrase, namely cheerful. cheerfull. Why would such a claim be dubious? If rememberr does nott subcategorise for an AP, how do we explain the fact that cheerfull can occur after this verb? 5. Consider another mini-exchange from a made-up film script between Schwartz, a villain who wants to destroy the world, and Lorraine, the female heroine: Schwartzz: You wouldn’t dare kill me, you would really miss me. She kills him and says: Lorraine: I rarely miss. Explain the joke, making reference to subcategorisation frames. 6. In the text I gave the subcategorisation frame in (i) for behind d. Should sentence (ii) lead us to revise this frame? (i) behind d (preposition) [– , NP] (ii) We are hopelessly behind d. *7. The verb locate in English is transitive, and usually takes a Direct Object that denotes a three-dimensional entity, as in the example below: (i) The police located the driver. The meaning of locate is ‘find the position, location of something’. Give the subcategorisation frame for the verb locate. We can also have (ii): (ii) The police located the driver in the high street. Does locate in (ii) involve the same verb locate as in (i), or do we need a different subcategorisation frame for this verb? *8. Although X-bar syntax is a neat way of capturing similarities in phrase structure, it is not always obvious whether we should treat a particular string of words in a phrase as a Complement or as an Adjunct. In VPs the situation is usually fairly clear, in that Complements are typically obligatory, while Adjuncts are not. Thus, using the omissibility criterion, we can safely say that the NP in (i) below is a Complement, because it cannot be left out, as (ii) shows: (i) Pete encouraged his sister. (ii) *Pete encouraged. In phrases other than VPs, the situation is often more complex. In Sections 7.1 and 7.2, I listed typical Complements and Adjuncts for the different phrase types. Very

119

English Syntax and Argumentation

often, it is hard, if not impossible, to decide whether a particular string of elements functions as an Adjunct or as a Complement. The omissibility criterion sometimes works, as with the AP in (iii) below, where clearly the PP must be a Complement, because it cannot be left out, but sometimes it doesn’t, as with the NP in (iv), where the PP of biologyy can be left out, but is nevertheless analysed as a Complement, because of the analogy with the verb studyy, which takes an NP Complement (cf. He studies biologyy). (iii) He is [AP keen on hot buns] (cf. *He is keen.) (iv) He is [NP a student of biologyy] (cf. He is a student.) Discuss the functional status (Adjunct or Complement?) of the italicised words in the following phrases: (v) (vi) (vii) (viii)

I was assisted by [NP a man in a dark suitt]. They are [NP a family of fourr]. I am [AP glad that you are welll]. He is [AP extremely delighted about thatt].

*9. English is a Head-first language, which means that Heads occur before Complements (cf. bake a cake/*a cake bake). Other languages are Head-finall, e.g. Japanese and Korean (*bake a cake/a cake bake). This means that Complements (e.g. Direct Objects) occur before, rather than after, the verb. However, as linguists have pointed out, the Head-first/Head-final distinction is not an absolute one. Consider the following data, taken from Radford (1988). The NP in (i) involves a regular post-Head Complement (cf. She studies physics), while the NP in (ii) involves a pre-Head Complement: (i) a student of physics (ii) a physics student Assuming that both of physics in (i) and physics in (ii) are indeed Complements, draw the trees for these phrases. *10. In the text I wrote ‘Specifiers are generally not recursive’. You will have spotted the hedge by my use of the word generallyy. The following are examples of noun phrases that contain stacked Specifiers. Can you think of ways of dealing with them in the X-bar framework? (i) all my problems (ii) his many virtues *11. Consider sentence (i) below: (i) Bob eagerly reviewed the book competently. Arguably it is ambiguous between the following readings: ‘Bob reviewed the book competently, and did so eagerly’ and ‘Bob reviewed the book eagerly, and did so competently’. Draw the trees that correspond to these meanings. Use triangles where the internal structure of constituents is not relevant. *12. Similar to the assignment in Exercise 11, consider again (61), repeated here as (i):

120

Cross-categorial Generalisations: X-bar Syntax

(i)

Which of the meanings in (ii) and (iii) does this tree diagram represent? (ii) ‘an analysis of the sentence with tree diagrams which is silly’. (iii) ‘a silly analysis of the sentence which contains tree diagrams’. Draw the tree for the other meaning.

FURTHER READING X-bar syntax was first introduced in Chomsky (1970), and refined in Jackendoff (1977). Adverbs and adverb phrases are somewhat problematic for X-bar theory. Some textbooks on theoretical syntax mention them only in passing, while others ignore them altogether. The reason for their special status is that they do not fit into the X-bar mould very comfortably. For example, it is very hard to think of adverbs that can take Complements. Jackendoff (1977: 78) gives only one example of a Complement-taking adverb, namely unfortunatelyy in e.g. unfortunately for our hero, but observes that ‘on the whole, adverbs take no complement’. In my own example, faster than me, it isn’t entirely obvious whether than me is a Complement or an Adjunct of faster. fasterr. Some linguists have argued that adverbs are not a problem at all. They would claim that they are really a special type of adjective (for discussion, see Giegerich 2012). On the whole, though, it seems that we are forced to recognise a word class of adverbs, and that they are an embarrassment for X'-theory. See also Payne et al. (2010). My claim that the Specifier position of a VP is filled by negative elements (if they are present) is unusual. Other linguists have proposed a different use of this slot in tree diagrams.

121

MORE ON CLAUSES

8

The notion of clause was introduced in Chapter 4. In this chapter we will take a closer look at the internal structure of clauses and their tree structure representations. We will also discuss a number of different clause types.

8.1 The I-node So far in this book we have dealt with simple straightforward sentences. In this section we’ll be homing in on the finer details of sentential analysis. To begin, let us briefly review the analysis of sentences in terms of tree diagrams that we have arrived at so far. We analysed a simple sentence like (1) as in (2): (1) My brother baked a cake. (2)

In this tree the S-node branches into NP and VP, and each of these phrases is structured in accordance with the principles of X-bar syntax. We said that the VP contains the Direct Object of a sentence, if it is present, the reason for this being the strong bond that obtains between the verb and the DO: using the terminology introduced in Chapter 7, we say that the verb subcategorises for an NP. Notice that, because (2) is not a negative sentence, the Spec-of-VP position remains empty. What we have tacitly been glossing over is the question of how verbs acquire their inflectional endings. More concretely, how does the verb bake in (2) obtain its past tense -ed ending? We could simply assume, as we have in fact been doing so far, that tensed verbs are simply attached underneath the appropriate V-node. However, this idea is unattractive. The reason is the following: assuming that word-level elements in trees are taken directly from a list of words we have in our heads, i.e. from our mental lexicon (see Section 6.2), we would then have to say that the lexicon lists inflected words. If that is indeed the case, the lexicon would be enormous, containing not only uninflected words but also all their inflected variants. So, it would contain not only the base form of the verb

122

More on Clauses

bake, but also the forms bakes, baked and baking. It would make more sense to suppose that the lexicon is constrained, and contains only what we have called lexemes (see Section 2.1), and that some sort of mechanism ensures that verb-lexemes that are inserted into trees end up being either finite, i.e. inflected for tense, or remain nonfinite, i.e. uninflected for tense. What sort of mechanism could we make use of for these purposes? In line with recent work in linguistics, we will assume that sentences contain a node labelled ‘I’ (short for ‘inflection’), which is immediately dominated by S. This node is responsible for two things. One of them is making sure that verbs acquire tense, the other is taking care of the agreement between Subjects and verbs (e.g. the -s ending on bakes in he bakes a cake). The I-node looks like this: (3)

As you can see, ‘I’ contains a number of components, which we will refer to as inflectional features. One is the abstract feature [Tense], which can have either a positive or a negative value, i.e. it can be [+Tense] or [–Tense] (indicated by the symbol ‘±’). If it has a positive value, we have a further choice between [+Present] or [–Present], as follows: [+Tense, +Present] or [+Tense, –Present]. The other abstract feature in ‘I’ is [Agr], which is short for ‘Agreement’. Again, this feature can have either a positive or a negative value: [+Agr] or [–Agr]. English makes use of only three combinations of features, namely: [+Tense, +Present] [+Agr] [+Tense, –Present] [+Agr] [–Tense] [–Agr] Other combinations are attested in other languages, but it would take us too far afield to discuss them further. We assume that a finite clause, i.e. a tensed clause, will have an I-node with a positive value for the features [Tense] (abbreviated as [Tns]) and [Agr], and that a nonfinite clause will have negative values for these features. We can now revise the analysis of (2) as in (4) below:

123

English Syntax and Argumentation

(4)

Notice that in this tree the verb bake has been inserted in its base form, i.e. in an uninflected form. We now need to find a way of establishing a link between the I-node and the lexical verb inside the VP. Let’s assume that the tense and agreement features are lowered from the I-node onto the verb inside the VP (a process that is sometimes called affix hopping), and that they are spelled out as an inflectional ending on the verb. In the case of a sentence with a third person singular Subject, this ending can be either the present tense suffix -s or the past tense suffix -ed. In the case of present tense Subjects other than third person singular, an abstract null ending is lowered from the I-node onto the verb, while in the past tense we again have -ed. What about nonfinite clauses? For them the I-node is marked [–Tense] and [–Agr]. In the following example, the matrix clause is finite but the bracketed subordinate clause, which functions as the Direct Object of the verb want, is nonfinite: (5) She wanted [her brother to bake a cake]. Here is the tree diagram for (5): (6)

124

More on Clauses

In the case of the matrix clause, we again say that the features [+Tense, –Present] and [+Agr] are lowered onto the lexical verb want, which is then spelled out as wanted. If a subordinate clause contains the features [–Tense] and [–Agr] and the element to (often called an infinitival marker in descriptive grammars, in contrast to the preposition to), then this element is positioned under the I-node. To is therefore regarded as an inflectional element. Apart from inflection features and agreement features, the I-node is also relevant to auxiliary verbs. You’ll remember from Chapter 2 that auxiliary verbs are ‘helping’ verbs that precede lexical verbs. Recall that we distinguished four subcategories of auxiliaries: the modal auxiliaries (the modals), the aspectual auxiliaries (the aspectuals), the passive auxiliary be and the dummy auxiliary do. So far we haven’t discussed in any detail the structure of sentences that contain auxiliaries. Here, we’ll be concentrating on the modals, turning to aspectuals and other auxiliaries in Chapter 9. Consider the following sentence: (7) My brother will bake a cake. This sentence contains the modal auxiliary will. We might now ask where in a tree diagram this auxiliary is positioned. As will is a verb, it would be reasonable to assume that it is positioned inside the VP. It would then need to be placed in front of the lexical verb, i.e. before bake. It would also need to be placed in front of the negative element not when it is present, as the sentence below shows: (8) My brother will not bake a cake. However, we know that the element not occupies the Specifier position inside the VP (see Section 7.1), and we also know that there are no further positions to the left of the Specifier. We are therefore led to conclude that modals like will are not inside the VP. But if they’re not inside the VP, what do we do with them? A plausible option would be to place modal auxiliaries under the I-node. Sentence (7) would then be analysed as follows: (9)

What motivation do we have for this analysis? Well, one reason is that modals are always tensed, as we saw in Chapter 2. This fact can be accounted for if we place them under ‘I’, the node that contains the tense feature. Another reason for placing the modals under ‘I’ is that this analysis is compatible with the behaviour of so-called sentence adverbs (see Section 2.6). Sentence adverbs, as their name implies, modify complete sentences.

125

English Syntax and Argumentation

Examples are however, frankly, perhaps, probably etc. These adverbs can occur in a variety of positions in sentences, as (10) below makes clear: (10) a Perhaps my brother will not bake a cake. b My brother perhaps will not bake a cake. c My brother will perhaps not bake a cake. d My brother will not bake a cake perhaps. In a tree diagram perhaps can appear in the positions indicated by the symbol ‘▾’: (11)

Now, given the fact that perhaps is a sentence adverb, i.e. immediately dominated by S in a tree diagram, and that it can occur between a modal verb and the Specifier of a VP, a reasonable assumption would be to place the modal under ‘I’. We will discuss further evidence that modal auxiliaries are positioned in ‘I’ in Chapter 12. Summarising this section: we’ve seen that, apart from an NP and a VP, clauses also contain an I-node which accommodates tense and agreement features. Finite clauses contain the combination [+Tense, ±Present] [+Agr], while nonfinite clauses contain [– Tense] [–Agr]. If a clause contains a modal verb or the infinitival marker to, these elements are positioned under ‘I’. Notice that the modals and to cannot co-occur (e.g. *He will to sleep), and this can be seen as further evidence that they fill the same slot in a tree diagram.

8.2 Subordinate clauses 8.2.1 Clauses functioning as Direct Object, Subject and Adjunct In Chapter 4 we discussed sentence (12), and (13) was discussed above as sentence (5): (12) Tim thought that Kate believed the story. (13) She wanted her brother to bake a cake. = (5) above Their associated tree diagrams are shown in (14) and (15), which now include the new I-node:

126

More on Clauses

(14)

(15)

Both sentences contain subordinate clauses that function as Direct Object of the verbs think and want, respectively. Note that the subordinate clause in (14) is finite and is introduced by the complementiser that (see Section 2.7), while the subordinate clause in (15) is nonfinite and not introduced by a subordinating conjunction. We haven’t so far discussed sentences that contain subordinate clauses that have a function other than DO, e.g. Subject or Adjunct (see Chapter 5), as in (16) and (17):

127

English Syntax and Argumentation

(16) [That Ken adores Nadia] annoys Jenny. (17) I will repair it [when I return]. Sentence (16) can be represented in a tree diagram as follows: (18)

As for (17), notice that the subordinate clause is positioned after the Direct Object, and that its function is Adjunct (see Section 5.6). Because the when clause is not a Complement of the verb repair, it cannot be analysed as its sister in a tree diagram. Instead, it must be adjoined as a sister to the V’ repair it: (19)

128

More on Clauses

8.2.2 Clauses functioning as Complement within phrases In Chapter 7 we saw that not only verbs can take clausal Complements, other lexical Heads can too. Consider the bracketed phrases in the examples below: (20) The article was about [NP their realisation that all is lost] (21) I am [AP so eager to work with you] (22) He is uncertain [PP about what you said to me] The Heads in each case are in bold, the Complements are in italics. The clausal Complements in each case are subordinate clauses. In the NP and AP they give more information about the content of their associated Head. In the PP the clause identifies the nature of the uncertainty mentioned in the sentence.

EXERCISE Draw the trees for the phrases in (20)–(22). Use triangles for the clausal Complements.

Your answers should look like this: (23)

(24)

129

English Syntax and Argumentation

(25)

Because the clauses in each case are Complements, they are represented as sisters of their Heads. 8.2.3 Clauses functioning as Adjuncts within NPs Apart from inside VPs (see Section 7.2) clausal Adjuncts are also found in NPs. Here, they have a special name: they are called relative clauses, and can be introduced by a wh-word or by that. There are two examples in Table 7.3. Here are some further examples: (26) Do you remember [NP that summer, which was so sunny]? (27) Do you remember [NP that summer which was so sunny]? (28) I’m worried about [NP the watch that was stolen], not the one on the table. Imagine (26) being uttered in a situation where the interlocutors know which particular summer is being referred to, say, last year’s summer. In this case the relative clause does not add further information that contributes to identifying the summer in question. We call it a nonrestrictive relative clause. Notice the comma, which marks the relative clause off intonationally, i.e. there is a pause after the word summer when the sentence is uttered. (Read it aloud to see what I mean.) Consider now (27). It looks exactly the same as (26), except that this time there is no comma, which signals that there is no pause after summer. When uttered in this way, the relative clause does single out a particular summer for the interlocutors, perhaps a hot summer in a series of wet ones. (Again, read the sentence out aloud.) We call such a clause a restrictive relative clause. In (28) the clause that was stolen is a further example of a restrictive relative clause, because it uniquely identifies a particular watch. Should we distinguish structurally between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses? Because the distinction between them is arguably a semantic one, and because relative clauses often depend for their interpretation on a particular context of utterance, we will not structurally distinguish the way they are positioned relative to their associated Heads: we will treat both restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses functionally as Adjuncts (i.e. they are adjoined to N'). Thus, (29) represents the NP in both (26) and (27), while (30) represents the NP in (28):

130

More on Clauses

(29)

(30)

KEY CONCEPTS agreement inflection phrase (IP) inflectional features [+Tense][−Tense] [+Present][−Present] [+Agr][−Agr] I-node relative clauses (restrictive/nonrestrictive)

subordinate clause clauses functioning as Direct Object, Subject and Adjunct clauses functioning as Complement or Adjunct within phrases relative clauses (restrictive, nonrestrictive)

131

English Syntax and Argumentation

EXERCISES 1. Draw the tree for the sentence Linda can arrange the event event. t. Then answer the following question: true or false? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

The modal verb can takes the VP arrange the eventt as its Complement. The modal verb can has moved from inside the VP to the I-node. The modal verb can is a finite verb. The modal verb can is a present tense aspectual auxiliary verb.

2. In accordance with X-bar theory, draw complete trees (i.e. include all the Specifiers and all the I-nodes with the relevant features) of the following phrases/sentences. Treat be in (v), (viii) and (x) as a lexical verb. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii)

I will go. She rode her bicycle slowly. Seamus can speak Chinese. Elaine should not enrol. That we will succeed is obvious. I prefer you to stay. She phoned because she likes you. I thought that she was a student of law. We will have a picnic, when Frank arrives. He is grumpy, but he is kind. We will not budge. She wrote the story very quickly.

3. How can the following utterance be taken as evidence to support our claim that modal auxiliary verbs are positioned under the I-node? (i) He might, and I stress might, pass his exams. 4. The following sentence is ambiguous: (i) John decided that they would move after Easter. Explain the ambiguity, then draw the trees that correspond to the two meanings. *5. Draw trees for the italicised phrases below. Use triangles for the subordinate clauses. (i) Her father, who was arrested d, protested his innocence. (ii) I am so happy to leave this place. *6. The sentence I told you not to do itt poses a problem in terms of drawing its tree diagram. What is the problem?

FURTHER READING Chomsky (1986) proposed that the I-node be given its own maximal projection, namely inflection phrase (IP). In the same way, complementisers head complementiser phrases (CP). (CP). Over time it has also been proposed that a number of additional functional categories, e.g. tense, agreement and aspect, also head their own maximal projections, so that we can also speak of tense phrases (TP), agreement phrases (AgrP) and aspect phrases (AspP), among others. On the mental lexicon, see Altmann (1999) and Aitchison (2012).

132

MOVEMENT

9

This chapter will look at four different ways in which units can be moved in a sentence. I will first discuss Verb Movement and NP-Movement, then movement in interrogative sentences, and finally Wh-Movement. I will finish the chapter with a section on the structure of sentences containing sequences of auxiliaries.

9.1 Verb Movement: aspectual auxiliaries In Chapter 8 we argued that modal auxiliaries are not positioned in VPs, but in the I-node, and we used the sentences in (1) and (2) to demonstrate this. (1) My brother will not bake a cake. (2) My brother will perhaps not bake a cake. In (1) the modal auxiliary will is positioned before the negative element not, which we argued was in the Specifier position of VP. As there are no further slots to the left of the Specifier in the VP, we concluded that the modal must be outside the VP. In (2) the sentence adverb perhaps is positioned between the modal will and not. On the assumption that sentence adverbs are directly dominated by S, the conclusion must again be that the modal cannot be inside the VP. Furthermore, we observed that modals are always finite, and that the ‘I’-node is therefore a natural location for them, given the fact that it contains the tense feature (see Section 8.1). But what about the aspectual auxiliaries have and be in sentences like (3) and (4)? Where are they positioned? (3) He has broken the mirror. (4) I am dreaming. Let’s look at these sentences more closely. In (3) the last two constituents are the verb broken (the nonfinite past participle form of the lexical verb break) and the noun phrase the mirror, which functions as Direct Object. Now, we know that a lexical verb + DO form a V-bar (Vʹ), and that this Vʹ is a sister of a Specifier. We also know that the Specifier node and Vʹ are dominated by the VP, so we assign the structure in (5) to the sequence broken the mirror:

133

English Syntax and Argumentation

(5)

We still need to account for the finite aspectual auxiliary has. We will assume that this verb takes the VP broken the mirror as its Complement. In a tree diagram this VP should therefore be represented as the sister of have, as in (6) (the Specifier position of the lower VP has been left out to make the tree visually easier to interpret): (6)

Notice that in this tree the aspectual auxiliary have is inserted in its base form, which raises the question how it ends up in its finite form has. The answer is that the aspectual auxiliary acquires its inflectional present tense ending by moving from the VP that dominates it into the I-node, as indicated below: (7)

This process we refer to as Verb Movement.

134

Movement

EXERCISE What would be the structure of sentence (4) above? Assuming that the aspectual auxiliary moves from VP into ‘I’, draw the tree diagram for (4). Indicate the movement with an arrow, as above. You may omit irrelevant nodes, such as the Specifier position of the lowest VP.

The tree diagram for (4) is as in (8): (8)

Here too the aspectual auxiliary moves from the position in the VP marked ‘–’ to ‘I’ in order for the verb to acquire its present tense form. Notice that because the verb dream is an intransitive verb, there are no Complements in the lowest VP. You may well be wondering why we are positing movement of aspectual auxiliaries into ‘I’. Why don’t we simply assume that the inflectional features are lowered from ‘I’ into the VP, exactly in the same way as was suggested in Chapter 8 for lexical verbs in simple sentences like (9)? (9) Ted opened the window. Well, there is evidence that we need to posit movement for the aspectual auxiliary verbs, and this evidence concerns sentences involving negative elements, sentence adverbs or modals, or a combination of these. Consider the following examples: (10) He has not broken the mirror. (11) I am not dreaming. Notice that both sentences contain not. As we have seen, this element is positioned in the Specifier of the higher VP (the lower VP may also contain not, as in he has not not broken the window). This being so, and there being no further slots inside the higher VP to the left of the Specifier, the most obvious position for the aspectual auxiliaries is inside ‘I’. But if have and be are inside the VP in trees like (6), but in ‘I’ in (10) and (11), then we need

135

English Syntax and Argumentation

to account for this difference in position. One way of doing so is by positing movement of the aspectuals from VP to ‘I’. This would then also explain how they end up in their finite forms (cf. *He have not broken the mirror./*I be not dreaming.). The tree diagram for (10) is as in (12): (12)

We will assume that the past participle broken is inserted in the tree in its inflected form.

EXERCISE Now draw the tree for sentence (11) above. Use an arrow to show the movement of the aspectual auxiliary. As before, you may leave out irrelevant nodes such as the Specifier position of the lowest VP.

You should have drawn your tree for (11) as in (13): (13)

136

Movement

Further evidence that finite aspectual auxiliaries are in ‘I’ comes from the following pair of sentences, which contain the sentence adverb probably: (14) He has probably broken the mirror. (15) I am probably dreaming. The reasoning here is as follows: because the sentence adverb probably is immediately dominated by S (cf. (11) of Chapter 8), and the aspectual auxiliaries has and am occur to the left of this adverb, we cannot assume that the latter are inside VPs. As they are in their finite forms (cf. *He have probably broken the window./*I be probably dreaming.), it is reasonable to assume that they are in ‘I’. But if they are, we will need to say that they moved from inside the verb phrase, because we have been assuming that aspectual auxiliaries ‘start out’ in a VP. We can use the sentences in (16) and (17), which contain both sentence adverbs and negative elements, to make the same point. (16) He has probably not broken the mirror. (17) I am probably not dreaming. (Note: other adverbs can occur in the position occupied by probably in (14)–(17), e.g. intentionally or unwittingly, but these can be shown to be positioned inside a VP. See the Exercises at the end of the chapter.)

EXERCISE Draw the trees for sentences (16) and (17) above. Use arrows to show movement. You may omit irrelevant nodes.

Your answers should look like this: (18)

137

English Syntax and Argumentation

(19)

Now, at this point I may have convinced you that aspectual auxiliaries should somehow be related to the I-position, but you may well have noticed that all the evidence that has been put forward so far is also compatible with an analysis in which the aspectual auxiliaries are always positioned in ‘I’, and never part of a VP, as in (6). Why not take the structure of (3) and (4) to be as in (20) and in (21), where the aspectual auxiliaries are treated like the modal auxiliaries? (20)

(21)

138

Movement

In other words, why do we want to insist that aspectual auxiliaries originate inside a VP, and that they are different from modal auxiliaries, which I have claimed to be positioned in ‘I’, without being moved from inside a VP? The structures above would be possible if it wasn’t for the fact that in English we can have combinations of modal auxiliaries with aspectual auxiliaries, as in (22): (22) He will not have broken the mirror. Here, as before, the modal will is positioned in ‘I’, where it originates, whereas the aspectual auxiliary turns up to the right of the negative element not. (Cf. also He will probably not have broken the mirror, where there is also a sentence adverb present.) In (22) the aspectual must therefore be inside the VP, to the right of the Specifier not.

EXERCISE Draw the tree for sentence (22) above. You may leave out irrelevant nodes, such as the Specifier position of the lowest VP.

The tree for (22) looks like this: (23)

The situation we’re faced with, then, is that we have evidence that aspectual auxiliaries can be positioned outside VPs, namely when there is a sentence adverb and/or negative element present, but no modal verb, as in (10)–(17), and we have evidence that aspectual auxiliaries can be positioned inside VPs, namely when there is also a modal verb in the sentence, as in (22). In order to account for this situation, we posit movement of aspectual auxiliary verbs from VP to ‘I’, but only if there is not already a modal verb present in ‘I’ to block it.

139

English Syntax and Argumentation

9.2 NP-Movement: passive Consider the active sentence in (24), and its passive counterpart in (25): (24) These lorries produce filthy fumes. (25) Filthy fumes are produced by these lorries. We saw in Chapter 2 that the active-passive alternation is quite a common one, and that, in contrast with active sentences, passive sentences contain the passive auxiliary be, a past participle and an optional PP introduced by the preposition by. If we consider (24) and (25) from the point of view of thematic roles, we observe that the NP these lorries carries an Agent role both in (24) and (25). The NP filthy fumes carries the role of Patient (or Theme if you prefer) in both sentences. Linguists have suggested that in order to capture the strong thematic affinities between active and passive sentences, we might view passive sentences as being the result of movement, in such a way that the Subject of a passive sentence derives from the position immediately following the lexical verb. We can indicate the position that the Subject of (25) derives from with a dash symbol: ‘—’. (26)

Such an account would explain how a phrase with a Patient thematic role ends up in Subject position, while its canonical position is after the lexical verb. Movement of this type in passive sentences is an instantiation of NP-Movement. We might wonder where the passive auxiliary be should be located in a tree diagram. Before dealing with this problem, it might be a good idea to reiterate two related points that I made in Section 2.4 regarding the syntactic behaviour of auxiliary verbs (both modals and aspectuals). First, if there is a sequence of auxiliaries in a sentence, each auxiliary determines the form of a following one. Second, the various types of auxiliaries that English possesses always occur in the same order. I will illustrate these points with a few examples. Consider first (27)–(30): (27) This student must write two essays. (28) This student has written two essays. (29) This student is writing two essays. (30) Two essays were written by this student. In (27) the lexical verb is preceded by the modal verb must. In (28) and (29) it is preceded by an aspectual auxiliary (have and be, respectively), while in (30) (the passive version of This student wrote two essays), the lexical verb is preceded by the plural past tense form of the passive auxiliary be. Notice that in each case the form of the lexical verb is determined by the auxiliary that precedes it. Thus, in (27) the modal must is followed by the base form of the verb write. In (28) and (30) the lexical verb is in the form of the past 140

Movement

participle written, while in (29) the verb-form writing is determined by the progressive auxiliary be. Combinations of auxiliaries are also possible (we have seen some examples of this already): (31) This student must have written two essays. modal auxiliary + perfect auxiliary + lexical verb (32) This student must be writing two essays. modal auxiliary + progressive auxiliary + lexical verb (33) This student has been writing two essays. perfect auxiliary + progressive auxiliary + lexical verb (34) Two essays must have been being written by this student. modal auxiliary + perfect auxiliary + progressive auxiliary + passive auxiliary + lexical verb While sentences (31)–(33) are perfectly acceptable in English, (34) is unusual, but nevertheless possible.

EXERCISE Other combinations of auxiliaries are possible in English. Try to construct sentences with additional possibilities.

The auxiliary + lexical verb sequence always occurs in the following order: (35) (modal) (perfect) (progressive) (passive) lexical verb The lexical verb is always obligatory. The auxiliaries are optional. Notice that if we do have a sequence of auxiliaries, it is possible to ‘skip’ one of the bracketed auxiliary slots shown in (35), as (32) illustrates. Here we have a modal auxiliary immediately followed by a progressive auxiliary. There is no perfect auxiliary. In (34) all auxiliary slots given in (35) are filled. We can only select one auxiliary of a particular type, so it is not possible for a Standard English sentence to contain two modal verbs, or two progressive auxiliaries. You may have noticed that auxiliaries share a property with transitive and ditransitive verbs: like these lexical verbs they too determine what follows them. As we have seen, a transitive verb requires a following NP or clause, whereas a ditransitive verb requires two NPs. Using the terminology introduced in Chapter 7, transitive verbs subcategorise for an NP or clause, and ditransitive verbs subcategorise for two NPs. In the same way, auxiliary verbs subcategorise for VPs. To see this, take another look at (27)–(30) above. The modal in (27) subcategorises for a VP headed by a verb in the base form (write two essays), the perfect and passive auxiliaries in (28) and (30) are followed by a VP headed 141

English Syntax and Argumentation

by a participle (written two essays and written by this student), while the progressive auxiliary in (29) subcategorises for a VP headed by an -ing form (writing two essays). We will see in a moment how to draw the trees for these sentences. Let’s now return to the question we asked ourselves earlier: where in a tree diagram do we position the passive auxiliary be? We will try to answer this question by reasoning our way through a number of sentences. First, we already know where modal verbs, aspectual auxiliaries and negative elements are located. The way we will proceed is to analyse sentences that contain a combination of these elements, and then see how passive be fits in. So, let’s produce a number of test sentences containing different auxiliary verbs and negative elements: (36) Filthy fumes are not produced by these lorries. (37) Filthy fumes have not been produced by these lorries. (38) Filthy fumes are not being produced by these lorries. (39) Filthy fumes may not have been produced by these lorries. (40) Filthy fumes may not be being produced by these lorries. (41) Filthy fumes may not have been being produced by these lorries. Sentence (36) is the negative counterpart of (25): here the passive auxiliary be combines with the negative element not. As we have seen, not is located in the leftmost position in the VP, namely Spec-of-VP, and this suggests that the passive auxiliary should be positioned outside the VP. Because it is tensed, a suitable location would be the ‘I’-node. We should now use other data to test this hypothesis. In (37) the passive auxiliary (this time in the form of the past participle been) is preceded not only by not, but also by the perfect aspectual auxiliary have. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, this leads us to conclude that the passive auxiliary is inside the VP, the reason being that it is preceded by not, which, as before, is located in the leftmost position of the VP. Let’s turn to some further examples and see if we can resolve this contradiction. Consider (38). This sentence is structurally similar to (37), except that it contains the progressive auxiliary be (namely are), rather than perfect have. In both (39) and (40) we have a combination of a modal verb (may) with an aspectual auxiliary (have in (39), be in (40)) and the passive auxiliary (in the form of been in (39), being in (40)). These sentences show that this time the modal is outside the VP, whereas the aspectual and passive auxiliaries are inside the VP. Finally, in (41) we have the modal may, the negative marker not, the perfect auxiliary have, the progressive auxiliary been, and the passive auxiliary being. Only the modal is outside the VP, all the elements to the right of not are inside the VP. So, what do we make of these, at times conflicting, data? If you look carefully at (36)–(41) again, you will see that in each case the first auxiliary verb in the sequence is finite, and precedes the negative marker not. Now, bearing in mind that modal auxiliaries are positioned in ‘I’, the picture that emerges is really quite straightforward: if a sentence you are analysing contains a modal verb, then it is positioned in ‘I’, any other verbs then being located in the VP. If there are only non-modal auxiliaries in the sentence, then

142

Movement

again the first of these is in ‘I’, whereas the other verbs are positioned in the VP. If there is only a lexical verb, then it is inside the VP, functioning as the VP-Head. Returning to our passive sentence in (26), we can conclude that its tree looks like (42): (42)

Notice that we have two movements here: the passive auxiliary be has moved to ‘I’ under Verb Movement, while the Direct Object has moved from a position following the lexical verb to the Subject position of the sentence under NP-Movement.

EXERCISE Draw the trees for sentences (27)–(30) above. As before, you may use triangles for NPs and leave out the Specifier positions of lower VPs.

Your answers should look like (43)–(46):

143

English Syntax and Argumentation

(43)

(44)

(45)

144

Movement

(46)

I will return to the analysis of sentences containing sequences of auxiliary verbs in Section 9.6.

9.3 NP-Movement: Subject-to-Subject Raising There is a further type of NP-Movement in English that we will discuss very briefly. Consider the sentences below: (47) Danny seems to be working. (48) Phil appears to be singing. As we saw in Chapter 2, seem and appear are linking verbs. In (47) and (48) they link the Subjects Danny and Phil to the strings to be working and to be singing, respectively. If we now think about (47) and (48) from the point of view of meaning, observe that we can paraphrase them as follows: (49) It seems that Danny is working. (50) It appears that Phil is singing. Notice the appearance of the dummy pronoun it in these sentences. We have already seen in Chapter 6 that this pronoun is never assigned a thematic role, and the very fact that it can appear as a Subject immediately before a linking verb suggests that linking verbs do not assign thematic roles to their Subjects. In fact, it would be hard to determine what kind of thematic role verbs like seem and appear would assign to their Subjects in

145

English Syntax and Argumentation

(47) and (48). It is, however, less difficult to think of a thematic role that (to be) working and (to be) singing might assign. This would clearly be an Agent role. Linguists have suggested that sentences like (47) and (48) involve two clauses, and that Danny and Phil receive their thematic role from (to be) working and (to be) singing in a subordinate clause, before being moved to the matrix clause Subject position. We can now represent (47) and (48) as follows: (51)

(52)

This type of displacement, along with the movement discussed in Section 9.2, is an instance of NP-Movement. It is also sometimes referred to as Subject-to-Subject Raising. This is because the NP Subjects move from the Subject position of the subordinate clause to the Subject position of the matrix clause. In a tree diagram, for (51) and (52) this movement can be represented as in (53) and (54): (53)

146

Movement

(54)

The upshot of all this is that linking verbs are one-place predicates that take clausal arguments. Thus, seem takes the clause Danny to be working as its argument, while appear takes Phil to be singing as its argument. The combined argument structure and thematic structure representations of seem and appear are as in (55) and (56): (55) seem (verb) [1 ] (56) appear (verb) [1 ] The way we should read this is as follows: seem and appear (which, along with a few other verbs, are called raising verbs) take one argument in the form of a clause, and this clause is assigned a propositional thematic role. If we compare (47) and (48) with (49) and (50), we see that the clausal arguments specified in (55) and (56) can take the form of a nonfinite to-infinitive clause or a finite that-clause. However, only in the case of toinfinitive clauses does the Subject get displaced under NP-Movement. Remember that it in (49) and (50) is not an argument of the linking verb and does not get a thematic role. For this reason, it does not appear in the frames in (55) and (56).

9.4 Movement in interrogative sentences: Subject–Auxiliary Inversion We saw in Chapter 2 that one of the characteristics of auxiliary verbs (modals, aspectuals, passive be and dummy do) is that they invert with the Subject in interrogative sentences. This process of Subject–Auxiliary Inversion is illustrated by the sentences below: (57) Saul can play the piano. (58) Can Saul play the piano?

147

English Syntax and Argumentation

(59) Neil is playing squash. (60) Is Neil playing squash? (61) Simon hates game shows. (62) Does Simon hate game shows? If a sentence already contains an auxiliary verb, then this verb inverts with the Subject, as in (58) and (60). If the original sentence does not contain an auxiliary, then do is added, as in (62), a process we have been calling do-support. Let us now see where auxiliaries end up in a tree diagram after Subject–Auxiliary Inversion. We will assume that the moved verb is adjoined to S at the leftmost periphery of the sentence, as is shown below in (63) for (58): (63)

EXERCISE Draw the tree for (60) above. Indicate movement with arrows, as has been done above. (Remember that the aspectual auxiliary be moves twice: once to acquire tense and agreement, and a second time under Subject–Auxiliary Inversion.)

The tree for (60) looks like (64):

148

Movement

(64)

We now return to the dummy auxiliary do. As you know, this auxiliary is exceptional in that it is only inserted when it is required in negative or interrogative sentences that do not already have an auxiliary (cf. (61) and (62)), or if emphasis is required (e.g. He DID see it!). We might wonder whether dummy do is also subject to movement. In other words, do we assume that it is moved from the I-node in the same way as modal verbs, as in (63), or that it is first moved from inside VP to ‘I’, and then on to a sentence-initial position, as in (64)? To put this question differently: as far as its syntactic behaviour is concerned, do we group dummy do with the modal verbs (as being always tensed and originating in ‘I’), or with the other auxiliaries (originating in the VP and moving to ‘I’ to acquire tense)? The answer to this question is not straightforward. The reason is that in some ways dummy do behaves like the modal auxiliaries, in other respects it behaves like the aspectual auxiliaries. Recall that modal verbs display three characteristics, in addition to the NICE properties: 1. They are always finite. 2. They are followed by a verb in the form of a bare infinitive. 3. They do not take third person singular present tense endings. Dummy do resembles the modals in that it conforms to the first two of these characteristics. However, it resembles non-modal auxiliaries in that it can take a third person singular ending (does). Furthermore, the modals and the aspectuals can be followed by other auxiliaries, whereas dummy do cannot. It is a ‘lone auxiliary’, in that it cannot be preceded or followed by other auxiliaries. Thus, none of the following are possible in English:

149

English Syntax and Argumentation

(65) *He must do like wine. (66) *He did have spoken in public. (67) *He did be walking fast. From the point of view of meaning, dummy do does not behave like the modals, aspectuals or the passive auxiliary be. In fact, it is often said to be meaningless, and solely to perform the function of tense-bearer in interrogative, negative and emphatic sentences, hence the name.

EXERCISE Why is (i) below nott a counterexample to the claim that dummy do does not co-occur with other auxiliaries? (i) Leo must do his exercises.

The reason is that in this sentence the verb do is a lexical verb, not an auxiliary: unlike auxiliary do, it can occur on its own (e.g. He did his homework this morning.). What comes out of the discussion of dummy do is that it is a hybrid auxiliary: it resembles the modal auxiliaries in two respects, and the aspectual auxiliaries in another. What we will do here is take criteria 1 and 2 above for modal auxiliaries to be decisive in saying that dummy do, when present, is positioned in ‘I’.

9.5 Wh-Movement Consider the following sentence: (68) What will you buy? This is a simple interrogative structure that displays three notable features: first, there is a wh-element. This is a word (sometimes also called a wh-word) that begins with the letters wh- placed at the beginning of the sentence, e.g. what, which, why, etc. Secondly, we have Subject–Auxiliary Inversion, and thirdly, the verb buy appears apparently without a Direct Object. Let’s turn our attention first to the verb buy. This is a transitive verb whose subcategorisation frame specifies that an NP must be present in a sentence in which it occurs. Notice, however, that in (68) buy is not followed by an NP, but the sentence is nevertheless grammatical. We would expect ungrammaticality to result if a verb’s subcategorisation requirements are not met (cf. *They bought). How can we explain that (68) is a good sentence? Well, one way of doing so is to say that despite appearances, there is a Direct Object in (68), but that it is not in its normal place. Which element in (68)

150

Movement

would qualify for DO status? Clearly, what is the most likely candidate. If this is correct, we need to account for the fact that it is not in its normal position. We will assume that in (68) the wh-element is moved from the DO position following the lexical verb to the beginning of the sentence. This type of movement is called WhMovement, for obvious reasons. We can easily show that what in (68) is associated with the DO position by constructing a sentence in which it occurs in that location, as in (69): (69) You will buy WHAT? This sentence (which we might imagine ourselves uttering after a friend has just announced that he will buy himself something outlandish) is syntactically declarative, but has the force of a question (see Section 4.3.1). Notice that the wh-element is heavily stressed. The important point about (69) is that the wh-element occurs after the verb. This shows that it functions as DO. It is now natural to say that in relating (69) to (68), we move the wh-element to the beginning of the sentence. In the process the Subject is inverted with the auxiliary. An obvious question to ask at this point is: where in a tree diagram is a fronted wh-element positioned? If you look at (68) again, you will see that the moved wh-element is placed before the inverted auxiliary. Inverted auxiliaries are adjoined to S (cf. (63) and (64)), and we will simply assume that wh-elements are adjoined to them on their left. The tree for (68) then looks like (70): (70)

So far, we have been talking somewhat loosely about wh-elements. This is because in the example we examined above a single word was moved. However, we should really be speaking of wh-phrases. In (68) and (70) we moved a wh-NP, and the same has happened in (71):

151

English Syntax and Argumentation

(71)

Notice that in this sentence which is a determinative (see Section 2.2).

EXERCISE Draw the tree for (71).

Your answer should look like (72): (72)

In (73) and (74) a wh-AP and a wh-PP, respectively, have been fronted: (73) How old are you –? (74) In which house do you live –? Recall from Chapter 4 that how is also a wh-word. We can also express the meaning of (74) by fronting only the wh-NP which house. The resulting sentence is (75): (75) Which house do you live in –? This is called preposition stranding.

152

Movement

EXERCISE Draw trees for the following sentences: (i) Who did you see? (ii) What did Sally give James? (iii) Which film did you like?

Your answers should look like (76)–(78): (76)

(77)

153

English Syntax and Argumentation

(78)

9.6 The structure of sentences containing one or more auxiliaries In Section 9.2, we saw that auxiliaries, like all other verbs (except intransitive ones), are subcategorised to take Complements. More specifically, auxiliary verbs take VPComplements. Furthermore, auxiliaries determine the form of the verb that heads the VP-Complement. Thus, perfect and passive auxiliaries are always followed by a VP headed by an -ed form (-en for some verbs, e.g. eat–ate–eaten). Modal auxiliaries are always followed by a VP headed by a verb in the base form, and progressive auxiliaries are always followed by a VP headed by an -ing form. Sentences (79)–(82) illustrate this: (79) This artist has painted two portraits. perfect auxiliary + a VP headed by a lexical verb in -ed (The lexical verb is a past participle.) (80) This artist will have painted two portraits. modal auxiliary + a VP headed by a perfect auxiliary in the base form + a VP headed by a lexical verb in -ed (The lexical verb is a past participle.) (81) This artist will have been painting two portraits. modal auxiliary + a VP headed by a perfect auxiliary in the base form + a VP headed by a progressive auxiliary in -ed (-en) + a VP headed by a lexical verb in -ing (The lexical verb is a present participle.)

154

Movement

(82) Two portraits will have been being painted by this artist. modal auxiliary + a VP headed by a perfect auxiliary in the base form + a VP headed by a progressive auxiliary in -ed (-en) + a VP headed by a passive auxiliary in -ing + a VP headed by a lexical verb in -ed (The lexical verb is a past participle.) Assuming in each case that the first auxiliary is positioned in ‘I’, and that the following auxiliaries subcategorise for a VP-Complement (cf. also (6) above), we derive the following tree structures for (79)–(82). (In order to make the trees more readable, the Specifier positions of the VPs have been left out): (83)

(84)

(85)

155

English Syntax and Argumentation

(86)

All the movements we have discussed in this chapter have been in a leftward direction. Further types of movement – including rightward movement – will be discussed in Chapter 12.

KEY CONCEPTS movement NP-Movement passive raising verb Subject–Auxiliary Inversion Subject-to-Subject Raising

Verb Movement wh-element Wh-Movement

EXERCISES 1. Draw the trees for sentences (31)–(34) and (36)–(41) in the text. You may use triangles for categories that are not immediately relevant, such as NPs, and you may leave out the Specifier positions of the lower VPs. 2. Draw the tree for the sentence Which file can you completely delete? Are the following statements ‘true’ or ‘false’: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

156

There are two kinds of movement. One of these movements is NP-Movement. The NP you does not move. The verb delete is an intransitive verb.

Movement

3. Draw the tree for sentence (i) below. Show the movements (if any). (i) He probably has not written the report. 4. Take another look at the tree in (86). Are the following statements true or false? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

The VP painted by this artistt is the Complement of the verb being. The PP by this artistt is an Adjunct in the lowest VP. This tree contains three auxiliary verbs. The verb been is the passive auxiliary.

5. Liliane Haegeman, in her book Introduction to Government and Binding Theory (1994), positions not only modal auxiliaries, but also aspectual auxiliaries under ‘I’. In view of the data in (i)–(iii) below, why is this a problem? (i) They must have been dreaming. (ii) He will not have broken the mirror. = (22) (ii) She should not have been using the phone so late. *6. Draw the trees for (74) and (75) in the text. Assume that live takes a PP Complement. *7. Consider the following sentences: (i) Eric has often broken his arm, but Gary never has. (ii) ?Eric has often broken his arm, but Gary has never. For most speakers (ii) would be slightly less acceptable than (i), although it would not be ungrammatical. We can assume that the string broken his arm has been deleted from the tail of (i) and (ii). How is (i), as contrasted with (ii), problematic for our account of the syntactic behaviour of non-modal auxiliaries? *8. Use the data below to argue either for or against movement of the lexical verb be from its position as Head of the verb phrase to ‘I’. (i) John is not sad. (ii) *John not is sad. Are the data in (iii) and (iv) also of relevance to decide the issue? (iii) John is perhaps happy. (iv) John perhaps is happy. *9. We have seen that if a sentence contains a modal auxiliary verb, as well as an aspectual auxiliary verb, the modal is positioned in ‘I’, and the aspectual is located in VP. In Section 7.2 we saw that VP-Adjuncts are inside a VP (adjoined to Vʹ), and in this chapter we saw that S-Adjuncts are immediately dominated by ‘S’. First, how can we use (i) below to show that intentionallyy is a VP-Adjunct which must be positioned in a VP? (i) He will not have intentionally broken the window. Now draw the tree for (i) above and also for (ii)–(iv) below. Remember that carefully and accidentallyy are VP-Adjuncts, while probablyy is an S-Adjunct. (ii) Edward will have carefully wrapped the present. (iii) He may have broken the vase accidentally. (iv) Chuck will probably not have seen it.

157

English Syntax and Argumentation

*10. When we discussed Wh-Movement in the text, we looked only at wh-phrases that are arguments. Consider the sentences below, where (ii) can be said to be derived from (i). Draw the trees for both sentences. (i) You can eat pancakes WHERE? (ii) Where can you eat pancakes – ? *11. Draw the tree diagram for sentence (i): (i) What has he eaten? *12. Draw the tree diagrams for (i) and (ii). (i) He will not have written it. (ii) He will have not written it. *13. In Scottish and Tyneside English and in the southern United States, the following sentences (from Kortmann 2006) are possible: (i) I tell you what we might should do. (ii) You might could try a thousand K. (iii) Could you might possibly use a teller machine? How are these examples problematic for our model of sentence structure, as exemplified by trees incorporating an I-node? *14. In the tree diagrams in (53) and (54) the verbs seems and appears are positioned under a V-node. In view of the data below, should this be revised? (i) Danny seems not to be working. (ii) Phil appears not to be singing.

FURTHER READING Movement is a notion found only in Chomsky’s Generative Grammarr, a theory of language developed since the 1950s. In some versions of this theory a special position for moved wh-elements was posited, called COMP, or simply ‘C’. As I mentioned at the end of Chapter 8, this position is the Head of a maximal projection called ‘CP’.

158

TENSE, ASPECT AND MOOD

10

In this chapter we will look at ways in which the English language allows us to refer to situations that are located in time or unfolding over time, or to situations that are hypothetical or have not been actualised. This will involve a discussion of the concepts of tense, aspect and mood. These are notions that pertain to several domains in the study of language, but especially syntax and semantics. In the same way as Chapter 6, this chapter can be seen as a bridge between these two domains.

10.1 Time and tense Most languages in the world allow us to speak about time, understood as a worldly concept which is concerned with the progression of the seconds, hours, days, months and years. As we saw in a preliminary fashion in Chapter 2, the grammar of English encodes the notion of time in a number of ways, one of which is through tense. English has only two tenses, namely the present tense and the past tense and these are principally implemented through the use of inflectional endings (e.g. walk/walked). 10.1.1 The present tense In its basic use the present tense expresses that a situation obtains at the moment of speaking, although it can also be used in different ways, e.g. to refer to the future, as we will see in 10.1.3. Most verbs use the base form (see Section 2.4) for all persons in the present tense, except for the third person singular. Thus, the present tense forms for the verb read are as follows: I read

we read

you read

you read

he/she reads

they read

The verb be is exceptional because it has a wider range of inflectional forms: I am

we are

you are

you are

he/she is

they are

159

English Syntax and Argumentation

10.1.1.1 Uses of the present tense We distinguish several different uses for the present tense in English. The state use of the present tense conveys that a situation has held and will continue to hold indefinitely: (1) My kids love chocolate. (2) Cats eat only meat. As (2) shows, the present tense can be used to talk about ‘typical behaviour’. The historic present is used to talk about events in the past: (3) I came out of the supermarket and this man walks right up to me and starts talking to me. This use of the present tense enlivens a conversational interaction and makes the events described more relevant to the moment of speaking. It can also be used in newspaper headlines or fiction writing: (4) President calls election. (5) The doorbell rings, and as Anne opens the door a sudden gush of wind whooshes past her. The instantaneous use of the present tense is very common in news or sports commentaries to describe events as they are happening: (6) Harris passes the ball to Soanes, who kicks it to the far end of the pitch. The timeless use of the present tense is used in written texts to describe situations that are not located in real time, but are unchanging ‘truths’. Consider the example below, which describes a scientific fact: (7) Light travels at 299,792,458 metres per second. We also find the timeless present in guidebooks: (8) The river Arno flows through Florence. Finally, we can also use the present tense to refer to the future. I will discuss this use in Section 10.1.3.

10.1.2 The past tense The basic use of the past tense is to refer to past situations: (9) Mark watched six movies last night. As this example shows, a past tense form of the verb can be accompanied by an Adjunct, which gives a more specific indication of when a situation obtained. To form the past tense of a verb -ed is appended to regular verbs, whereas irregular verbs have special past 160

Tense, Aspect and Mood

tense forms, e.g. catch/caught, drink/drank, eat/ate, hide/hid, meet/met, lose/lost, shake/shook etc. Be careful to keep the past tense form of a verb apart from its past participle form. See Section 2.4 for discussion. 10.1.2.1 Uses of the past tense As with the present tense, several uses of the past tense can be distinguished. The modal past tense is used to refer to situations that are in some way unlikely to come about. Contrast the following examples: (10) If Greg comes to the party, all hell will break loose. (11) If Greg came to the party, all hell would break loose. In both sentences we have a subordinate clause introduced by if. The difference between these sentences lies in the inflectional form of the verb. In (10) we have a present tense form, whereas in (11) we have a past tense form. In the case of a construction like (11), we view the likelihood of Greg coming to the party as being more remote, i.e. more unlikely, than if we use (10). It is in this sense that the past tense here is modal, since modality is concerned with such notions as ‘likelihood’, ‘certainty’ and the like (see Section 2.4). The politeness use of the past tense is often used in situations when we make requests, but are worried that we are inconveniencing the addressee. Imagine that I want you to help me move a number of very heavy boxes at the weekend. This is not a pleasant job and a bit of an imposition, even if you are family or a friend. There are different ways of asking for help, as the examples below show: (12) Help me this weekend. (13) Help me this weekend, please. (14) Can you help me this weekend? (15) Could you help me this weekend? (16) I am wondering if you can help me this weekend. (17) I was wondering if you could help me this weekend. Example (12) involves an imperative clause (Section 4.3.3). Unless you are in a position of authority, or know the person you are addressing really well, this is likely to sound rather imperious. Adding please improves the tone of the request, as do the interrogative forms in (14) and (15). The only difference between (14) and (15) is that in (15) the verb is in the past tense, and the effect of this is to convey a degree of deference to the addressee. The examples in (16) and (17) are even more polite; here again, the past tense forms of the verbs be and can imbue the requests with a certain distance, as if you are saying to the addressee: ‘if I’m asking too much, do say no’. The past tense is also used when we convey the speech of others, in so-called reported speech. If a friend says to you ‘I want to see a film tonight’, you can report this to someone else by saying ‘Tim said he wanted to see a film tonight’. The verb want here is said to be backshifted into the past tense. From the point of view of the inflectional ending, it is in harmony with the reporting verb said, which is also in the past tense. 161

English Syntax and Argumentation

Finally, we can also use the past tense to refer to the future. I will discuss this use in the next section. 10.1.3 Ways of referring to future time As we have seen, English has only two tenses: the present tense and the past tense. But what about a future tense? Surely, we need a way to talk about future time? The answer is that indeed we do have this need, but English simply does not make use of the grammatical instrument of tense to do so. Put differently, unlike many languages, English does not have dedicated inflectional forms of verbs to encode future time. Instead, we talk about the future in different ways. First, we can talk about the future using a present tense verb-form. This is called the present futurate. It is used in situations when we see the future as being scheduled in some way, as the example below makes clear: (18) He travels to Rome tomorrow. Paradoxically, we can also use the past tense to refer to future time, viewed from a moment in the past. This is the so-called past futurate. Here is an example: (19) When he called me last Monday he was going to send me the document on Tuesday. Another way of talking about the future is by using modal verbs such as will and shall: (20) I will call you when I get back. (21) I shall write to you again once I have the results. Here, the modal verbs express the meaning of ‘intention’. The difference between these verbs is that will is much more common than shall, and less formal. It is used in Britain much more than in the US. Consider next (22): (22) The police are talking to all the residents in the street this afternoon. In this example, we have the progressive auxiliary be followed by the lexical verb talk in its present participle form (see also Sections 2.4 and 9.6). This construction is called the present progressive futurate. When we use this combination of verbs, there is a sense in which the event that is being referred to is arranged. In this case, the police contacting all the residents could be the result of an accident or crime having happened.

10.2 Aspectuality and aspect The notion of aspect is concerned with the way in which the grammar of a language encodes how situations unfold over time. The related semantic notion is aspectuality. As 162

Tense, Aspect and Mood

we saw in Section 2.4, English has two kinds of aspect: progressive aspect and perfect aspect. I will deal with each of these in Sections 10.2.1–10.2.2. 10.2.1 Progressive aspect 10.2.1.1 The progressive construction A basic progressive construction is made up of a form of the auxiliary verb be followed by the present participle form of a verb: (23) Jenny is writing a message to her boyfriend. (24) Harry was cooking when I arrived at his house. In both these cases the progressive construction encodes an ongoing situation, either in the present, as in (23), called the present perfect construction or in the past, as in (24), called the past perfect construction. In neither case is it made clear when the activities of writing and cooking began. Thus in (23) Jenny started writing her message a while before the speaker uttered this sentence, and she will probably be writing the message for a little while after that point in time. The progressive construction can occur in finite and nonfinite forms. Examples of finite forms are shown in (23) and (24) above, while examples of nonfinite forms appear in (25) and (26): (25) They may be waiting outside for you. (26) Dawn will have been being seen by her doctor. These examples also illustrate that the progressive auxiliary be can combine with other auxiliary verbs. (See also Sections 9.2 and 9.6 and (22) above.) 10.2.1.2 Uses of the progressive The progressive construction typically occurs with verbs that express an ongoing activity in the present or past, as in the examples we have looked at so far, but it can also occur with state verbs, which, as their name suggests, denote a stative situation, e.g. be in the example below: (27) Otto is being extremely kind. This use of the progressive indicates that the state referred to is only temporary: the individual called Otto in (27) is seen as acting in a kind manner, but this situation is not expected to last very long. Compare (27) with (28), which indicates that Otto has a friendly personality: (28) Otto is extremely kind. The progressive is increasingly also used with stative verbs like want and understand: (29) I am desperately wanting to have a shower. (30) Don’t bother: he’s not understanding what you are saying. 163

English Syntax and Argumentation

In some uses the progressive can indicate a degree of irritation on the part of the speaker: (31) Danny is always telling me what to do, and it really annoys me. This use of the progressive is often accompanied by adverbs like always, continually, forever etc.

10.2.2 Perfect aspect 10.2.2.1 The perfect construction A basic perfect construction in English is formed by combining a form of the perfect auxiliary have with the past participle form of a verb (see also Section 2.4): (32) Madeline has been to Egypt. (33) Madeline had been to Egypt by the time she was ten. In (32) we have a present perfect construction, while in (33) we have a past perfect construction. The perfect is used to express anteriority, i.e. it is used to refer to situations in the past. In the first example the past is viewed from the moment of speech, and what (32) means is that up to the present time Madeline has visited Egypt at least on one occasion. In (33) the past is viewed from a moment in the past, namely the time that Madeline was ten years old. We have already seen that the present perfect expresses current relevance (see Section 2.4), and for this reason it can only combine with Adjuncts that are compatible with that meaning, as in (34): (34) I haven’t seen her since last week. (i.e. I have not seen her in a period starting last week and leading up to the moment of speaking.) The present perfect cannot combine with Adjuncts that are incompatible with the current relevance meaning: (35) *We have eaten in that restaurant yesterday. Just like the progressive construction, the perfect construction can occur in finite and nonfinite forms. In (32) and (33) the perfect auxiliaries carry tense, whereas in (36) and (37), as well as in (26), the perfect auxiliary does not carry tense: (36) I’m very pleased to have met you. (37) Having finished my essay I went out for a quick bite to eat. In these examples the perfect does not express current relevance, only anteriority. As with the progressive auxiliary be, the perfect auxiliary have can be combined with other auxiliary verbs, as in (26) above, and in (38) below: (38) The result may have been influenced by the weather.

164

Tense, Aspect and Mood

10.2.2.2 Uses of the present perfect The present perfect has several main uses. The present perfect of the recent past (also called the hot news perfect) is used to report on events that took place in the past, but have relevance at the present moment. (39) Norbert has recently bought himself a sports car. (This explains why he looks so smug.) (40) The shop has just closed. (Now we have to find some milk elsewhere.) (41) The authorities have announced in the past hour that the prisoners will be released. (news item) As these examples show, this use of the present perfect is often accompanied by Adjuncts that indicate recency, such as just, lately, recently etc. The continuative perfect indicates that a situation began in the past, extends to the present moment, and potentially beyond: (42) I have always loved swimming. (43) They have lived in the house on the corner since the early 1960s. It can also be used to talk about habits: (44) We have always played bingo on a Tuesday night. The present perfect of result indicates the outcome of a situation: (45) The car was on fire for half an hour. Now it has exploded. Finally, the experiential present perfect indicates that a situation occurred at least on one occasion in a period of time beginning in the past and leading up to the present. An example is shown in (32), and an additional one in (46): (46) She has seen that film before.

10.3 Modality and mood Traditionally, the concept of mood is understood as the way a grammar encodes the semantic notion of modality (see Section 2.4). Older grammars distinguished declarative mood, imperative mood and subjunctive mood. These were said to be identifiable through verbal inflections. However, this way of conceptualising mood is not very suitable for English grammar, since English has very few verbal inflections. It is better to regard mood as an analytic concept, i.e. a concept that is expressed by a combination of elements such as a modal verb followed by a lexical verb. In what follows I will first discuss the different types of modality we can distinguish in English, and I will then turn to a discussion of the syntactic characteristics of the core modals and their meanings.

165

English Syntax and Argumentation

10.3.1 Different types of modality In English we distinguish three types of modality: epistemic modality, deontic modality and dynamic modality. Epistemic modality is concerned with the knowledge we have as language users, and the conclusions we draw on the basis of that knowledge. Consider (47) and (48): (47) Greg must be in Boston by now. (48) Larry, you can’t be serious when you say that you will buy a skyscraper in Manhattan! In (47) the speaker concludes, on the basis of the knowledge she has (e.g. the time his plane departed) that Greg is in Boston. In (48) the proposition of Larry buying a skyscraper in Manhattan is so absurd that the speaker concludes that it’s not possible for Larry to be serious about this. Deontic modality is typically concerned with an action imposed by an authority, e.g. a speaker imposing an obligation on someone, as in (49): (49) You must leave the building at once. The verb must is considered fairly authoritarian and is decreasing in use. In (50) the addressee is given permission, also a deontic notion, to borrow five books. The verb can is also often used to express this meaning. (50) Readers may borrow a maximum of five books. Finally, dynamic modality is typically Subject-oriented, rather than speaker-oriented. What does this mean? To explain, consider first example (49) again. Here the ‘source’ of the obligation is the speaker. Thus, deontic modality is typically speaker-oriented. Compare (49) with (51): (51) Eleanor can fly a helicopter. The modal verb can in this example expresses ‘ability’. In this case, ability is a notion that is attributed to the referent of the Subject of the sentence, namely Eleanor. The speaker merely reports on her ability, but plays no part in it. Volitional will, as in (52), also expresses dynamic meaning: (52) No, I won’t empty the bins; I did it yesterday. In this example the negated modal verb will expresses an unwillingness on the part of the speaker to empty the bins. 10.3.2 The core modals The core modal verbs (listed in order of frequency of occurrence in English) are can (can’t/cannot), will/’ll (won’t), may (?mayn’t), must (musn’t) and shall (shan’t). Their

166

Tense, Aspect and Mood

morphological past tense counterparts (again listed in order of frequency) are would (wouldn’t), could (couldn’t), should (shouldn’t) and might (mightn’t). Notice that must has no past tense counterpart. 10.3.2.1 The morphosyntactic characteristics of the core modals As we saw in Section 2.4 the modal verbs, along with the other auxiliary types in English, conform to the NICE properties, exemplified again, for convenience, in the examples below: (53) Sabine will cook dinner tonight. (54) Sabine won’t cook dinner tonight. [Negation] (55) Will Sabine cook dinner tonight? [Inversion] (56) Sabine will cook dinner tonight, and so will Jack. [Code] (57) Sabine WILL cook dinner tonight. [Emphasis] As these examples show, modal verbs are always followed by a verb in the shape of a bare infinitive. In addition, we saw that the modals do not have third person singular present tense forms, nor do they have nonfinite forms (i.e. infinitive, -ing or -ed/-en forms): (58) *Sabine wills do it. (59) *Sabine is expected to will do it. By definition they are always tensed. The relationship between the present and past tense forms of the modals is complicated. In some cases the past tense forms are used to express anteriority, as with the verb can when it expresses ‘ability’: (60) Gary can stand upside down on one hand. (i.e. present ability: he is able to do this.) (61) Gary could stand upside down on one hand. (i.e. past ability: he was – and maybe still is – able to do this.) However, in other cases the past form of a modal does not express anteriority but an unrelated meaning. Thus, the meaning of shall in (62) is ‘intention’, but in (63) it carries deontic meaning: (62) We shall decorate the cake with chocolate chips. (63) We should decorate the cake with chocolate chips. This has led some linguists to say that there is more than one lexeme should with different meanings. In other words, they claim that the verb should is polysemous. Other linguists have claimed that the modals have a core meaning and that related meanings are contextually derived. In this book I will take the view that the core modals express a set of focal meanings. These will be discussed in the next section. 167

English Syntax and Argumentation

10.3.2.2 Meanings expressed by the core modals In this section I will give an overview of the principal meanings that can be expressed by the core modal verbs, together with examples. ability – can, could (64) He can jump across a car on his bike. (65) He could sing beautifully when he was young. conclusion/necessity – can, could, must (66) Sally can’t be in France, because I saw her only an hour ago. (67) It couldn’t have been last Saturday that we met, because I was ill that day. (68) He must be at home, because the lights are on in his living room. intention/volition – will, would, shall (69) I will let you know when to call me. (70) Would you please open the window? (71) I shall instruct my solicitor to investigate their claims. (formal) obligation – must, should (72) You must submit two copies of your CV. (73) You should eat your lunch before 2 pm. permission – can, could, may, might (74) You can enter the competition as a team, if you wish. (75) They weren’t allowed to wear jeans in court, but they could wear chinos. (76) Parents may not collect their children from the back entrance. (77) Might I ask why you are so rude? (formal) possibility – can, could, may, might (78) Computer screens can damage your eye sight. (79) These cooling fans could generate a noise. (80) It may rain later today. (81) Doing lots of exercise might improve your health. futurity/prediction – will, would, shall (82) Cats will always return home. (83) They would always arrive late when we worked together. (84) I shall be really pleased, if you send me a copy of your book. (formal)

168

Tense, Aspect and Mood

10.3.3 Other ways of expressing modality Modal meanings are principally expressed by the modal verbs in English, but it is important to be aware that we can also use other expressions that can carry modal meaning to various degrees, such as nouns (e.g. intention, request, requirement, wish), marginal modals (e.g. dare, need, ought [to]), lexical verbs (e.g. advise, be going [to], have [to], intend, propose, require, suggest), adjectives (e.g. bound, desirable, essential, imperative, likely, necessary, obligatory), adverbs (e.g. maybe, necessarily, obligatorily, perhaps, possibly, surely) and modal idioms (e.g. have got [to], be [to], had better, would rather/sooner). To illustrate, consider the examples below: Nouns (85) The intention of the new law is that we all retire by the age of 67. (86) My suggestion is that she be invited to join the party. Marginal modals (87) I daren’t ask him whether he will come to the party. (88) She ought to know about this. Lexical verbs (89) We are going to tell everyone that the event has been cancelled. (90) I have to mow the grass on Saturday. Adjectives (91) It is likely that the library is closed on Saturday. (92) We are bound to be delayed yet again. Adverbs (93) Perhaps he likes fish. (94) We don’t necessarily want to know about it. Modal idioms (95) You have got to stop watching these violent movies. (96) They are to report to the front desk by 8 am.

169

English Syntax and Argumentation

KEY CONCEPTS aspectuality and aspect perfect aspect progressive aspect inflectional form mood and modality deontic modality dynamic modality epistemic modality

present participle time and tense past tense present tense

EXERCISES 1. Identify the verbs in the examples below. Indicate which ones carry tense, and whether it is a present tense or a past tense: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Fran rides her bike to school. Jake and Caroline agree to prepare a dessert for the picnic. We must meet up soon. Leo drove us mad.

2. Consider the following sentence We eat bread every dayy. True or false? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

The verb is a present tense form. The sentence refers to a particular point in time. The verb is a nonfinite verb-form. The verb is a regular verb.

3. The progressive construction in (i) has been called the interpretive progressive. Explain the terminology. (i) When Vinnie says that he didn’t eat the food on the table he is joking. 4. Compare (i) and (ii) below: May. y. (i) The students will take their exams in May May. y. (ii) The students will be taking their exams in May These two examples express a meaning that is similar, but subtly different. What is the difference? 5. Identify the modal verbs in the sentences below and determine which meaning they express: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

He must start eating with a knife and fork. That will be Rob on the phone. We could travel to Rome by road. May I call you by your first name?

*6. Consider the following sentences: (i) I insist that he leave immediately. (ii) I insist that he leaves immediately.

170

Tense, Aspect and Mood

The verb-form in (i) is said to be a subjunctive verb in the subjunctive mood d in many English grammars (see Section 10.3 where I discussed the concept of mood). Subjunctive verbs are said to be special verb-forms typically used after verbs, adjectives etc. that have a directive meaning. Which of these two options would you use in your speech? Can you think of any further words that trigger a ‘subjunctive verb’? Does it make sense to speak of a ‘subjunctive verb-form’ in English?

FURTHER READING On time and tense, see Comrie (1985) and Michaelis (2021). Salkie (2010) discusses the verb will, and whether it should be regarded as a modal verb or as a future tense verb. On aspect and aspectuality, see Binnick (2021). On modal and modality, see Depraetere and Reed (2021), and on English modal verbs in particular, see Coates (1983), Collins (2009) and Palmer (1990). On matters relating to verbs, verbal constructions and their meanings, see Leech (2004).

171

172

PART III ARGUMENTATION

173

174

SYNTACTIC ARGUMENTATION

11

In Part I of this book we set out to establish the foundations of English syntax, which we elaborated on in Part II by looking at arguments, thematic roles, X-bar syntax and movement. In Part III we will deal with syntactic argumentation. Argumentation, as a general notion, is concerned with reasoning; more specifically, with the methodological process of arguing in favour of, or against, a point of view, a course of action, an opinion etc. Syntactic argumentation is about reasoning in the domain of syntax. In this chapter we will address the question of how it proceeds, adopting what is called a hypothesis-falsification approach. We will address the question of what sort of arguments we can use to evaluate an analysis of a particular construction, or to choose between competing analyses, making use of such notions as economy of description, elegance of description and independent justification.

11.1 The art of argumentation How does syntactic argumentation proceed? In this section we’ll take a close look at an example of an analytical problem of syntax, and investigate how we might go about tackling it. Imagine that you are a person who is marooned on a tropical island and to pass the time you decide to write an English grammar. (The sun has strange effects!) You have a basic knowledge of grammar, but it’s very rusty and patchy. Let’s assume that you more or less know what nouns, adjectives, verbs and prepositions are, but not much else. You start by focusing your attention on the group of elements that we have labelled ‘determinatives’ in this book, i.e. words such as the, a, these, those, all, every, several, some etc. (see Section 2.2), and you wonder how you might classify them. First you think of some examples involving these words, as in (1) and (2): (1) the sunshine (2) every palm tree You then come up with a hypothesis, i.e. a supposition, as to what might be the categorial status of the words the and every. After giving (1) and (2) some thought, you notice a parallel between these phrases and phrases like (3) and (4): (3) warm sunshine (4) tall palm trees

175

English Syntax and Argumentation

You observe that words like the and every, just like warm and tall, can occur before nouns, and have some sort of modifying function. You now surmise, by analogy with warm and tall, words which you know to be adjectives, that the and every are also adjectives. However, you realise that it is not wise to base your conclusions on only a few examples, and at this stage you want to refine your hypothesis, and look for further data that bear on the question of the categorial status of the, every etc. In fact, what you want to do is progressively try to falsify your hypothesis by finding counterexamples to it, and in this way continually adjust your initial suppositions. Returning to the problem at hand, let us consider some more data: (5) the warm sunshine (6) every tall palm tree (7) *the some sunshine (8) *the every palm tree These examples are problematic for the initial hypothesis that warm, tall, the, every, some etc. are all elements from the same word class. If they were, why is it that warm and tall can be preceded by the or every, i.e. an item from our mystery category, as in (5) and (6), but that two items from this category cannot co-occur, as in (7) and (8)? There must be something that distinguishes words like warm and tall from words like the, every and some. Consider the following phrases: (9) beautiful, warm, bright sunshine (10) *the some every island Clearly, elements that are indisputably adjectives can be stacked (see Section 7.2), but the same cannot be said for our unknown elements: like (7) and (8), (10) shows that only one of these can be selected. It soon becomes obvious that there are many more examples where there are differences between warm and tall on the one hand, and the and every on the other: (11) very warm sunshine (12) extremely tall palm trees (13) *very the sunshine (14) *extremely every palm tree These examples show that words like warm and tall can be preceded by an intensifying adverb like very or extremely (see Chapter 2), while the and every cannot. In addition, compare (15) and (16): (15) Sunshine is warm. (16) *Sunshine is the. It is now clear, on the basis of even a handful of data, that the initial hypothesis that words like the and every are adjectives must be abandoned. The next stage is to come up with a new hypothesis. Given the facts above, it would be reasonable to surmise that words like the, a, every etc. belong to a different word class than the class of adjectives. As we saw above, this new class consists of elements 176

Syntactic Argumentation

that we have been calling determinatives. We have also seen that at any one time we can select only one determinative. At least, that’s what the data we’ve looked at so far suggest. Having been on the island for quite a while now, you will have had time to think of plenty more relevant examples, and you come up with (17): (17) All those several good ideas to get off this island have failed. What’s interesting about this example is that apparently in the italicised string we have three determinatives, namely all, those and several. So now we’re faced with a situation in which in some cases it is possible to have more than one determinative, as in (17), but in other cases it is not possible, as in (7), (8) and (10). We’re now dealing with quite complex structures, and if you think about it, (17) is not only problematic for lone mariners, but for professional grammarians as well. The reason is that the NP we have in (17) cannot easily be accommodated in the X-bar theory that we have adopted in this book: after all, in (17) we have three determinatives, but in NPs there is only one Specifier position, which is where determinatives are located (see Section 7.1). Recall that adjective phrases that occur in NPs are not problematic in this way. Functionally, they are Adjuncts that can be stacked recursively by creating new barlevel nodes (see Section 7.2.). The structure of the noun phrase in English is a difficult area of grammar, and the subject of much current research, so we won’t attempt to provide a definitive analysis of English NPs. For our purposes, what is most important is that you now have an idea of how argumentation proceeds: it can be seen as an ongoing process of hypothesis refinement by taking into account successively more linguistic data. Where do these data come from? We can either construct them from our knowledge of the language (called introspective data), or we can collect them from what we hear around us in conversations, on radio or TV, or from what we read in newspapers, books etc. (called attested data). There is some debate about which kind of data are the most valuable, but the commonsense view is to use any data that are relevant to our concerns. It’s important to stress that our reasoning should be systematic and informed. This is not to say that a certain amount of intelligent guesswork is not part of the argumentative process: especially in the early stages, after first encountering a problem concerning syntactic analysis, we may well find ourselves guessing how we can resolve it. We may even come up with a number of alternative analyses. What is then needed is a procedure to find support for the conjectured analysis, or to make choices between alternatives. We now turn to the question of what sort of arguments we can use to evaluate a proposed analysis of a particular construction, and how we can choose between rival analyses.

11.2 Economy of description: Linguistically Significant Generalisations and Occam’s Razor In this section I will discuss two ways in which economy of description should play an important role in analysing a syntactic construction, or in choosing between two or 177

English Syntax and Argumentation

more competing analyses of a phenomenon. It will be intuitively clear to you that we should rate highest the simplest analysis that successfully accounts for the data, everything else being equal. Simplicity of description can be achieved in two ways: on the one hand by making Linguistically Significant Generalisations, and on the other hand by reducing our terminological repertoire.

11.2.1 Linguistically Significant Generalisations We start with the notion ‘generalisation’. If we’re engaged in describing a complex system, any complex system, our task is made easier if we can organise the data at our disposal in a systematic way. A systematic description is called a taxonomy. Perhaps the most famous taxonomist was the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus (1707–78), who set up taxonomies of animals and plants. It will be obvious to you that Linnaeus did not achieve fame by providing a random catalogue of animals and plants and a list of their characteristics. He organised the data into patterns in such a way that generalisations could be made. It would take us too far afield to discuss Linnaeus’s taxonomy in any sort of detail, but we can get some idea of his system by briefly considering one type of animal, namely cats. We all know that domestic cats, tigers and lions belong to the animal family of felines. If, in setting up a taxonomy, we were to classify each of these animals in a class of their own, we would miss the generalisation that they all belong to the family of cats by virtue of certain shared physical characteristics; e.g. the shape of their ears, the fact that they have whiskers etc. The considerations above regarding animal taxonomies also apply when we attempt to describe the grammar of English. Here too it is important to realise that we don’t want a taxonomy in which each element of the language is classified individually. What we need instead is a descriptive system in which we can draw analogies between elements and categories on the basis of their shape and distributional properties. In other words, we want a tightly organised description in which maximum use is made of generalisations. However, we are not interested in any generalisation, only in what have been called Linguistically Significant Generalisations (LSGs). These are generalisations that are significant to the extent that they express regular patternings observed in a particular language or across several languages. We now turn to some examples of LSGs. You may not have realised it, but in previous chapters we have already made extensive use of generalisations. Thus, when we looked at word classes in Chapter 2, we grouped words together on principled grounds, namely on the basis of shared syntactic, and in some cases morphological, characteristics. So, even at that stage we were very much engaged in an argumentative process. Argumentation also played an important role when we discussed the internal structure of phrases in Chapter 7. There we introduced X-bar syntax as a system that achieves cross-categorial generalisations, and we saw that the skeletal structure of all phrases in English can be described as in (18):

178

Syntactic Argumentation

(18)

Each phrase XP (where X = N, V, A, P, Adv) contains a Specifier whose sister constituent is a bar-level category. Adjuncts (if present) are sisters of bar-level categories, while Complements (if present) are sisters of lexical categories. As a result of the insights offered by the cross-categorial generalisations of X-bar theory, our description of English syntax is considerably neater and tidier than a system that proposes flat structures for phrases would ever be, and this is because the need to describe the structure of each phrase individually is obviated. Cross-categorial generalisations can also range over a smaller set of categories. Consider the sentences below and their variants: (19) Kate came to see me. – It was kate who came to see me. (20) I met her in Philadelphia. – It was in philadelphia that I met her. (21) I made her work. – *It was work that I made her. (22) I made her happy. – *It was happy that I made her. The second sentences in each pair are called cleft sentences. They take the following form: It + form of be + focus (in small capitals in (19)–(22) above) + who/that . . . I will return to cleft constructions in Chapter 13. For present purposes it is important to observe that there is a restriction on the type of category that can occur in the focus of a cleft sentence. As will be evident from (19)–(22) above, verbs and adjectives cannot occupy that position. These word classes thus seem to pattern in the same way in cleft constructions. It has been proposed in the linguistic literature that we can capture such generalisations by assigning syntactic features to categories (see also Sections 6.4 and 8.1). Each of the major word categories is assigned the two features in the following set: (23) {± N, ± V} These features are called binary features because they take either the value ‘+’ or ‘−’. The word classes noun, verb, adjective and preposition can be characterised as follows: (24) noun

=

[+ N, − V]

verb

=

[– N, + V]

adjective

=

[+ N, + V]

preposition

=

[– N, − V]

179

English Syntax and Argumentation

(Some of the combinations of features in (24) are intuitively perhaps a little bit odd. We might ask, for example, why adjectives are marked [+ N, + V]. This is a valid criticism, which I will not attempt to address in this book.) We can now state the generalisation regarding cleft sentences in more formal terms by saying that only [− V] categories (nouns and prepositions) may be placed in the focus position of a cleft sentence. Consider next the sentences below: (25) Tom likes pizzas. (26) Tom is fond of pizzas. (27) *Tom is fond pizzas. (28) *Tom’s fondness pizzas. These sentences allow us to make the generalisation that verbs and prepositions, which share the feature [− N], can take NPs as Complements, as in (25) and (26), but adjectives and nouns cannot, as in (27) and (28). It is important to be aware that syntactic features can be used to express similarities as well as differences between categories. 11.2.2 Occam’s Razor We turn now to another way in which we can achieve economy of description: cutting back on terminology. It was the English philosopher William of Occam (c.1280–1349) who put forward the view that in describing a particular phenomenon we should use as few terms as possible: ‘entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem’ (‘entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity’). This idea has become known as the Principle of Occam’s Razor. What Occam intended to say was that in describing a phenomenon, we should cut out (hence the razor, presumably) unnecessary assumptions, categories, terminology etc. Put differently, descriptions should be as constrained as possible. We came across one example of Occam’s Razor at work in Section 6.4. There we saw that so-called ‘selectional restrictions’ (imposed on the arguments of predicates) can be handled in terms of thematic roles. The great advantage of this is that the grammar is now simplified, because its stock of terminology has been reduced because the notion ‘selectional restriction’ has become derivative. In Sections 11.2.2.1 and 11.2.2.2, we will look at two further examples in which Occam’s Razor plays a role. 11.2.2.1 Verb–preposition constructions In this section we take a look at constructions in English that involve verbs and prepositions. Consider the following sentences: (29) Valerie sent a memo out. (30) Valerie sent out a memo. (31) Valerie went out.

180

Syntactic Argumentation

In these sentences there is a strong bond between the verbs send and go and the element out, so much so that strings like send out and go out have been regarded as complex verbs, called phrasal verbs. Notice that in (29) and (30) there is a Direct Object NP (a memo) which can be positioned before or after out. (An exception are the pronouns, which must always occur before out, cf. *Valerie sent out it.) In (31) there is no DO. We can thus speak of transitive and intransitive phrasal verbs. Further examples of phrasal verbs are hand in, heat up, look up, throw away, send back, switch on/off (transitive), fall over, fool around (intransitive) and break down (can be both transitive and intransitive). We can contrast phrasal verbs with prepositional verbs. These are verbs that take a prepositional phrase as a Complement: (32) He agreed with his sister. (33) She looked through the window. An important difference with phrasal verbs is that the NP cannot occur before the preposition: (34) *He agreed his sister with. (35) *She looked the window through. Other examples of prepositional verbs are approve of (NP), believe in (NP), complain about (NP), decide on (NP), lean against (NP), look after (NP), object to (NP), rely on (NP), wait for (NP). These are all intransitive, because there is no Direct Object immediately after the verb. Transitive prepositional verbs do have a DO. Examples are remind (NP) of (NP), thank (NP) for (NP). There is a further set of verbs in English that involves prepositions, the so-called phrasal-prepositional verbs e.g. put up with (NP), let (NP), in on (NP), which we won’t discuss in this book. I will return to prepositional verbs later. In what follows I will concentrate on phrasal verbs. Let’s start by considering the element out in (29)–(31). How is it categorised by grammarians? In quite a few English grammars it is called a particle. A consequence of this is that we need to recognise a word class of particles in addition to the set of word classes we posited in Chapter 2. Now, in view of the Principle of Occam’s Razor, which states that we should not unnecessarily multiply entities, we should be suspicious of proposals for new word classes, because we must be careful not to make our account of the classification of words more complicated than is strictly necessary. It would seem that in positing a word class of particles, we are violating the Principle of Occam’s Razor. Why so? Well, if you look carefully at the ‘particle’ elements in the phrasal verbs listed above, you will realise that they can also function as the Head of prepositional phrases (in the bank, up the road etc.). The simplest assumption we can make which is in harmony with the data is that, because they look like prepositions, the ‘particle’ elements in phrasal verbs in fact are prepositions. If further investigation supports this view, then we will have avoided ‘multiplying entities’ by positing an unnecessary word class of particles. Treating ‘particles’ as prepositions initially appears to be unattractive, because ‘regular’ prepositions are always followed by a noun phrase Complement, whereas ‘particle’

181

English Syntax and Argumentation

elements in phrasal verbs seem to be autonomous elements that do not take dependent phrases; witness the fact that they can occur in different positions in sentences (cf. (29) and (30) above). However, this difference in distributional behaviour is not a real problem if we allow for the possibility that prepositions, like verbs, can be both transitive and intransitive. The prepositions we find in so-called ‘phrasal verbs’ are then simply to be regarded as intransitive prepositions, heading an intransitive PP (i.e. a PP in which the preposition is not followed by a noun phrase Complement). We can now analyse sentences involving phrasal verbs as below: (36) Valerie [VP [V sent ] [NP a memo] [PP out]]. (37) Valerie [VP [V sent ] – [PP out] [NP a memo]]. (38) Valerie [VP [V went] [PP out]]. Here, we have simply assumed that a verb like send subcategorises for an NP and a PP Complement in (36), and that go subcategorises only for a PP Complement headed by an intransitive preposition in (38). The basic position of the Direct Object NP is next to the verb, as in (36), but it can be moved rightwards, as in (37). The ‘–’ symbol indicates the original position of the Direct Object NP. Notice that apart from doing away with the word class of particles, we have achieved another economy here: in order to bring out the strong bond between verbs like send and go and the element out, we have said that the former subcategorise for the latter. Thus, there is no longer a need to posit a separate class of phrasal verbs. Send and go are just like other verbs in their Complement-taking properties. Let’s call constructions like (36) and (38) verb–preposition constructions. Now, it is one thing to propose a particular analysis, but another to justify it. When we come up with an analysis of a particular construction, the burden is on us to provide evidence for it. Obviously, everything else being equal, an analysis which is supported by arguments is to be valued more highly than an analysis for which there is little or no support. We can illustrate this point by taking another look at our so-called ‘phrasal verbs’. Remember, we argued that there is no need to recognise a class of such verbs and, instead, that we are dealing simply with verbs that subcategorise either for an NP and an intransitive PP (36), or for an intransitive PP only (38). We should now check whether there is independent evidence that shows that the hypothesised PP actually behaves like a PP. Consider the following sentence: (39) I went in. In (39) we have another instance of a verb–preposition construction. We can analyse this sentence in the same way as (38), namely as involving a verb (go) which subcategorises for an intransitive PP (in). Is there a way in which we can show that in is not a particle, but an intransitive preposition heading a PP? First, compare (39) with (40): (40) I went in the shower. 182

Syntactic Argumentation

(This sentence may sound odd to some English speakers, but it is perfectly acceptable in American English.) Here, we see that we can turn the intransitive PP in into a transitive one by allowing it to take a Complement NP. The parallel that I’m drawing here between intransitive/transitive prepositions and intransitive/transitive verbs becomes apparent when we look at verbs like read and eat. These too can be used intransitively and transitively (see also Section 3.3), as in (41)–(44): (41) I was reading. (42) I was reading a novel. (43) I was eating. (44) I was eating a pretzel. As a further piece of evidence, compare (39) with (45) and (46): (45) I went straight in. (46) I went straight in the shower. In (45) in is preceded by the modifying word straight. That this word can occur in ‘regular’ PPs as well, as (46) shows, suggests that both in and in the shower are the same type of phrase, namely a PP. In Section 7.1 we saw that words like right and straight are Specifiers of Pʹ. Finally, compare (47) with (39) and (40): (47) I went there. Notice that there can replace either in on its own or in the shower. Independent data tell us that there can be a substitute for PPs (see also Section 11.3.1 and Chapter 12): (48) I saw her in the bank. > I saw her there. (49) They left her on the platform. > They left her there. All these considerations constitute independent evidence for the analysis of in in (39) as a PP. Before we move on, here’s a brief overview of the differences between the traditional approach to ‘phrasal verbs’ and ‘prepositional verbs’ (Table 11.1), and the account of verb– preposition constructions proposed here (Table 11.2). From the former viewpoint, phrasal verbs are complex verbs, made up of a verb and a particle, which can be split up by a Direct Object. Prepositional verbs take a PP as their Complement. In the new system, we recognise only one type of verb–preposition construction, as shown in Table 11.2. The new system is more constrained and more sophisticated: there is no longer a need for a special word class of particle, nor for the special classes of phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs. In fact, as we have seen, we don’t really need a label at all for verbs involving PPs, as they are no different from other verbs: the special relationship between the verbs in question and their NP and PP Complements is simply handled by the subcategorisation properties of these verbs. These include the fact that an alternation is possible for some verbs like hand in, but not for verbs like remind of. The label ‘verb– preposition construction’ is only a convenient term to refer to a group of verbs that syntactically behave comparably. 183

English Syntax and Argumentation

Table 11.1 The traditional system of phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs Phrasal verbs

transitive, with alternation: [verb + NP + particle] or [verb + particle + NP] e.g. hand NP in, heat NP up, look NP up, throw NP away, send NP back, switch NP on/off, etc. Example: He handed his essay in./He handed in his essay. intransitive: [verb + particle] e.g. break down, cool down, fool around, etc. Example: They always fool around at the weekend.

Prepositional verbs

transitive: [verb + NP + PP] e.g. remind NP of NP, thank NP for NP Example: I thanked Pete for his help. intransitive: [verb + PP] e.g. agree with NP, approve of NP, believe in NP, complain about NP, decide on NP, look after NP, object to NP, rely on NP, wait for NP etc. Example: I agree with Mr Green./*I agree Mr Green with.

Table 11.2 Verb–preposition constructions Transitive

with alternation, the Head of the PP is intransitive: [verb + NP + PP] or [verb + PP + NP] e.g. hand NP in, heat NP up, look NP up, throw NP away, send NP back, switch NP on/off etc. Example: He handed his essay in./He handed in his essay. without alternation, the Head of the PP is transitive: [verb+ NP + PP] e.g. remind NP of NP, thank NP for NP. Example: She reminds me of my cousin./*She reminds of my cousin me.

Intransitive

the Head of the PP is intransitive: [verb + PP] e.g. break down, cool down, fool around etc. Example: They always fool around at the weekend. the Head of the PP is transitive: [verb + PP] e.g. agree with NP, approve of NP, believe in NP, complain about NP, decide on NP, look after NP, object to NP, rely on NP, wait for NP etc. Example: I agree with Mr Green./*I agree Mr Green with.

184

Syntactic Argumentation

11.2.2.2 Achieving economy in the domain of functional terminology The discussion above has shown that we can reduce our inventory of word classes and verb types by abolishing particles, phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs. We now turn to the domain of functional categories, and we will see that we can achieve similar economies here. Consider the following sentences: (50) a. Liam is very ill. b. Susie is Professor of English. c. Pete is in France. Let’s focus on the functional status of the italicised phrases in the sentences above. Many grammars of English describe the function of the AP and NP following the copular verb be in (50)a and (50)b as Subject Complement. This term is used because such units are instrumental in ascribing a property to the Subject of the sentence in which they occur: the AP and NP in (50)a and (50)b ‘complement’ the reference of the Subject. (Notice that the term Complement is used in these grammars in a different, more general, sense than in this book. For us, a Complement is a phrase or clause whose presence is syntactically determined by a Head, as we will also see below.) What about the PP in (50)c? This has been called an Obligatory Predication Adjunct in traditional grammar. Although it too tells you more about the Subject, it is thought that the PP in (50)c functions as Adjunct because it tells you where the Subject is located. Grammars that employ the terminology we just mentioned need two labels to describe the function of the italicised units in (50)a–c. The drawback of this account is that it foregoes the opportunity to achieve descriptive economy with regard to the sentences in (50), both in the form of a generalisation and in the form of a reduction in terminology. The generalisation vis-à-vis (50)a–c concerns the fact that all three phrases follow a form of the verb be and that they are all obligatory. Recall that we already have a functional label for phrases that obligatorily follow a Head (in this case a verbal Head). We call them Complements. So, why not simply say that the AP, NP and PP in (50) are Complements (in the sense used in this book) of the verb be? In this way we can make a generalisation by treating all the sentences in (50) in a syntactically identical fashion. We also achieve a terminological economy by doing away with the unnecessary labels Subject Complement and Obligatory Predication Adjunct. Consider now (51): (51) Craig considers Graham a genius. Many grammars functionally analyse the two NPs following the lexical verb (Graham and a genius) as a Direct Object and a so-called Object Complement, respectively. The latter is said to ascribe a property to the DO, in much the same way that a Subject Complement ascribes a property to a Subject. This kind of analysis of (51) is quite widespread. It is, however, also unsatisfactory. You may remember that we came across sentences like (51) in earlier chapters. We analysed them as involving a clausal Object, which we called a small clause. Sentence (51) was analysed as in (52): (52) Craig considers [SC Graham a genius] 185

English Syntax and Argumentation

The reasoning behind this analysis was the fact that in (51) Craig is not considering ‘Graham’ as such, but he is considering a proposition, namely the proposition that ‘Graham is a genius’. For that reason, the string Graham a genius was analysed as a clause functioning as a Direct Object. The advantage of this analysis is that we can do away with the superfluous functional label Object Complement. We have thus achieved yet another economy. I will return to structures like (52) in Section 16.3.3. What our discussion in this section has led up to is the following: a grammar that can account for the facts of English by making as few ancillary assumptions as possible is to be preferred to a grammar that does need to make such assumptions. The grammar proposed in this book has no need for a class of particles, phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs, and it does away with the functional categories Subject Complement, Object Complement and Obligatory Predication Adjunct. For this reason it is a descriptively more constrained grammar.

11.3 Further constraints on description: elegance and independent justifications In Section 11.2 we discussed the notion of economy in grammar, and why it is desirable to achieve. We saw that a description or analysis of some grammatical phenomenon that is constrained in the use of the terminology it uses and/or the assumptions it makes is preferable to a description or analysis whose terminology and assumptions are allowed to proliferate in an uncontrolled way. In this section we turn to two further, closely related, ways of constraining descriptions. 11.3.1 Elegance of description We return to prepositions to illustrate a third type of argument that we can use in favour of a particular analysis, namely elegance of description. What do we mean by this? We can say that a proposed analysis of a particular syntactic phenomenon is more elegant than some other analysis, everything else being equal, if it is more tidily organised and more sophisticated in terms of the distinctions it makes. To illustrate, consider the following sentences: (53) She repaired the car expertly. (54) He drives his motorbike slowly. (55) They live there. (56) He won’t leave now. If I were to ask you what is the formal and functional status of the italicised items in these sentences, your first hunch would probably be that they are adverbs functioning as Heads of adverb phrases. After all, they tell us about the ‘how’, ‘where’, ‘when’ etc. of the propositions expressed. These are typically notions expressed by adverbs and their

186

Syntactic Argumentation

associated phrases. And indeed, this analysis would be the one you would find in the vast majority of grammars and textbooks on the English language. The question we must ask, however, is whether this is the most elegant description from the point of view of the distributional facts of English. It has been proposed instead that there and now are prepositions, rather than adverbs. At first sight, this may seem a wild idea, but as we will see in a moment, it’s not that strange. There are a number of differences between the italicised items in (53) and (54), and those in (55) and (56). First, there is a morphological difference. Both expertly and slowly end in -ly, while there and now do not. Second, there is a semantic difference between the two sets: expertly and slowly are manner adverbs (see Section 2.6), whereas there and now indicate location and time, respectively. Third, and more importantly, the syntactic distribution of expertly and slowly is different from the distribution of there and now. This becomes clear from the following sentences: (57) She repaired the car very/extremely expertly. (58) He drives his motorbike very/extremely slowly. (59) She repaired the car expertly enough. (60) He drives his motorbike slowly enough. (61) *She repaired the car right expertly. (62) *He drives his motorbike right slowly. (63) *They live very/extremely there. (64) *He won’t leave very/extremely now. (65) *They live there enough. (66) *He won’t leave now enough. (67) They live right there. (68) He won’t leave right now. Here, we see that expertly and slowly allow premodification by very or postmodification by enough, whereas premodification by right is not possible (although (61) and (62) are possible in some dialects). In the case of there and now the picture is exactly the other way round: premodification by very and postmodification by enough are not possible, while premodification by right is fine. We already know that very and enough typically modify adjectives or adverbs, while words like straight and right are typical prepositional modifiers. These facts suggest that expertly and slowly do not have the same word class status as there and now. In fact, there and now seem to behave as prepositions heading PPs. This becomes more apparent if we compare (63)–(68) with (69)–(74). (69) *They live very/extremely on the border. (70) *He won’t leave very/extremely at this moment. (71) *They live on the border enough.

187

English Syntax and Argumentation

(72) *He won’t leave at this moment enough. (73) They live right on the border. (74) He won’t leave right at this moment. Notice that ‘regular’ PPs also do not allow premodification by very or postmodification by enough, as in (69)–(72), but they do allow the word right to precede them, as in (73)–(74). These facts confirm the parallel syntactic behaviour of the hypothesised prepositions there/now and ‘regular’ prepositions. There is even more evidence for treating there and now as prepositions. Consider the data below: (75) Pauline was reasonably happy. (76) She sang extremely beautifully. (77) *there happy, *now happy (78) *there beautifully, *now beautifully (79) *very there, *very now (80) *extremely there, *extremely now (81) The people there are very cheerful. (82) The issue now is what to do next. A typical property of adverbs is that they can modify adjectives or other adverbs, as in (75) and (76). However, (77) and (78) show that there and now cannot perform these functions, which suggests that, in this respect at least, they are not like typical adverbs. Also, while there and now cannot themselves be modified by adverbs, as (79) and (80) show, they can postmodify nouns, as in (81) and (82). This is also typical of ‘regular’ PPs: (83) The people at work are very cheerful. (84) The issue at the moment is what to do next. Words like expertly and slowly cannot postmodify nouns. A further difference in behaviour between words like expertly/slowly and there/now is that the latter can replace PPs, as we saw in Section 11.2.2.1: (85) They live in that house. > They live there. (86) He won’t leave at this moment. > He won’t leave now. Notice also that there and now can occur as Complements of copular verbs, as in (87) and (88), just like ‘regular’ PPs, as in (89) and (90), but unlike elements such as expertly and slowly in (91) and (92): (87) The park is there. (88) The time to leave is now. (89) The park is in the centre. (90) The time to leave is at this moment. 188

Syntactic Argumentation

(91) ?The way he drove his car is expertly. (92) ?The way he drove his car is slowly. (The question mark indicates that the sentence is of dubious acceptability.) Finally, observe that words like there and now can function as Complements of prepositions, whereas true adverbs cannot: (93) The car is out there. (94) From now you must pay a fine if you return your books late. (95) *From expertly he devised the plan (96) *In slowly he drove. Compare (93) and (94) with the phrases below: (97) from under the cupboard (98) down off the shelf Here, the ‘regular’ prepositions from and down both take PP Complements, namely under the cupboard and off the shelf. If we treat there and now in (93) and (94) as prepositional phrases, which function as Complements of out and from, respectively, then we can analyse these structures in the same way as (97) and (98), the only difference between these sets being that the Complements of out and from in (93) and (94) are intransitive PPs, whereas the Complements of from and down in (97) and (98) are transitive PPs. Typical adverbs like expertly and slowly cannot take PP Complements, and therefore cannot be analysed on a par with (97) and (98). All these facts suggest that there and now are not adverbs, but prepositions, more specifically, intransitive prepositions heading PPs. What we have achieved in this section is not an economy, as in Section 11.2.2.1, where we did away with so-called particles, phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs, but a more refined description of the distributional facts of elements such as expertly, slowly, there and now. The latter two elements have been reassigned to the class of prepositions. As a result, the adverb and preposition classes have become more tightly defined. 11.3.2 Independent justification Consider again the sentences below, taken from Section 11.2.2.1: (99) I was eating. = (43) (100) I was eating a pretzel. = (44) (101) I went straight in. = (45) (102) I went straight in the shower. = (46) We observed a parallel between these two sets, in that in both cases we have an element that can be used transitively and intransitively. In (99) and (100) this element is a verb, in (101) and (102) it is a preposition. However, it is possible to look at these data differently 189

English Syntax and Argumentation

and say that, although the Complements of the verb and preposition in (99) and (101) are missing, they are nevertheless understood. Another way of putting this is to say that there is an implicit argument in (99) and (101), which we can represent by the symbol ‘Ø’: (103) I was eating Ø. (104) I went straight in Ø. Here, the ‘Ø’ symbol stands for a phonetically inaudible, understood Complement noun phrase. Now, clearly, our positing this element is based only on our intuition: on the grounds that we sense that something is missing in (99) and (101), we posited the abstract NP ‘Ø’. However, our proposal for positing an abstract element, although attractive intuitively, is open to the perfectly reasonable criticism that its existence is no more than just a supposition. How can we deal with this criticism? If we could find independent justification for the element ‘Ø’, our case would be much stronger. This means that we should try to find one or more constructions where there is an independent reason for positing a similar abstract element. If such a construction, or constructions, can be found, then we will have considerably strengthened our case for positing an implicit Complement. The question, then, in the case of our element ‘Ø’, is the following: ‘Can we find a construction in which there is an independent need to posit its existence?’ I would like to claim that there is. Consider the sentence below: (105) Greg painted the wall red. We will analyse this sentence as involving a Subject NP Greg, a Predicator verb painted, a Direct Object NP the wall, and an Adjunct AP red. (Notice that we cannot analyse (105) as involving a small clause the wall red, cf. (52) above, because the NP the wall is clearly a DO in the sentence above. After all, Greg did something to the wall, thus making it a Patient argument of the verb paint.) We can observe two things about (105). First, notice that the AP expresses a result: as a consequence of Greg’s painting the wall, it has become red. Second, despite the fact that it functions as the DO of paint, this NP can also be regarded as a Subject expression for the AP red (‘the wall is red’ after the painting). It is a fact of English that resultative phrases can only take Direct Objects as their Subject expression, not Subjects. Thus, we cannot interpret (105) to mean that Greg painted the wall and as a result he himself became red (e.g. by accidentally painting his fingers). Consider now the advertising slogans in (106) and (107): (106) Our new washing powder washes whiter! (107) These revolutionary brooms sweep cleaner! Notice that the APs whiter and cleaner express results here. Curiously, however, there is nothing that they can be predicated of. These sentences thus seem to violate our claim that resultative phrases are always predicated of DOs. However, if we posit an implicit Complement NP ‘Ø’ (a DO) in (106) and (107), which would refer in (106) to ‘washable items’, and in (107) to ‘sweepable surfaces’, then our generalisation can be salvaged.

190

Syntactic Argumentation

We have now reached a situation in which our positing the element ‘Ø’ in (103) and (104) has been independently motivated to the extent that we need such an element in a different construction as well, namely (106) and (107). If we had found no independent justification for ‘Ø’, then our proposal would have been ad hoc (from Latin, literally ‘to this’; i.e. devised only to solve the problem at hand). An ad hoc proposal is not necessarily wrong, because it may turn out, given advances in our knowledge, that independent evidence is subsequently found. However, if at any point in time there is a need to choose between two analyses of some phenomenon, one ad hoc, the other independently motivated, then the ad hoc analysis is less attractive, everything else being equal. Notice that the notion of independent justification also plays a role in Section 11.2 on economy of description.

11.4 Evaluating analyses The three types of arguments presented in this chapter (economy of description, elegance of description and independent justification) can be used as tools for evaluating analyses, or for choosing between two or more competing analyses. The key word here is simplicity: the most highly valued analysis is the one that not only conforms to the general principles of the adopted framework (e.g. X-bar theory), but is also maximally simple, i.e. it is the most economical and elegant, and has the largest amount of independent evidence to support it. You will have realised that, to a great extent, the three arguments we discussed are closely interrelated. For example, an analysis that is more economical is also more elegant. Furthermore, as we have seen, we cannot really discuss the notion of economy without appealing to independent justifications. I have nevertheless presented economy, elegance and independent justifications separately. The reasons for this are partly clarity of exposition, and partly that, to some extent, these notions can be discussed independently of each other. For example, as we saw in Section 11.3.1, elegance of description can be achieved independently of economy of description, by reassigning elements such as now and there to the class of prepositions. Here, we achieved a more elegant description, but we did not achieve an economy.

KEY CONCEPTS intransitive preposition Linguistically Significant Generalisation (LSG) Occam’s Razor particle phrasal verb phrasal-prepositional verb

prepositional verb syntactic argumentation syntactic features transitive preposition verb–preposition constructions

191

English Syntax and Argumentation

EXERCISES 1. Draw trees for the following sentences: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

She locked her husband out. We agree with the doctor. They are looking the information up. The car blew up. He completely relies on his brother.

2. Give the subcategorisation frame (see Section 7.4) for the verb inventt. Then read on. It is not unlikely that your subcategorisation frame specified that inventt requires a Direct Object NP as its Complement. And, indeed, if you look up this verb in a dictionary, you will find that it is invariably labelled a transitive verb. This would seem to be correct on the basis that if you are engaged in inventing, you must be inventing something. However, consider now the advertising slogan in (i): (i) Philips invents for you. Why is this sentence acceptable? 3. Consider the sentences below: (i) Martin is a social scientistt. friendly. y. (ii) Pete is very friendly In this book we have suggested that the functional status of the italicised phrases in (i) and (ii) is simply Complement of the lexical verb be. As we have seen, some Complement, t, because the NP and AP grammars of English use the label Subject Complement ascribe a property to the Subject. For us there is no need to make use of this additional functional label. There is an additional way of looking at (i) and (ii). Assuming a raising analysis for these sentences (cf. Section 9.3), as in (iii) and (iv) below, what would you say is the function of a social scientistt in (i), and very friendlyy in (ii)? You may need to review Section 3.1. (iii) (iv) Hint: the bracketed strings are small clauses. 4. Review Section 11.3.1. What do the data below suggest regarding the word class status of then? (i) the under-threatt facilities (ii) *the expertly engineers (iii) the then president of France 5. In the framework presented in this book, what is wrong conceptuallyy with the label Obligatory Predication Adjunct, discussed in Section 11.2.2.2? *6. In the text we saw that words like the and everyy are best analysed as belonging to a different word class than elements like warm and talll. Apart from the syntactic

192

Syntactic Argumentation

reasons given in the text, can you think of any semantic reasons why these elements are reasonably classed differently? *7. Consider the data below: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

*Abby’s fondness meat. Abby’s fondness for meat. *Abby is fond meat. Abby is fond of meat.

Notice that we can salvage the starred examples by inserting forr or off. In this way we derive (ii) from (i) and (iv) from (iii). Using the syntactic features shown in (24) in the text, repeated in (v) below, formulate an informal rule of preposition insertion. (v) noun = verb = adjective = preposition

[+ N, − V] [–N, +V] [ +N, +V] = [–N, –V]

*8. Consider the following data from Joseph Emonds’ book A Transformational Approach to English Syntaxx (1976: 173): (i) a. John arrived before the last speech. b. John arrived before. c. John arrived before the last speech ended. (ii) a. I haven’t seen him since the party. b. I haven’t seen him since. c. I haven’t seen him since the party began. In this book we have said that the italicised items in the a- and b-sentences above are prepositions, the only difference between them being that the prepositions in the a-sentences are transitive, whereas those in the b-sentences are intransitive. What about the c-sentences? How have the italicised items been classified in this book? Is there a case for reclassifying them? See also Section 17.4. *9. In Quirk et al.’s A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985), a distinction is made between clause-level functions and phrase-level functions. The former comprise the functions we described in Chapter 3 (i.e. Subject, Predicate, Direct Object, Adjunct etc.), while the latter comprise the Head and various types d would be labelled a of Modifiers. So, in the noun phrase in (i) below, splendid er: r: Premodifierr, canals is the Head, and of Amsterdam is called a Postmodifier (i) the splendid canals of Amsterdam. Compare this treatment to the one presented in this book, and assess the merits of both. w can be reclassified as prepositions, and *10. In the text we saw that there and now -ly. y. However, that the adverb class now consists of at least all adverbs ending in -ly there are many elements with adverbial meanings that do not end in -lyy, and we ought to check whether these are adverbs in the narrowed down sense, or perhaps also prepositions. Using the distributional data discussed in Section 11.3.1 as criteria, check whether the following are adverbs or prepositions: well (as in They did it welll), when, fastt (as in He drives fastt), here, home.

193

English Syntax and Argumentation

You may find it useful to construct a grid, with welll, fastt etc. on the vertical axis, and the adverb/preposition criteria on the horizontal axis. Can you make a generalisation regarding the elements that behave like prepositions? *11. It is a general fact of English that verbs and prepositions occur in similar patterns as regards their complementation properties (they typically take NP Complements), as do nouns and adjectives (they typically take PP Complements headed by off). The generalisation regarding NP Complements can be stated by observing that only [− N] categories take NP Complements. Why is the phrase a literature teacherr in Table 7.2 a problem for this claim?

FURTHER READING Some of the issues we discussed in this chapter pertain to the philosophy of science. A good introduction to this field is Chalmers (2013). The idea of falsification is associated with the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper (1902–94), whose philosophy of science has been very influential in linguistics. One of his most important ideas was that for a theory to be scientific, it has to be falsifiable. This is true even for the ‘best’ theory that covers the facts and explains them the most adequately. We find the Popperian method of reasoning everywhere in linguistics: in articles, textbooks and monographs. However, despite its influence, there is some controversy with regard to Popper’s methodology, and this has to do with the question of what to do with counterexamples. Some have argued that for any proposed theory of a particular phenomenon, counterexamples pose a serious challenge, and that they should in fact invalidate the theory. Others have said that we should not engage in naive falsificationalism, i.e. we should not be tempted to discard our theory as soon as we come across a counterexample. Rather, it might be better to ‘shelve’ counterexamples, when we come across them, in the hope that at a later point, when our knowledge has advanced, we can accommodate them. See especially Chomsky (1981: 149), Lightfoot (1982: 95–9) and Matthews (1993) for discussion. On determinatives as ‘limiting adjectives’, see Curme (1935: 46–7) and Aarts (2020). On the issue of which kinds of data are useful in linguistic studies, see Newmeyer (1983). An alternative name for Occam’s Razor, which you may prefer, is the KISS principle, which can either be rendered as ‘K ‘Keep It Short and Simple’ or, more rudely, as ‘K ‘Keep It Short, Stupid.’ On phrasal, prepositional and phrasal-prepositional verbs, see Quirk et al. (1985: 1152–67) and Aarts (1989, 1992). On Subject Complements, Object Complements and Obligatory Predication Adjuncts, see Quirk et al. (1985: 1171–4, 1195–208 and 505–10, respectively). Subject Complements and Object Complements are called Subject-related Predicative Complements and Object-related Predicative Complements in Aarts (2011). On transitive and intransitive prepositions, see Emonds (1976) and Burton-Roberts (1991). The latter also discusses the possibility of reassigning certain adverbs to the class of prepositions. Huddleston and Pullum (2002) assign all subordinating conjunctions, except the complementisers, to the class of prepositions.

194

CONSTITUENCY: MOVEMENT AND SUBSTITUTION

12

In this chapter we return to the notion of constituency, and address the important question of how we can use syntactic argumentation to demonstrate that a particular string of words is a constituent. We very often have an intuition about which words make up units in particular sentences, but we really need a more reliable way of establishing how we can carve them up. What is required is a set of practical procedures for dividing sentences up into their constituent parts. Applying these procedures we can then tackle sentences whose analysis into constituents isn’t immediately obvious. You will remember that constituents are strings of one or more words that syntactically and semantically behave as a unit. We defined constituents formally in terms of the notion of dominance. To refresh your memory, consider the tree diagram in (2) for sentence (1): (1) My father admires my mother. (2)

‘Constituent’ and ‘immediate constituent’ were defined as follows: Y is a constituent of X if and only if X dominates Y. Y is an immediate constituent of X if and only if X immediately dominates Y. In the tree in (2) S dominates every single individual node, as well as the lexical items my, father, admires, my and mother. Thus, in (2) all the elements under S are constituents of

195

English Syntax and Argumentation

S. Also, S immediately dominates NP1, I and VP, so NP1, I and VP are immediate constituents of S. Furthermore, Spec1 and Nʹ1 are immediate constituents of NP1; Spec2 and Vʹ are immediate constituents of VP; V and NP2 are immediate constituents of Vʹ, and so on. At this point we may well ask how we can show that (2) is the correct representation for (1)? Why not analyse (1) as in (3)? (3)

In this tree S has four immediate constituents instead of three; namely NP1, I, VP and NP2. What we want to be able to do with regard to (2) and (3) is give reasons for taking either of these representations to be the correct way of analysing (1). In this chapter we will see that we can use a number of constituency tests to determine whether or not a particular sequence of words is a constituent. We will turn to these tests in the following sections, starting with the Movement Test.

12.1 The Movement Test In Chapter 9 we came across the phenomenon of the displacement of elements when we discussed Verb Movement, NP-Movement and Wh-Movement. In this chapter we will be looking at additional types of movement. The main issue I want to focus on here is how we can relate the idea of movement to constituency. Linguists have argued that one way of finding out whether a particular sequence of words behaves like a unit is by trying to move it to another position in the sentence. The following principle can be established: Movement Test If we can move a particular string of words in a sentence from one position to another, then it behaves as a constituent. Another way of putting this is to say that if some sequence of words in a particular sentence can occur in a different position in that same sentence, this is an argument for analysing the sequence in question as a constituent.

196

Constituency: Movement and Substitution

In English, apart from Verb Movement, NP-Movement and Wh-Movement, there are a number of further types of movement. Here, we will be looking at Topicalisation, VPPreposing and Though-Movement (movements to the left), as well as Heavy NP Shift and Extraposition from NP (movements to the right). These movements are generally regarded as stylistic. In contrast to Verb Movement, NP-Movement and Wh-Movement, which are obligatory, they are carried out optionally in English to achieve different effects as regards the way in which information contained in sentences is presented. 12.1.1 Movements to the left 12.1.1.1 Topicalisation Here’s a fragment of an imaginary interchange between two people: (4)

Ben’s response is somewhat out of the ordinary. He could simply have said (5): (5) I like Belgian beer, but I hate Belgian wine. Instead, he chose a different syntactic structure, one which involves movement of the Direct Objects in (4) from the positions marked by ‘–’ to a clause-initial position. This movement process is called Topicalisation. Ben answers the way he does because he wants the phrases Belgian beer and Belgian wine to be more prominent (more topic-like) than they would be if they occurred in their normal positions following the verbs, as in (5). In other words, his answer in (4) literally brings to the fore the topics Belgian beer and Belgian wine, as well as the contrast between what he thinks of these drinks. Our principal concern here is that the strings Belgian beer and Belgian wine must be constituents because we can move them, as the contrast between (4) and (5) shows. Because the most prominent words in Belgian beer and Belgian wine are nouns, namely beer and wine respectively, we must be dealing with displaced noun phrases. Topicalisation can involve complex phrases, as the following set of sentences shows: (6) Nobody liked [NP the books about New York that she bought]. (7) Notice that we cannot leave behind any of the component parts of the moved NP: (8) Not only NPs can be topicalised, other phrases can too: (9) Wendy: Al:

Is Elly always so nervous? [Neurotic] I would say she is –, not nervous.

197

English Syntax and Argumentation

(10) Kate: Len:

Does Greg really keep his pets in his attic? [In his attic] he keeps his plants –, not his pets.

(11) Nicky promised to write an essay, and [write an essay] he will –. In (9) we’ve fronted an AP, in (10) a PP, and in (11) a VP. With regard to Topicalisation we can establish the following principle: Topicalisation If we can topicalise a string of words whose Head is an X (where X stands for N, A, P, Adv or V), then that string is an XP-constituent. We turn now to a more detailed discussion of VP-Topicalisation, better known as VP-Preposing. 12.1.1.2 VP-Preposing Consider sentence (12): (12)

A movement process has taken place here, such that the string clean his room, a verb with its Direct Object, has moved from a position at the end of the second clause to the beginning of that clause. Because the principal element of this string (i.e. its Head) is the verb clean, we conclude that we must be dealing with a verb phrase constituent. We refer to the movement process in (12) as VP-Preposing. This involves movement of a verb phrase from its normal position in the clause to the beginning of that clause, and as such this is a special type of Topicalisation. Here are two more examples: (13)

(14)

Interestingly, (12)–(14) show that the Direct Objects are part of the verb phrases of the sentences in which they occur, and this is because they are fronted along with the lexical verb that precedes them. We cannot leave the DOs behind: (15) *Ralph says that he will clean his room, and [clean] he will – his room. (16) *Sally says that she will return my book, and [return] she will – my book. (17) *Drew says that he will wash the dishes, and [wash] he will – the dishes.

198

Constituency: Movement and Substitution

These data are a confirmation of the structure of verb phrases that we posited in Chapter 7, and at the beginning of this chapter (see tree diagram (2)). You will remember that we said that Direct Objects are sisters of the lexical verb inside VP, as in the tree diagram below, which represents the VP of sentence (12): (18)

When VP-Preposing applies, the VP is moved to a clause-initial position. We will assume that the entire VP is moved, including the empty Spec-position. Notice that VP-Preposing can only apply if the sentence in question contains an auxiliary verb, such as will in the examples we have looked at, or did in (19): (19) The following is impossible: (20)

Another notable fact about (12)–(14) is that in each case will is left behind. This means that modal auxiliary verbs are not part of the VP of the sentence in which they occur. If they were, they would have been fronted along with the lexical verb and Direct Object. Example (21) shows that the auxiliary in (12) cannot also be preposed: (21)

Here again, we have confirmation of our analysis in Chapter 8 where we said that modal auxiliaries are dominated by I, not by VP. What’s important about VP-Preposing is that we can use it as a test to see whether a particular element or string of elements is part of VP. In sentences (12)–(14) above, VPPreposing established that the VPs of these sentences are clean his room, return my book and wash the dishes. Consider the sentence below in which an adverb phrase functioning as an Adjunct has been added: (22) Ralph says that he will clean his room meticulously. Recall that in Chapter 7 we claimed that Adjuncts like meticulously are sisters of Vʹ inside VP, as in the tree in (23):

199

English Syntax and Argumentation

(23)

We now want to know whether we can show that the AdvP in (22) is indeed part of the VP or not. Let’s apply VP-Preposing and see: (24) Ralph says that he will clean his room meticulously, and [clean his room meticulously] he will –. (25) *Ralph says that he will clean his room meticulously, and [clean his room] he will – meticulously. The result of preposing the VP is that the AdvP must be moved along with the lexical verb and its Direct Object, and is therefore inside the VP. Leaving the AdvP behind, as in (25), leads to an ungrammatical result. (The sentence is OK if there is a long pause after will. However, in this case meticulously can be regarded as an afterthought.) At this point we are only concerned to show that the AdvP is indeed inside the VP. We still need to demonstrate, however, that the internal structure of the VP is as shown in (23). This we leave to Section 12.2.2. So far we have established that DOs are inside the VP, as are Adjuncts following the DO (cf. (22)–(25)), and that modal auxiliaries are outside the VP. What about Adjuncts that precede the lexical verb, as does carefully in (26)? (26) Ralph says that he will carefully clean his room.

EXERCISE Apply VP-Preposing to check whether the AdvP carefullyy is part of the VP of (26) above.

The results should look like this: (27) Ralph says that he will carefully clean his room, and [carefully clean his room] he will –. (28) *Ralph says that he will carefully clean his room, and [clean his room] he will carefully –.

200

Constituency: Movement and Substitution

We see from these sentences that, just like Adjuncts that follow the DO, Adjuncts that precede the lexical verb are also inside the VP, because they cannot be left behind when we move a string of elements that includes the lexical verb. The structure of the VP in (26) is as in (29): (29)

All the sentences involving VP-Preposing that we have looked at so far conform to the same pattern: there is always an auxiliary verb at the end of the second clause. This is because VP-Preposing can only operate in sentences that contain an auxiliary verb. As we have seen, VP-Preposing is an important constituency test, but does the restriction on VP-Preposing that we just noted mean that we cannot use it as a constituency test when there is no auxiliary in a sentence? No, it doesn’t, because we can always create a context in which an auxiliary is added. How does this work? Let us assume that we come across a sentence without an auxiliary before the lexical verb, and we want to determine what its VP is, as in Simone dances the samba competently. To create a context in which we can move a string of elements minimally containing the lexical verb (i.e. a VP), we apply a few simple steps: 1. Make the sentence a that-clause Complement of a verb of saying, e.g. say, claim etc.: Simone says that she dances the samba competently. Notice that the Subject of the original sentence is now the main clause Subject, while the Subject of the Complement clause is a pronoun. 2. Add the coordinator and, then repeat the original sentence, changing its Subject into a pronoun, and placing an auxiliary verb in front of the lexical verb in both clauses: Simone says that she will dance the samba competently, and she will dance the samba competently. 3. Now prepose a string of elements which minimally contains the lexical verb. If the result is good, the string is a VP. If the result is bad, the string is not a VP. *Simone says that she will dance the samba competently, and [dance] she will – the samba competently. *Simone says that she will dance the samba competently, and [will dance] she – the samba competently. *Simone says that she will dance the samba competently, and [will dance the samba] she – competently.

201

English Syntax and Argumentation

*Simone says that she will dance the samba competently, and [dance the samba] she will – competently. Simone says that she will dance the samba competently, and [dance the samba competently] she will –. Here, we have moved different strings: lexical verb only; auxiliary verb + lexical verb; auxiliary verb + lexical verb + Direct Object etc. Only the fifth sentence is good, and thus we conclude that the VP of the sentence Simone dances the samba competently is dances the samba competently.

EXERCISE Determine what the VP is in each of the following sentences. In applying the steps above, use the lexical verb sayy and the modal auxiliary willl: (30) Frank travels to New York tomorrow. (31) The head of department holds a meeting at 4 pm.

The results of applying the steps above are as follows: (32) Frank says that he will travel to New York tomorrow, and [travel to New York tomorrow] he will –. (33) The head of department says that he will hold a meeting at 4 pm, and [hold a meeting at 4 pm] he will –. This shows that the bracketed constituents are VPs. 12.1.1.3 Though-Movement The next type of movement is Though-Movement, which is also a kind of Topicalisation. The term is used to describe the displacements in sentences (34)–(38): (34) a. Though students are hard workers, they’re never exhausted. b. [Hard workers] though students are –, they’re never exhausted. (35) a. Though Ken usually is quite happy, today he is sad. b. [Quite happy] though Ken usually is –, today he is sad. (36) a. Though she works very hard all day, at night she’s lazy. b. [Very hard] though she works – all day, at night she’s lazy. (37) a. Though she is in debt, she’s very generous. b. [In debt] though she is –, she’s very generous. (38) a. Though he ate the mushrooms, he hasn’t been sick. b. [Eat the mushrooms] though he did –, he hasn’t been sick. 202

Constituency: Movement and Substitution

The term Though-Movement is misleading because it isn’t the word though that moves, as the sentences above show. I have retained the terminology, however, because it is in general use in the linguistic literature. As you can see from (34)–(38), in each case a phrase has moved to a clause-initial position: an NP in (34), an AP in (35), an AdvP in (36), a PP in (37) and a VP in (38). The movement exemplified in (38) confirms the results of the VP-Preposing test: in this case the verb phrase consists of a lexical verb + a Direct Object. Though-Movement, like VP-Preposing, is useful when we want to establish the exact delimitation of the VP of a particular sentence. Consider (39) and (40): (39) Though Ralph will clean his room meticulously, he’d rather watch TV. (40) Though Ralph will carefully clean his room, he’s normally untidy. We now want to check whether the adverb phrases meticulously and carefully are inside the VPs of these sentences. We can apply Though-Movement to find out. This is the result: (41) [Clean his room meticulously] though Ralph will –, he’d rather watch TV. (42) *[Clean his room] though Ralph will – meticulously, he’d rather watch TV. (43) [Carefully clean his room] though Ralph will –, he’s normally untidy. (44) *[Clean his room] though Ralph will carefully –, he’s normally untidy. (All these sentences should be read with no pause where the dash is positioned.) These results confirm those of the preceding section: in (39) and (40) if we move a string of words that involves the lexical verb clean, then meticulously and carefully must be moved along with it. This means that Adjuncts that precede the lexical verb, as well as those that follow the Direct Object, are positioned inside the VP. (The trees for the VPs in (41) and (43) are shown in (23) and (29) above.) For more on Topicalisation, see Section 15.1.1. 12.1.2 Movements to the right A feature of all the movements that have been discussed so far in this book is that they were leftward movements; i.e. an element or string of elements was moved to a position to the left of its original position. In Sections 12.1.2.1–12.1.2.3 we’ll be looking at some examples of rightward movement. 12.1.2.1 Heavy NP Shift (HNPS) Consider the following sentences: (45) We brought – into the country six boxes of excellent French wine. (46) She sold – at the market the prints that she had made. Because Direct Objects as a rule occur immediately to the right of the verb that subcategorises for them, it is reasonable to assume that in (45) and (46) the italicised NPs have moved to the right from the positions indicated by the dashes. These movements 203

English Syntax and Argumentation

are triggered by the relative ‘heaviness’ of the NPs in question caused by the PP of excellent French wine in (45) and by the relative clause that she had made in (46). For this reason this type of movement is called Heavy NP Shift (HNPS). A restriction on HNPS is that we cannot move Indirect Objects or Objects of prepositions to the right: (47) *I sent – a postcard my cousin from London. (48) *I sent a postcard to – yesterday my cousin from London. For present purposes it is important to see that HNPS can be used as a constituency test. In this connection, consider (49) below: (49) I travelled the world from Moscow to Rio in three weeks. With regard to this sentence we might wonder whether the string from Moscow to Rio is a postmodifying phrase, and as such part of the NP headed by world, or whether it is perhaps a separate phrase. If the string the world from Moscow to Rio is indeed an NP, it should be possible to move it, because of its ‘weight’. If it is not an NP, then displacement should not be possible. If we apply HNPS to (49) the result is (50): (50) *I travelled – in three weeks the world from Moscow to Rio. The result is bad, and we conclude that the world from Moscow to Rio is not an NP constituent. 12.1.2.2 Extraposition of Subject clauses Consider (51) and (52) below: (51) That the film ended so soon was a shame. (52) It was a shame that the film ended so soon. In (51) the Subject of the sentence is the clause that the film ended so soon. We can move (‘extrapose’) it from a clause-initial to a clause-final position, as (52) shows, a movement known as Extraposition. The pronoun it is inserted in the position vacated by the Subject clause. This movement establishes the constituent status of the Subject clause. 12.1.2.3 Extraposition from NP Consider the following sentences: (53) Six women – appeared with yellow hats. (54) We employed two people – last week from European Union countries. (55) The dogs – escaped that were chained to the house. In (53) the PP with yellow hats has been extraposed out of the Subject NP, whereas in (54) the PP from European Union countries is moved out of the Direct Object NP. In (55) a relative clause has been displaced from the Subject NP. We call this kind of movement Extraposition from NP (ENP). ENP seems to be more acceptable if the verb phrase is 204

Constituency: Movement and Substitution

relatively light; e.g. if it contains an intransitive verb or a raising verb (seem, appear, become etc.). The following sentence, which contains a transitive verb, seems to be much less good: (56) ?*Three men – noisily left the theatre who were disorderly. Just like HNPS, this type of movement can be used as a constituency test, as the example that follows will make clear. We might ask whether the string with yellow hats on their heads in (57) below is one PP constituent, or whether it should really be regarded as two separate PPs, namely with yellow hats and on their heads: (57) Six women with yellow hats on their heads appeared. If the former possibility is correct, we should be able to move the string with yellow hats on their heads by applying ENP; if the latter possibility is correct we should be able to move only the PP with yellow hats. The result of applying ENP to (57) is (58): (58) Six women – appeared with yellow hats on their heads. This sentence is fine, which means that with yellow hats on their heads is one constituent. By contrast, (59) is barred: (59) *Six women – on their heads appeared with yellow hats. This suggests that in (59) with yellow hats is not a constituent: we cannot move it without also moving on their heads. As you will have realised, the PP on their heads is an Adjunct of the Head hats. The tree for the italicised string in (58) looks like this: (60)

205

English Syntax and Argumentation

Notice that with yellow hats is not a constituent here. (Review Section 4.4 if this is not clear to you, and see also Exercise 2 at the end of this chapter.) Summarising, in Section 12.1 we looked at different types of movement, and we saw that it can be used as a diagnostic test to determine constituency. A very important result to come out of the discussion is that Direct Objects are inside the VP, and that modal verbs are not inside the VP. The latter are best analysed as being located in ‘I’. We concluded that sentence (1) should be analysed as in tree diagram (2), and not as in tree diagram (3), i.e. S-nodes immediately dominate three constituents, not four.

12.2 Substitution In Section 12.1 we saw that movement always affects constituents. In this section we’ll be looking at the notion of substitution (i.e. replacement) as applied to language. The idea here is that a particular string of words must be a constituent if it can be replaced by something else: by a single word, by another string of words, or even by nothing at all. Like movement, substitution can affect full phrases, but we will see that it can affect clauses and bar-level constituents too. 12.2.1 Substitution of nominal projections: NP and N' Consider again sentence (1), repeated below: (61) My father admires my mother. Let’s concentrate on the strings my father and my mother, which you will intuitively have recognised to be noun phrase constituents, because the main words (Heads) in both cases are nouns. We now want to be able to actually demonstrate that my father and my mother are constituents, other than by moving them. We can do so by means of the Substitution Test. We will say that a particular sequence of words is a constituent if it can be replaced by a so-called proform, a word or word sequence that ‘stands in’ for some other word or word sequence. We establish the following principle: Substitution Test A particular string of words is a constituent if it can be substituted by a suitable proform. Obviously, there should be no change in meaning as a result of this substitution. Let’s see how this works with regard to (61). To verify our intuition that my father and my mother are indeed constituents, the question we must ask is: ‘Can we replace my father and my mother by a proform?’ If so, then these two groups of words must be constituents. Notice that both my father and my mother refer to people, one a man, the other a woman. As you know, we can refer to males and females not only by using full NPs, as in (61), but also by using personal pronouns, e.g. she, her, he, him, they, them etc. Notice now that my father can be replaced by he and my mother by her:

206

Constituency: Movement and Substitution

(62) He admires her. The pronouns he and her function as proforms here, because they stand in for the NPs my father and my mother. We have already seen that the term ‘pronoun’ is really a misnomer, because a sentence like (62) clearly shows that the pronoun replaces not a noun, as its name suggests, but an NP. ‘Pro-NP’ would therefore be a better term. Notice that the meaning of (62) has not changed, because he refers to the same individual as my father, and her refers to the same individual as my mother, assuming that the sentence is uttered in the same context as (61). What (61) and (62) show is that a noun phrase can be replaced by a proform which is itself a noun phrase.

EXERCISE Replace the noun phrase constituents in the following sentences with pronouns: (63) The boys saw six blue Rolls-Royces. (64) Harriet sold her computer to my friends from Edinburgh.

In (63) we can replace the boys by they and six blue Rolls-Royces by them. In (64) we can substitute Harriet by she, her computer by it, and my friends from Edinburgh by them. This means that the boys, six blue Rolls-Royces, Harriet, her computer and my friends from Edinburgh must be constituents. As their most prominent words in each case are nouns, they must be noun phrases. Pronouns can replace quite complex NPs: (65) I like those funny people who eat with their hands and sing at the dinner table. > I like them. Other phrase types, and even clauses, can be replaced by proforms too, as the following sentences demonstrate: (66) They say that Wayne is very unhappy and so he is. (67) Our neighbours will go on holiday on Sunday, and we will leave then too. (68) Tim sat on the couch and stayed there. (69) Janet drove her car too fast, and Sam rode his bike likewise. (70) He believes that politics is a dirty game. We all believe that. (71) He said that the operation will be successful. I certainly hope so. In (66) the AP very unhappy has been replaced by so, whereas in (67) and (68) then and there replace the PPs on Sunday and on the couch, respectively. In (69) likewise replaces the AdvP too fast, and in (70) and (71) that and so replace clauses. VPs too can be replaced, as we will see in Section 12.2.2. 207

English Syntax and Argumentation

We again see that the constituency of a particular sequence of words can be established by replacing it with a proform. Substitution by proforms is thus a useful constituency test. It can also be useful for determining the categorial status of a particular constituent (i.e. what type of phrase it is). To see how this works, consider the italicised portion of the following sentence: (72) The French are hospitable people.

EXERCISE Before reading on, and mindful of the preceding discussion, give some thought to the question of which phrasal category the French belongs to.

At first sight it may appear that we are dealing with an adjective phrase here, because the Head of this string is clearly an adjective (cf. a French village, the French President etc.). There are, however, quite a few reasons for saying that the French is not an AP, but a noun phrase. One reason is that it occurs in Subject position, a very common position for noun phrases. Another is that the phrase is introduced by the definite article the, which is typically found in NPs. Third, and here substitution plays a role, we can replace the French by a pronoun: ‘They are hospitable people’. We conclude that phrases such as the French, the Dutch, the Portuguese etc. are NPs. (Of course, the question remains why an NP like the French appears to be headed by an adjective. See Exercise 12 at the end of the chapter.) So far we have seen that proforms in the form of personal pronouns (he, she, it etc.) can replace full NPs. English also possesses a word that can replace less than a full NP, and this is the proform one. Consider (73): (73) Mark is a dedicated teacher of language, but Paul is an indifferent one. In this sentence, one replaces teacher of language. This proform cannot be a full NP, because it is preceded by the determinative an and the AP indifferent. We can show this more clearly in a tree diagram. You’ll remember from Section 7.2 that inside NPs adjective phrases are adjoined to Nʹ, and that Complements are sisters of the Head, as in (74): (74)

208

Constituency: Movement and Substitution

The NPs a dedicated teacher of language and an indifferent one in (73) have the following structures: (75)

(76)

In these trees the APs dedicated and indifferent are analysed as pre-Head Adjuncts, and the PP of language is regarded as a nominal Complement (cf. he teaches language). As one in (76) replaces teacher of language in (75), it must be replacing an Nʹ. We thus reach the following conclusion: One-Substitution The proform one replaces Nʹ-constituents. This is interesting confirmation of the X-bar theoretical conception of the internal structure of phrases. If we allowed phrases to have only two levels, namely the phrase level and the Head level, as in many grammars, we would not be able to explain the fact that one can refer to a unit that is not an NP or a noun, but something in between. One-Substitution, apart from clearly establishing the existence of bar-level categories, also has a practical use in establishing constituency. Consider the NP a student of English. We might wonder whether the PP of English is a Complement of the noun student, or an Adjunct. We know that if it is a Complement, then student + of English (N + PP) together form an Nʹ, and one should be able to refer back to this Nʹ. If, by contrast, the PP of English is an Adjunct, then this phrase must be a sister of an Nʹ. In that case both student and student of English are N-bars which one can refer back to. The alternative structures of the NP a student of English can be represented as in (77) and (78):

209

English Syntax and Argumentation

(77)

(78)

Let’s now see whether we can use One-Substitution to decide in favour of either of these representations.

EXERCISE In the following sentence, can one replace student of English? (79) Ben likes the Italian student of English, but not the Spanish one.

The answer to this question is ‘yes’. Notice that this answer is consistent with both (77) and (78), because student of English in both cases is an Nʹ. We therefore need another way of choosing between (77) and (78). Consider (80). Is this sentence grammatical? (80) Ben likes the Italian student of English, but not the Spanish one of literature. The answer is ‘no’, and you should place an asterisk in front of (80). The reason why (80) is ungrammatical is that one can refer only to the Nʹ student of English, but if we ‘reinstate’ this phrase into (80) we derive the ungrammatical *Ben likes the Italian student of English, but not the Spanish student of English of literature. The word student must be a Head noun which takes the PP of English as its Complement forming an Nʹ, as in (77), which is therefore the correct representation of the NP a student of English. If (78) were correct then (80) would be predicted to be grammatical, because in (78) student is an Nʹ (as well as an N), and one would therefore be able to refer back to it.

210

Constituency: Movement and Substitution

In some of the noun phrases we have come across so far in this section, there was more than one Nʹ-node. Our claim that one can be a pro-Nʹ raises the expectation that if there is more than one Nʹ-constituent in any one NP, the proform one should be able to replace each of these N-bars. Consider the following NP: (81) a clever Italian student of English The tree for (81) is simply an expanded version of (77): we add two AP modifiers (clever and Italian), and hence two Nʹ-nodes: (82)

Now try the following exercise.

EXERCISE Determine which constituents one can replace in the following ambiguous sentence: (83) Marco is certainly a clever Italian student of English, but Paolo is an absolutely brilliant one.

One can replace the italicised strings in (84) and (85): Marco is certainly a clever Italian student of English, . . . (84) . . . but Paolo is an absolutely brilliant Italian student of English. (85) . . . but Paolo is an absolutely brilliant student of English. These sentences show that (83) can receive more than one interpretation, depending on which Nʹ one replaces. It can replace either Italian student of English, in which case both Marco and Paolo are students of English of Italian extraction, or it can replace only student of English, in which case all we know about Paolo is that he studies English.

211

English Syntax and Argumentation

EXERCISE Consider again sentence (83). Can we interpret it to mean (86)? (86) Marco is certainly a clever Italian student of English, but Paolo is an absolutely brilliant student. In other words, can Paolo be something other than a student of English, say, a student of geography?

The answer is ‘no’: one must minimally replace the string student of English. This again shows that student on its own is not an Nʹ, and that the structure of the NP an Italian student of English is as in (82), with the noun student taking the PP of English as its sister.

12.2.2 Substitution of verbal projections: VP and V' In Section 12.2.1 we looked at proforms that can replace phrases, or parts of phrases, and clauses. When we looked at noun phrases we saw that maximal projections, as well as bar-projections, can be replaced by proforms: pronouns replace full NPs and one replaces N-bars. In this section we will take a closer look at the substitution of verbal projections. I will begin with a discussion of VP-Substitution, and then move on to Vʹ-Substitution. Consider the following exchanges: (87) Bill: Dawn:

Will you please leave the room? OK, I will –!

(88) Wayne: Can you play the piano? Greg: (89) Henry: Jake:

Yes, I can –. You take a lot of risks. I aim to –.

In (87) and (88) the strings leave the room and play the piano have been deleted after the modal verbs will and can, while in (89) take a lot of risks has been left out after the infinitival marker to. We can regard this deletion process as a special case of substitution, and say that leave the room, play the piano and take a lot of risks have been substituted by a null proform (i.e. by nothing), instead of by an overt proform (e.g. one in Section 12.2.1). Now, we have seen that proforms can only replace constituents. It follows that, by virtue of being a special form of substitution, deletion too applies only to constituents. Returning now to (87)–(89), recall that we argued in Section 8.1 that modal verbs like can and the infinitival marker to are positioned in I. If you now turn back to the tree in (2) at the beginning of this chapter, it will be clear that what must have been deleted in (87)–(89) are verb phrases. We will therefore refer to the deletion process in (87)–(89) as VP-Deletion. 212

Constituency: Movement and Substitution

Sentences (87)–(89) again confirm the syntactic structure that we posited for sentences, e.g. (2) rather than (3), because it turns out that V + DO sequences indeed behave like constituents, not only with regard to movement (cf. the discussion on VPPreposing), but also with regard to substitution by a null proform. The question now arises whether proforms can stand in for something less than a full VP. Before proceeding, recall that we argued that the structure of verb phrases in English is as in (90): (90)

In this tree Complements are analysed as sisters of the Head verb, and Adjuncts are analysed as sisters of Vʹ. The negative element not (if present) is positioned in the Specifier slot. Notice that the tree in (90) makes a specific claim, namely that Vʹ1 is a constituent that is made up of Vʹ2 and an Adjunct position, and that Vʹ2 is a constituent made up of the Head verb and a Complement. In Chapter 7 we posited this structure with very little justification. The question we must now ask ourselves is whether there is evidence that Vʹ1 and Vʹ2 are indeed constituents. To answer this question, consider first the sentence below: (91) Dawn cleaned the windows diligently. In this sentence the NP the windows is a Direct Object, and the AdvP diligently is an Adjunct. The posited structure of its VP is as shown in (92): (92)

Consider now (93) and (94): (93) Dawn cleaned the windows diligently, and Sean did so too. (94) Dawn cleaned the windows diligently, but Sean did so lazily. Here, we have a new proform, namely do so, which replaces different lexical material in the two sentences above: in (93) it replaces cleaned the windows diligently, while in (94)

213

English Syntax and Argumentation

it replaces cleaned the windows. We have seen that proforms can only replace constituents, so we conclude that these strings are constituents, thus confirming that Vʹ1 and Vʹ2 in (92) are units. This leads us to the following generalisation: Do so-Substitution Do so replaces Vʹ-constituents. Here are some more examples: (95) Barry hired a big Jaguar, and Milly did so too. (96) Lenny sent Will a postcard, and Gemma did so too.

EXERCISE What lexical material is replaced by do so in sentences (95) and (96) above?

In these cases what has been replaced are the strings hired a big Jaguar (V + DO) and sent Will a postcard (V + IO + DO). We have claimed that verbs and their Complements together form Vʹ-constituents, so here again do so replaces V-bars. The structure of the VPs of the initial clauses in (95) and (96) is as in (97)a and (97)b: (97)

Do so can never replace less than a Vʹ. The following sentences are ungrammatical: (98) *Barry hired a big Jaguar, and Milly did so a Volkswagen. (99) *Lenny sent Will a postcard, and Gemma did so a present. In (98) the proform replaces only the lexical verb, but, as you can see in (97)a, although this is a constituent, it is not a Vʹ-constituent. In (99) do so replaces the verb and only one of its Complements, namely the Indirect Object. Again, this is not allowed, because these two nodes do not together form a Vʹ-constituent. Do so-Substitution is a very practical test because we can use it to see whether a particular element, or string of elements, is inside VP. The line of reasoning is as follows: if we can show, using Do so-Substitution, that some element is part of the Vʹ of a sentence,

214

Constituency: Movement and Substitution

then that element is also part of the VP of that sentence, because all V-bars are dominated by a VP. Let’s see how this works. Consider the following sentence: (100) Ray rudely interrupted the speaker. On the basis of various tests, VP-Preposing and VP-Substitution among them, we already know that the Direct Object, the NP the speaker, is inside the VP, but we may be unsure about the adverb phrase rudely. As it is positioned immediately before the lexical verb, there is the possibility that it is inside VP, like the DO. We can apply the Do so-Substitution test to find out. This is done by adding a clause in the form and X does/did so too to the original sentence: (101) Ray rudely interrupted the speaker, and Vincent did so too. Here, clearly did so has replaced rudely interrupted the speaker, which must therefore be a Vʹ. Because V-bars are dominated by VPs, we conclude that the AdvP is indeed inside VP.

EXERCISE The AdvP rudelyy clearly functions as an Adjunct inside VP. Draw the tree for the VP of the Vʹ that do so first clause in (101) (Ray rudely interrupted the speakerr), and circle the Vʹ replaces in the second clause of this sentence.

This tree looks like this: (102)

It is the higher of the two V-bars that do so replaces in (101). What about the lower Vʹ? Can we replace that too with do so? Yes, we can, as (103) shows: (103) Ray rudely interrupted the speaker, while Vincent politely did so.

215

English Syntax and Argumentation

EXERCISE Identify the Vʹ-constituents in the following sentences. Use the frame X . . . , and Y does/ did so too too.. There may be more than one possibility! (104) William bought the bread in the supermarket. (105) Janet ran.

The results are as follows: (106) William bought the bread in the supermarket, and Iris did so in the corner shop. (107) William bought the bread in the supermarket, and Iris did so too. (108) Janet ran, and Frank did so too. In (106) do so replaces bought bread, whereas in (107) it replaces bought bread in the supermarket. In (108) the proform replaces ran. What we have seen in this section is that do so replaces V-bars, and that Do soSubstitution is a useful test for determining whether a particular element, or group of elements, is inside the verb phrase of a sentence. There exists another process that affects V-bars, called Vʹ-Deletion. Consider again (91), repeated here as (109): (109) Dawn cleaned the windows diligently. We saw above that diligently is inside the VP, and we analysed the VP of (109) as in (110): (110)

Consider now (111): (111) Dawn will clean the windows diligently, but Sean will – lazily. In (111) we deleted the string clean the windows. As we have seen, deletion is a special case of substitution, and we will say that clean the windows has been substituted by a null

216

Constituency: Movement and Substitution

proform. Because proforms can only replace constituents, it follows that a sequence like clean the windows must be a constituent. In (110) we analysed this string as a Vʹconstituent, so that in (111) we are dealing with Vʹ-Deletion. Sentences like (111) furnish further evidence for our claim that V + DO sequences are constituents, because Direct Objects are dominated by Vʹ, as in (110). As a further example of Vʹ-Deletion, consider the following sentence: (112) Ray will rudely interrupt the speaker, but Bruce will politely –. We showed above, using Do so-Substitution as a test, that an Adjunct like rudely in the first clause in (112) is inside the VP, in a position where it is adjoined to Vʹ, as in (113) below. (Recall that the modal verb is positioned in I.) (113)

In the second clause of (112) we have deleted the string interrupt the speaker. Now, because this string contains the lexical verb interrupt and a DO, and we have a stranded Adjunct here (politely), we must be dealing with a deleted Vʹ-constituent. Notice that this time the Adjunct is positioned before the deletion site. Because Adjuncts like rudely and politely are adjoined to this Vʹ, we know that the string rudely/politely interrupt the speaker is also a Vʹ. In this chapter we looked at the Movement and Substitution Tests for constituency. In Chapter 13 we’ll be looking at a few additional tests.

KEY CONCEPTS constituency constituency tests Movement Tests Topicalisation: VP-Preposing, Though-Movement Heavy NP Shift (HNPS) Extraposition of Subject clauses Extraposition from NP

Substitution Tests Proform Substitution NP-Substitution and Nʹ-Substitution VP-Substitution and Vʹ-Substitution/ Deletion Do so-Substitution

217

English Syntax and Argumentation

EXERCISES 1. Draw the trees for the following sentences: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

The big blue balloon exploded. I will buy some chocolates this afternoon. She could act extremely well. She believes that her best friend loves films. We quickly decided that we should leave.

2. In tree diagram (60) in the text, we assigned the following structure to the PP with yellow hats on their heads which is contained within the NP six women with yellow hats on their heads: (i)

A further possible analysis is shown in (ii):

218

Constituency: Movement and Substitution

(ii)

] Both (i) and (ii) conform to Xʹ-theory, but they might be said to represent very slightly different meanings, namely ‘hats on their heads which are yellow’ and ‘yellow hats which are on their heads’. Which structure corresponds with which meaning? Explain your answer. 3. When we discussed VP-Preposing in Section 12.1.1.2, we saw that this process always leaves behind an auxiliary verb. Consider now the following sets of sentences in which there is more than one auxiliary verb: (i)

They say he may have been killing flies, . . . (a) . . . and [killing flies] he may have been –. (b) . . . and [so] he may have been –. (c) . . . [which] he may have been –. (ii) They say he may have been killing flies, . . . (a) . . . and [been killing flies] he may have –. (b) . . . and [so] he may have –. (c) . . . [which] he may have –. (iii) They say he may have been killing flies, . . . (a) . . . and [have been killing flies] he may –. (b) . . . and [so] he may –. (c) . . . [which] he may –. Assuming that these sentences are all grammatical (not everyone will agree), and also assuming that verb phrases have been preposed in the a-sentences, or substituted by the proforms so or which in the b- and c-sentences (and then preposed), draw the tree structure for the sentence He may have been killing flies. Does the structure you have produced accord with the structure of sentences with multiple auxiliaries proposed in Section 9.6? 4. In many textbooks on English syntax it is assumed that verb phrases only contain verbs. Below you will find two common analyses of the verb phrase in English. The toast: t: example sentence used is Nicholas will burn the toast

219

English Syntax and Argumentation

(i)

(ii)

Give distributional arguments in favour of or against these analyses (i.e. use the tests introduced in this chapter). Are there also semantic reasons for adopting or rejecting these analyses? 5. Now do the same for the analysis below (advocated in Warner 1993): (i)

*6. Consider (i) below: (i) For him to kill that poor fly was wrong. In this sentence we might wonder whether the string for him to kill that poor fly is a unit, or whether we should subdivide it into two independent constituents, namely for him, which would then be a PP, and to kill that poor flyy,, which would be a clause without an overt Subject (but whose Subject would be interpreted to be the same as the Complement of the preposition, i.e. him). Using the tests discussed in this chapter, show which of these options is correct. Make sure that the meaning of the sentence does not change when you apply movement. *7. Although we haven’t discussed NP-Movement (see Sections 9.2 and 9.3) as a test for constituency in this chapter, we can use it as such. Consider the sentences below: (i) Charlie saw the book on the table. (ii) Charlie put the book on the table. Using NP-Movement as a test, show how the constituency of these sentences is different, despite their superficial similarity as NP–V–NP–PP structures. Draw the trees for (i) and (ii).

220

Constituency: Movement and Substitution

*8. Show how the Substitution Test confirms your analyses of (i) and (ii) in Exercise 7. *9. Our discussion of movement in Chapter 8 and this chapter has not dealt with all possible displacements in English. In this exercise we will look at further possibilities, specifically some types of inversion in English. Here are two examples: Inversion around d be (i) a. New York is the ultimate city in the world. b. The ultimate city in the world is New York. This inversion process can be used as a test to demonstrate the constituent d. You may initially status of the strings New Yorkk and the ultimate city in the world d does not form a unit with the have been tempted to suppose that in the world ultimate cityy. How does (ii) below put you on the right track? (ii) *The ultimate city is New York in the world. Subject–Auxiliary Inversion Consider the sentences below: (iii)

a. Katie will pass her driving test. b. Will Katie pass her driving test? Here, we see that a Subject and an auxiliary verb (a modal) have swapped places creating an interrogative clause (see Section 4.3.2). Inversion is one of the NICE properties of auxiliaries that were introduced in Section 2.4. How can we use the pair of sentences in (iii) to bolster our claim (made in Section 8.1 and this chapter) that modal auxiliaries are not inside VP, but are dominated by a separate node which we labelled ‘I’? *10. In Section 12.1.2.2 we discussed the Extraposition of Subject clauses, as in That Henryy made that commentt obviously irritated her. > It obviously irritated herr that Henryy made that commentt. Consider now the sentences below: (i) I consider it a problem that you didn’t write that report. (ii) *I consider that you didn’t write that report a problem. What’s going on here? As a starting point, think about the functional status of the extraposed thatt-clause in (i). *11. Use the examples in (i) and (ii) to demonstrate that the proform do the same can also be used as a VP-proform. (i) Ben drafted a new proposal effortlessly. (ii) Elly vainly admired herself. *12. In the text we argued that constituents like the French, the Dutch etc. are noun phrases. But if this is so, it seems that we must allow for NPs to be headed by adjectives. Can you see a way around this problem?

FURTHER READING On constituency tests, see Haegeman (2006) and Radford (2009). On constituency and sentential re-orderings, see Huddleston (1984) and Rochemont and Culicover (1990).

221

CONSTITUENCY: SOME ADDITIONAL TESTS

13

In Chapter 12 we looked at movement and substitution as tests for constituency. In this chapter we’ll be looking at a few additional tests: the Coordination Test, the Cleft and Pseudocleft Test, the Insertion Test, the Constituent Response Test, the Somewhere Else Test and the Meaning Test. I have grouped these tests in a separate chapter because, as we will see, they are not always as reliable as the Movement Test and Substitution Test. The order in which they are discussed roughly reflects their degree of reliability, the first test being the most reliable.

13.1 The Coordination Test Coordination was briefly discussed in Chapter 2. We saw there that it involves the linking of two or more strings by a coordinating conjunction, typically and, or or but; e.g. [very clever] and [extremely eager], [in the box] or [on the floor], [handsome] but [stupid ] etc. Now we claim the following: Coordination Test Only constituents can be coordinated. Let’s see if coordination facts can confirm the constituent structure of verb phrases that we posited in Chapter 7. Consider the following sentences: (1) Frank washed his shirts yesterday. (2) Michael loudly announced the election victory. For (1) we posited a structure like (3), whereas we assigned a structure like (4) to (2): (3)

222

Constituency: Some Additional Tests

(4)

The constituents inside the VPs of both (3) and (4) are the (empty) Specifier position, the higher Vʹ, the lower Vʹ, the lexical verb and the Direct Object NP, as well as the Adjunct NP in (3), and the Adjunct AdvP in (4). The constituent status of all these strings is confirmed by the fact that they can be coordinated with other similar units: (5) Frank washed and ironed his shirts yesterday. (coordinated lexical verbs) (6) Frank washed his shirts and polished his shoes yesterday. (coordinated lower V-bars) (7) Frank washed his shirts yesterday and last week. (coordinated Adjunct NPs) (8) Frank washed his shirts yesterday and polished his shoes last week. (coordinated higher V-bars) (9) Michael loudly announced and decried the election victory. (coordinated lexical verbs) (10) Michael loudly announced the election victory and gave an interview to the press. (coordinated lower V-bars) (11) Michael loudly and cheerfully announced the election victory. (coordinated Adjunct AdvPs) (12) Michael loudly announced the election victory and cheerfully gave an interview to the press. (coordinated higher V-bars) We will call the type of coordination exemplified above ordinary coordination. Consider next (13)–(15): (13) Frank washed the shirts, and Dick ironed the shirts. (14) Frank will wash the shirts, but Dick won’t wash the shirts. (15) Frank will iron the shirts tomorrow, but Dick won’t iron the shirts tomorrow. We can apply a second type of coordination to these sentences, which we will call Right Node Raising (RNR). Here are some examples: (16) Frank washed –, and Dick ironed –, the shirts.

223

English Syntax and Argumentation

(17) Frank will –, but Dick won’t –, wash the shirts. (18) Frank will –, but Dick won’t –, iron the shirts tomorrow. In (16) the lexical verbs wash and iron both take the shirts as Direct Object. Because Direct Objects are always on a right-hand branch inside Vʹ, they are called ‘right nodes’. In (16) the shirts has been raised from the positions indicated by the dashes, and one copy of this NP is placed at the end of the sentence, hence the term Right Node Raising. (Notice that unlike the kind of raising that was introduced in Section 9.3, this type of raising is in a rightward direction.) In (17) we have raised a Vʹ-constituent consisting of a lexical verb and its Direct Object, while in (18) another Vʹ, this time consisting of a lexical verb + DO + Adjunct, has been raised. We can now make the following observation: Right Node Raising (RNR) Test Only constituents can undergo RNR. The data in (16)–(18) show once again that Direct Objects, V + DO strings and V + DO + Adjunct strings form constituents, as reflected in tree diagrams (3) and (4) above. However, we should be aware that there are problems for our claim that only constituents can be coordinated. Here is a classic counterexample: (19) Alison gave my brother a T-shirt and my sister a CD. We know that the ditransitive verb give takes two Complements: an IO and a DO, and that both these Complements are sisters of the lexical verb inside Vʹ: (20)

The units that appear to be coordinated in (19) are my brother a T-shirt and my sister a CD, i.e. IO + DO strings. The problem now is that in both cases the two NPs together (IO + DO) do not form a constituent, because the node that dominates them also dominates V, as is clear from the tree diagram above. However, (19) can be regarded as only an apparent counterexample, if we assume that the verb gave has been omitted before my sister in (19) (indicated by a strike-through): (21) Alison [gave my brother a T-shirt] and [gave my sister a CD]. In this sentence we can then say that we have coordinated two V-bars.

13.2 The Cleft and Pseudocleft Test Our next constituency test involves so-called cleft sentences and pseudocleft sentences, examples of which are given below:

224

Constituency: Some Additional Tests

(22) Frank washed his shirts yesterday.

‘Regular’ sentence = (1)

(23) It was Frank who washed his shirts yesterday. cleft (24) It was his shirts that Frank washed yesterday. cleft (25) It was yesterday that Frank washed his shirts. cleft (26) What Frank washed yesterday was his shirts. pseudocleft (27) What Frank did yesterday was wash his shirts. pseudocleft (28) What Frank did was wash his shirts yesterday. pseudocleft Cleft and pseudocleft sentences are special constructions in English, which enable language users to highlight a particular string of words in a sentence. We briefly came across cleft sentences in Section 11.2.1. Clefts and pseudoclefts are easily recognisable, because they have a typical structure. They always start with the same word: it in the case of the cleft construction (thus they are also known as it-clefts) and what (and a few other wh-items) in the case of the pseudocleft construction (also known as wh-clefts). The skeletal structures of clefts and pseudoclefts are as follows: Cleft sentence It + form of be +

focus +

who/that /Ø/which . . .

It + was

frank +

who washed his shirts yesterday

+

Pseudocleft sentence wh-item + ... What

+

+

Frank did +

form of be +

focus

was

wash his shirts yesterday

+

Both clefts and pseudoclefts always contain a form of the copular verb be (is/was/were). The position following this copular verb is called the focus position (in small capitals in the examples above). The elements that occur here receive special emphasis, and hence are more prominent. Different elements are able to occupy the focus position in clefts and pseudoclefts, and for this reason a sentence can have more than one cleft or pseudocleft version, as the examples in (23)–(28) show. For current purposes the following principle is important: Cleft and Pseudocleft Test Only constituents can occur in the focus position of a cleft or pseudocleft sentence. From the discussion in Section 13.1, you will remember that we argued that the verb phrase in sentence (22) has the structure given in tree diagram (3). The data in (23)–(28) confirm that Frank, his shirts, yesterday, washed his shirts and washed his shirts yesterday in (22) are indeed constituents. The verb alone cannot occur in the focus position of cleft and pseudocleft sentences.

225

English Syntax and Argumentation

In view of the fact that only constituents can occur in the focus position in clefts and pseudoclefts, we can use these constructions to test for constituency. Consider again sentence (2), repeated below as (29): (29) Michael loudly announced the election victory. The structure we posited for this sentence is shown in tree diagram (4) above.

EXERCISE Provide the cleft and pseudocleft versions of sentence (29), and highlight the elements in the focus position.

The cleft versions are as in (30)–(32): (30) It was Michael who loudly announced the election victory. (31) It was the election victory that Michael loudly announced. (32) It was loudly that Michael announced the election victory. The pseudocleft versions are as follows: (33) What Michael loudly announced was the election victory. (34) What Michael did loudly was announce the election victory. (35) What Michael did was loudly announce the election victory. We conclude that the italicised strings above are constituents, and this confirms the structure in tree diagram (4) above. I will return to cleft constructions in Section 15.4.

13.3 The Insertion Test Another way of testing the constituent structure of a particular construction is to see whether it can be interrupted by so-called parenthetical elements. These are individual words or phrases that are not syntactically integrated in the sentence, but often relate to the sentence as a whole from the point of view of meaning. Typical examples are sentence adverbs such as however, probably and frankly (see Sections 2.6 and 8.1), as in (36): (36) I myself won’t be going on holiday this summer. Pam, however, will take two weeks off in August. However can be positioned in various locations in (36), as (37)–(39) below show: (37) Pam will, however, take two weeks off in August. (38) However, Pam will take two weeks off in August. (39) Pam will take two weeks off in August, however. 226

Constituency: Some Additional Tests

Further examples of parenthetical elements are: as you know, would you believe, vocatives etc. The generalisation that we can make with regard to parenthetical elements is as follows: Insertion Test Parenthetical elements can only occur between S-constituents. By ‘S-constituent’ I mean a constituent that is immediately dominated by S. Thus, in (36) however occurs between NP and I; in (37) it occurs between I and VP, whereas in (38) and (39) it occurs at the beginning and end of the sentence, respectively. The Insertion Test, as formulated above, raises the expectation that if a parenthetical element occurs in a position other than between S-constituents, the result will be bad. This expectation is borne out: (40) *Pam will take, however, two weeks off in August. Example (40) is clearly ungrammatical. The reason for this is that a parenthetical element intervenes between the lexical verb and its Direct Object. These are not S-constituents, but constituents of VP. Recall that in Section 8.1 we argued that modal auxiliary verbs are positioned inside I. We now have further confirmation that this is indeed the case by pointing to sentences such as (36) and (37) above, which show that the node in which the modal auxiliary is positioned must be an S-constituent.

13.4 The Constituent Response Test When we are asked a question in the form of an open interrogative (see Section 4.3.2), we often give a short response, rather than a lengthy one, as in the interchange below: (41) Dick:

Where did you buy this bread?

Frances: In the supermarket. Frances could have responded with the full sentence I bought this bread in the supermarket, but it would have taken more time to utter. With regard to shortened answers like the one in (41), the assumption now is the following: Constituent Response Test Only constituents can serve as responses to open interrogatives. If you look back at some of the sentences we discussed earlier, you’ll see that this seems to be a correct generalisation. Take (42), repeated from Chapter 12: (42) Ray rudely interrupted the speaker. With regard to this sentence, we can ask the following:

227

English Syntax and Argumentation

Who rudely interrupted the speaker? How did Ray interrupt the speaker? Who did Ray (rudely) interrupt? What did Ray do rudely? What did Ray do? The responses are Ray, rudely, the speaker, interrupt the speaker and rudely interrupt the speaker. The fact that these strings can be responses (although some are more acceptable than others) shows that they must be constituents. This is confirmed by the other tests that we applied to this sentence in Chapter 12.

13.5 The Somewhere Else Test This test relies on the following premise: Somewhere Else Test If a string of words whose constituent status is unclear occurs as a constituent in some other construction, then this constitutes weak support for the possibility of analysing it as a constituent in the first construction as well. How does the Somewhere Else Test work? Consider the sentence below: (43) That The Sound of Music is a bad film is obvious. The Subject of this sentence is the italicised that-clause. This clause must be a constituent because it can be extraposed to the end of the sentence. The dummy element it is then inserted in its original position: (44) It is obvious [that The Sound of Music is a bad film]. Another reason for regarding the that-clause in (43) as a constituent is that it can be replaced by a proform: (45) It is obvious. Now, notice that a that-clause, such as the one in (43), can occur as a constituent in a different syntactic environment, e.g. after a lexical verb: (46) Everyone believed that The Sound of Music is a bad film. Compare (46) with (47)–(49): (47) That The Sound of Music is a bad film was believed by everyone (48) It was believed by everyone that The Sound of Music is a bad film. (49) Everyone believed this: that The Sound of Music is a bad film. These data can be regarded as weak confirmation of the contention that the that-clause in (43) is a constituent. They don’t actually prove it, in the way that the Movement Test

228

Constituency: Some Additional Tests

and Substitution Test in (44) and (45) do, but they could be said to constitute support for that claim, to the extent that such clauses do seem to behave naturally as constituents in a variety of constructions. We will say that (46)–(49) constitute suggestive evidence for the constituency of the that-clause in (43). Consider (50) next: (50) Ivan wants the train to depart. In Section 5.4 we said that the Direct Object of this sentence is a nonfinite clause, namely the train to depart, with a Subject of its own. That such a string can act as a constituent is confirmed by the Somewhere Else Test: (51) It might be better for the train to depart. Here, the train to depart occurs after for. Again, the fact that this string occurs as a unit in (51) doesn’t conclusively prove that it is also a constituent in (50). All we can say is that (51) shows that such strings can be constituents, and hence the analysis of (50) as involving a constituent the train to depart becomes more plausible than it might have seemed at first sight. Care should be taken when applying the Somewhere Else Test. Consider the NP the garden of the hotel in the sentence below: (52) The garden of the hotel was beautifully maintained. We might wish to investigate whether the string the garden is a constituent inside the italicised phrase. At first, and from the point of view of the Somewhere Else Test, it might seem obvious that it is. After all, it can occur in a variety of typical NP positions (e.g. The garden is beautiful, We dined in the garden etc.). However, notice that we cannot apply the Movement Test or Substitution Test to this string: (53) *Of the hotel was beautifully maintained the garden. (54) *It of the hotel was beautifully maintained. In sentence (53) we have moved the garden to the right, and this results in ungrammaticality. In sentence (54) the garden has been replaced by it, again with an ungrammatical result.

EXERCISE Draw the tree diagram for the NP the garden of the hotell, treating of the hotell as a PP Adjunct of the Head garden. Include all Specifier positions. Explain why the garden on its own is not a constituent.

Your tree should look like this:

229

English Syntax and Argumentation

(55)

In this tree the sequence the garden does not form a constituent because the and garden are not dominated by the same node. (Review Section 4.4 if this is not clear to you.)

13.6 The Meaning Test On the assumption that where possible we should aim to match the syntactic analysis of a sentence with its meaning, constituency can often be established on semantic grounds using a Meaning Test. Consider again sentence (50) above. If you think about what this sentence actually means, you’ll find that the object of Ivan’s wanting is not ‘the train’, but a proposition, namely ‘that the train departs’. On these grounds, it is possible to argue that the propositional string the train to depart is a constituent, and that this sequence, not the NP the train on its own, functions as the Direct Object of want.

13.7 A case study: the naked pizza eating construction In this section we will bring together all the tests that were introduced in Chapter 12 and this chapter, and apply them to what I will call, for lack of a better term, the naked pizza eating construction (NPEC). This construction is exemplified in (56) below: (56) Josh ate the pizza naked. From left to right, this sentence contains a Subject (Josh), a Predicator (ate), a Direct Object (the pizza), and a phrase (the AP naked) that ascribes a property to the referent of the Subject of the sentence. We interpret the AP as telling us that ‘Josh ate the pizza while he was naked’. The AP thus has an ‘Adjunct feel’ to it. Pizza eating in the nude is a somewhat unusual activity, to be sure, but you may be surprised to hear that sentences like (56) have been widely discussed in the linguistic literature, and very seriously too!

230

Constituency: Some Additional Tests

A problem with (56) is the question whether the AP naked is inside the VP or not. As an initial hypothesis we might surmise that it is not, and that a natural division of (56) is as follows: (57) [S [NP Josh] [I ] [VP ate the pizza] [AP naked]] The associated tree diagram is as in (58): (58)

In this tree the AP naked is an immediate constituent of S. However, because it occurs right next to the VP, we should investigate whether perhaps it is part of that VP. If naked is indeed inside the VP, then the string ate the pizza naked should behave as a constituent, when we apply our various tests. So let’s give it a try. VP-Preposing We start with the Movement Test. Recall that two types of movement were relevant to VPs, namely VP-Preposing and Though-Movement. Can these be used? Let’s try VPPreposing first: (59) Josh says that he will eat the pizza naked, and [eat the pizza naked] he will –. (60) *Josh says that he will eat the pizza naked, and [eat the pizza] he will – naked. These results show that if a string of words is fronted that involves the lexical verb eat, i.e. a verb phrase, then the AP naked must also move, suggesting that it is part of the VP. Though-Movement Now let’s apply Though-Movement: (61) Eat the pizza naked though he will –, Josh wants to be paid for it. (62) *Eat the pizza though he will – naked, Josh wants to be paid for it. The outcome confirms our earlier conclusion that naked is inside the VP. The rightward movement tests, i.e. Heavy NP Shift and Extraposition from NP, do not apply in establishing whether the AP naked is inside the VP or not. Our next battery of tests involves substitution.

231

English Syntax and Argumentation

VP-Deletion We start with VP-Deletion. Here, we reason as follows: if we can delete (i.e. substitute by nothing) a string of elements that involves the lexical verb and the AP naked, then the AP must be inside the VP. Consider (63): (63) Josh will eat the pizza naked, but Ennio won’t –. Under VP-Deletion, apart from the lexical verb and the Direct Object, naked is also removed from the second clause in (63). We can therefore again conclude that Subjectrelated APs like naked are inside the VP. Can we also apply Do so-Substitution to the NPEC? If do so can replace a Vʹ-sequence that includes naked, then this adjective phrase is inside Vʹ, and hence also inside the VP which dominates it. Let’s apply the test and see what the result is: (64) Josh ate the pizza naked, and Ennio did so too. In (64) do so has replaced the sequence ate the pizza naked, which is therefore a Vʹ. Sentence (64) thus shows that the AP naked is inside Vʹ, and hence also inside the VP which dominates this Vʹ. We have now demonstrated that the AP naked is not an immediate constituent of S, but is in fact inside the VP, contrary to our initial expectations. We revise (57) as (65): (65) [S [NP Josh] [I ] [VP ate the pizza naked]] We turn now to the additional tests we discussed in Sections 13.1–13.6. Coordination Test If, as our tests have so far suggested, ate the pizza naked is a constituent, as in (65), we would expect it to be possible to coordinate this string with a structurally identical string. Sure enough, this is possible, as in (66). (66) Josh ate the pizza naked, but ate the doughnut fully clothed. Right Node Raising Right Node Raising too can apply: (67) Josh said he would –, but Deirdre said she couldn’t possibly –, eat the pizza naked. Cleft and Pseudocleft Test The string eat the pizza naked cannot be the focus of a cleft, but it can be the focus of a pseudocleft: (68) *It was eat the pizza naked that Josh did. (69) What Josh did was eat the pizza naked.

232

Constituency: Some Additional Tests

I will return to (68) in Section 13.8. Insertion Test As for the Insertion Test, notice that the following example is of dubious acceptability: (70) ?Josh ate the pizza, would you believe it, naked. This suggests that the boundary between pizza and naked is not an S-constituent boundary, but a VP-internal boundary. It must be conceded, however, that the example is not completely unacceptable. Constituent Response Test Turning now to the Constituent Response Test, we find that eat the pizza naked can occur as a constituent in an exchange like the one shown in (71): (71) Edgar: Fran:

What did you do in the restaurant? Eat a pizza naked.

Somewhere Else Test And the Somewhere Else Test shows that eat the pizza naked can be a constituent in a sentence like (72): (72) This he refuses to do: eat the pizza naked. Meaning Test Finally, the Meaning Test leads us to say that semantically eat the pizza naked is a unit, because this string predicates something of the Subject. In fact, it tells us two things about the Subject, namely that Josh performed an act of pizza eating, and that he was in a state of undress when he did so.

13.8 Some caveats regarding the tests The constituency tests discussed in Chapter 12 and this chapter should be applied with some care. I have already pointed out that not all the tests we discussed are equally reliable. You will have realised from the discussion in Sections 13.5 and 13.6 that the Somewhere Else Test and the Meaning Test have a different status from the other tests that we dealt with, in that they seem useful only in indicating or suggesting constituent structure. They are the least reliable of all the tests. The procedure to follow if you’re investigating the constituent structure of a particular construction is first to apply the tests of Chapter 12, then those of Sections 13.1–13.4, and to use the

233

English Syntax and Argumentation

Somewhere Else Test and the Meaning Test only in conjunction with the other tests as a supplementary check. A general constraint that applies to the tests is that they work in only one direction. Thus, with regard to movement, we can say that if we can move a certain string of words, it must be a constituent, but if we cannot move a string of words, that string is not necessarily not a constituent. An example will make this clear: (73)

This sentence is ungrammatical, because the PP cannot be moved in the way indicated. However, the fact that leftward PP-Movement is not possible in this example should not immediately lead us to conclude that the PP is not a constituent. Before drawing such a conclusion we should try to apply other tests. So, (74) below shows that the PP about New York can be coordinated with another PP: (74) Nobody liked the books about New York and about Los Angeles. We can also use the Somewhere Else Test to find a different context in which a PP that is structurally identical to the one in (73) can be moved, and in which it therefore does function as a unit. Sentence (75) is an example: (75) He never mentioned London, whereas [about New York] he could talk – for hours. Here about New York has moved from the position following the lexical verb of the subordinate clause to the position following the subordinator whereas. We won’t go into the question of why (73) is bad, but we will simply say that its ungrammaticality must be due to some constraint in the grammar that prohibits leftward movement of PPs out of NPs. We can use other examples to illustrate the one-directionality of the constituency tests. Consider again (68), repeated here as (76): (76) *It was eat the pizza naked that Josh did. Example (76) considered in isolation might lead us to suppose that eat the pizza naked cannot be a constituent, because it cannot occur in the focus position of a cleft sentence. However, to take only this sentence into account would be wrong, in view of the overwhelming evidence presented in Section 13.7 that showed that eat the pizza naked does behave as a constituent. The fact that (76) is bad is simply due to a general constraint which disallows strings involving verbs to be placed in the focus position in clefts (cf. also *It was eat that he did/*It was eat the pizza that he did.). To conclude, when using constituency tests, it is imperative to bear in mind that some are more reliable than others, and that they only work in one direction. More generally, it is a good idea to apply not just one, but several tests to a sentence whose constituency you are investigating, as we have done in the case of the NPEC.

234

Constituency: Some Additional Tests

KEY CONCEPTS cleft sentences pseudocleft sentences Right Node Raising (RNR) constituency tests: Coordination Test, including Right Node Raising

Cleft and Pseudocleft Test Insertion Test Constituent Response Test Somewhere Else Test Meaning Test

EXERCISES 1. The following sentence is ambiguous. Draw the tree structures that correspond to the different meanings. Give arguments based on distributional evidence to support your analyses. (i) I saw the policeman with the binoculars. 2. Use the constituency tests discussed in Chapter 12 and this chapter to investigate whether the adjective phrase dryy is positioned inside the VP in (i) below: (i) Jeff rubbed the plates dry. Notice that under the most likely reading of (i) the AP is related to the Direct Object the plates. Notice also that the AP expresses a result, i.e. as a result of Jeff’s rubbing the plates, they became dry. (The AP can also – just about – be related to the Subject, as in the NPEC, in such a way that Jeff was dry when he rubbed the plates, but we will disregard this meaning.) 3. Check to see which of the constituency tests discussed in Chapter 12 and this chapter, apart from the Somewhere Else Test and the Meaning Test, confirm the constituent status of the train to departt in (50), repeated here as (i): (i) Ivan wants the train to depart. departt. 4. In Section 5.4 we analysed a sentence like (i) as in (ii): (i) I saw you paying this bill. (ii) I saw [you paying this bill]. How does the sentence in (iii) support the analysis in (ii)? (iii) There may have been a delay between you paying this bill and the issue of this notice. (From a telephone bill.) *5. In the text we used the following sentences to illustrate Right Node Raising: (i) a. Frank washed the shirts, and Dick ironed the shirts. RNR→ RNR→ b. Frank washed –, and Dick ironed –, the shirts. (ii) a. Frank will wash the shirts, but Dick won’t wash the shirts. RNR→ RNR→ b. Frank will –, but Dick won’t –, wash the shirts.

235

English Syntax and Argumentation

(iii) a. Frank will iron the shirts tomorrow, but Dick won’t iron the shirts tomorrow. RNR→ w. b. Frank will –, but Dick won’t –, iron the shirts tomorrow In these sentences it may appear to be the case that as a result of the application of d and Dick ironed d RNR new structures come about in which the strings Frank washed in (i)b, and Frank willl and but Dick won’tt in (ii)b and (iii)b are being coordinated. This would suggest that these strings are constituents. However, this cannot be correct, i.e. these strings cannot be constituents, if the general structure we’ve posited for sentences is correct. Why not? (Refer to tree structure (3) at the beginning of the chapter to answer this question.) Is there a way around this problem? *6. In Section 13.7 on the NPEC we saw that Subject-related adjective phrases are inside the VP, as in (65). We can go further and ask whether the AP is a Complement of the lexical verb inside VP, or an Adjunct. The two possible structures of the VP eat the pizza naked d are shown in (i) and (ii) below: (i)

(ii)

In (i) the AP is a Complement of the verb eatt, in (ii) it is an Adjunct. How do we decide between these representations? Here’s a hint: notice that in (i) there is one Vʹ, whereas in (ii) there are two V-bars. Use the sentences in (iii) and (iv) to decide in favour of either (i) or (ii) as the correct representation of the VP in Josh ate the pizza naked: d: naked (iii) Josh ate the pizza naked, and Ennio did so too. (iv) Josh ate the pizza naked, and Ennio did so fully clothed. *7. Huddleston (1984: 215–17) discusses the following sentence: (i) Ed intended Liz to repair it. He presents two analyses of this sentence in the form of tree diagrams (which I have modified slightly):

236

Constituency: Some Additional Tests

(ii)

(iii)

Huddleston observes that (iii) ‘matches the meaning more closely’ than (ii), but ‘from a syntactic point of view . . . there are grounds for preferring the analysis shown in [ii]’. One syntactic argument in favour of (ii) that Huddleston gives is that ‘a sequence like Liz to repair itt does not occur elsewhere as a constituent: we cannot say, for example, *Liz to repair it was intended, *Liz to repair it would be useful, *The intention was Liz to repair it, *What he intended was Liz to repair it.’ itt.’ Which constituency test is Huddleston invoking here? Can you think of a sentence which would disprove his claim that Liz to repair itt cannot occur elsewhere as a constituent? *8. What do the parenthetical insertions (see Section 13.3) in the sentences below (from Chomsky [1955]1975: 475– 6) tell us about the strings in every possible place and up the case? How would you grammatically analyse (i) and (ii)? (i) He looked, as you can see, in every possible place. (ii) *He looked, as you can see, up the case in the records.

FURTHER READING On the naked pizza eating construction (NPEC) and related structures, see Aarts (1995).

237

PREDICATES AND ARGUMENTS REVISITED

14

In this chapter we return to the notions of predicate and argument that were first introduced in Chapter 6. We will look at cases where it is not straightforward to determine what are the arguments of a particular predicate, and we will discuss ways in which we can establish argumenthood, i.e. whether or not a particular element is an argument of some predicate. The notion of argumenthood is intimately related to constituency, as will become clear. To refresh your memory, recall that predicates are linguistic expressions that require arguments to satisfy them. Here are some examples: (1) Penny admires Judith (2) Imelda sent Darren presents (3) Pam thinks that she is clever (4) Being here annoys me The elements in bold represent predicates, whereas the underlined units represent arguments. In English, predicates take minimally one, and usually no more than three, arguments. In most cases, it is not difficult to decide how many arguments a particular predicate requires, especially if we are dealing with simple sentences like those in (1)–(4). There is also usually no problem in deciding the categorial status of the arguments that are needed. In the sentences above they are either noun phrases or clauses. However, some controversial cases do exist and we turn to them in the next section.

14.1 Establishing argumenthood In deciding whether a particular element is an argument of some predicate, we have recourse to a number of tests for argumenthood: meaning, dummy elements, idiom chunks and passivisation. We will look at each of these in turn. 14.1.1 Meaning At the start of this chapter we looked at four simple predicate-argument combinations. We saw that in sentences (1)–(4) it was quite straightforward to decide which arguments the predicates required. The number and type of arguments that a particular predicate needs is clearly determined to a large extent by the meaning of the predicate in question. The meanings of predicates are stored in our mental lexicon, along with information 238

Predicates and Arguments Revisited

about the number of arguments they require, as well as their categorial status (NP, clause, PP etc.). Furthermore, recall that for a unit to be an argument of some predicate, there must be a thematic relationship between the argument and predicate in question. Information about the thematic roles borne by a particular predicate’s arguments is also stored in the mental lexicon. When we interpret a sentence, the information that is stored in our mental lexicon about the predicate(s) that this sentence contains is retrieved. As an example, take the sentence below: (5) Ed believes the story. In (5) the meaning of believe, a two-place predicate, is such that it requires somebody who does the believing (a Subject) as well as a specification of what is being believed (a Direct Object). These functions are performed by the NPs Ed and the story, respectively. Ed carries the thematic role of Experiencer, while the story carries the role of Patient. Consider now (6): (6) Ed believes that the story is false. Here again we have the predicate believe, which differs from the verb in (5) only with respect to the categorial status of the arguments it takes: in (5) it takes two NP arguments, whereas in (6) it takes an NP Subject and a clausal DO. Notice that both the NP the story in (5) and the clause that the story is false in (6) are DOs which carry the thematic roles of Patient and Proposition, respectively. It is worth stressing again the fact that for some element to act as an argument of some predicate, it must bear a thematic relation to that predicate. Keeping this in mind, consider next (7): (7) Ed believes the story to be false. This sentence is a little less straightforward. Apart from the main clause Subject, which again is clearly the NP Ed, we might wonder how many further arguments believe has in this sentence. There are a number of possible analyses we can assign to (7). One common analysis involves taking the NP the story to be a DO, and the clause to be false to be a further Complement. Under this view believe is a three-place predicate. What might be the arguments for such an analysis? One reason for taking the story to be a DO is that when we passivise (7) it is this NP that is fronted: (8) Furthermore, if we have a pronominal NP following believe, it must take the accusative case: (9) Ed believes him to be a traitor. It is said to be typical of Direct Objects that they are fronted under passivisation, and that they take the accusative case if they are pronouns. Let us take a closer look at

239

English Syntax and Argumentation

this reasoning. As for passivisation, while it is true that in traditional grammar the possibility of fronting a phrase in this way has always been a hallmark of Objects (both DOs and IOs), there is nothing God-given about the generalisation that only Objects can be fronted under passivisation. When we discussed NP-Movement in Section 9.2, we saw that both Subjects and Objects can be fronted, the former under raising, the latter under passivisation. Recall that the terms ‘raising’ and ‘passivisation’ are convenient labels for the same process of NP-Movement. We’ll see in a moment that the NP following the lexical verb in (7) is more plausibly regarded as the Subject of a subordinate clause, and hence that in (8) a Subject, not an Object, has been fronted. Turning now to the accusative case in postverbal pronominal NPs, the fact that we have him in (9), rather than he is necessary, but not sufficient evidence for the objecthood of this NP. As is well known, case is governed by verbs (as well as prepositions), and in (9) we have him rather than he simply by virtue of the fact that the verb believe and the pronoun are adjacent to each other. If something intervenes between the verb and the pronoun, e.g. a complementiser, as in (10), then the pronoun receives nominative case (also known as subjective case): (10) Ed believes that he is a traitor. Not only are the arguments in favour of an analysis of the story as a DO in (7) not wholly convincing, they lead to a serious problem: if believe indeed takes this NP as its DO, we would expect there to be a thematic relationship between believe and the story, such that believe assigns the thematic role of Patient to the story, exactly as in (5). With respect to its meaning, this entails that ‘Ed believes the story’. Clearly, this is not what (7) means. Quite the contrary: (7) expresses Ed’s incredulity with regard to the story in question. This suggests that the story is not a DO argument of believe, but the Subject of the string the story to be false. We conclude that the string the story to be false is a clausal Direct Object of believe. Notice that (6) and (7) have a parallel structure: in both cases the verb believe subcategorises for a clausal Direct Object. In (6) this Direct Object takes the form of a finite that-clause, whereas in (7) it is an infinitival clause. In Section 14.1.2 we turn to further arguments for analysing (6) and (7) in a parallel fashion.

14.1.2 Dummy elements and idiom chunks In this section we will discuss so-called dummy elements and idiom chunks and their importance for establishing argumenthood. What are they? Dummy elements are lexical elements without semantic content, i.e. they are meaningless. English has two such elements, namely nonreferential it and existential there, briefly introduced in Section 3.1. Here are some example sentences containing these words: (11) It is raining. (12) It is cold. 240

Predicates and Arguments Revisited

(13) There are a number of solutions to this problem. (14) There has been an increase in crime in America. Nonreferential it and existential there are semantically contentless, because they do not refer to anything, and they are said simply to fill the Subject slot in sentences like those above. Because they are meaningless, there can be no thematic relationship between them and the associated predicate. Put differently, no thematic role is assigned to them, and for that reason they cannot act as arguments. Nonreferential it and existential there (also called pleonastic elements or expletive elements) always occur in the Subject position and should be distinguished from referential it and locative there: (15) I don’t like his pipe. It stinks. (16) Los Angeles? I have no desire to go there. Obviously, it and there do carry meaning here, and refer to an object and a location, respectively. We turn now to idioms and idiom chunks. Idioms are language-particular expressions with a characteristic meaning that is not, or is only vaguely, predictable from the component parts. Perhaps the most cited instance in English is kick the bucket, the composite meaning of which is ‘to die’. As the name suggests, idiom chunks are subparts of idioms. The phrase the bucket is an Object idiom chunk. Idioms in which the verb and an Object are the central elements are by far the most frequent in English. Idioms containing Subject idiom chunks are far less frequent. For our concerns, however, these are the most interesting. Consider the following: (17) The coast is clear. (18) The fat is in the fire. In these examples the coast and the fat are Subject idiom chunks. These NPs cannot be replaced by different NPs without the particular meanings associated with the full expressions being lost. As for the semantics of (17) and (18), notice that their meanings are not predictable. Example (17) means ‘there is nobody or nothing to hinder us’, whereas (18) roughly means ‘something has been done from which adverse consequences can be expected’. Before we proceed it’s a good idea to remind ourselves again of the following: wherever there is a predicate-argument relationship, there is a thematic relationship between the predicate in question and its argument(s). How is this observation relevant in the context of a discussion of dummy elements and idiom chunks? Dummy elements and Subject idiom chunks can be used to show that the NP in believe + NP + to-infinitive structures like (7) cannot be analysed as a DO. In this connection consider the data below: (19) Ed believes it always to be raining in London. (20) Ed believes there to be a traitor in the company. 241

English Syntax and Argumentation

These sentences pose problems for frameworks in which the NP in believe + NP + toinfinitive structures is analysed as a DO. The reason is that dummy elements must occur in the Subject position, as we have seen, and they cannot be analysed as DOs, because an element must have a thematic relationship with a preceding lexical verb for it to occur in the DO slot. Because dummy it and there are meaningless, they cannot enter into a thematic relationship with a preceding verb, and there is therefore no thematic role associated with them. The conclusion is that they cannot function as DO arguments. We therefore analyse them as Subjects of subordinate clauses. Thus, both in (19) and (20) believe takes a clausal DO (it always to be raining in London and there to be a traitor in the company, respectively). We can pursue a similar line of reasoning for Subject idiom chunks. Because they are invariably associated with the Subject slot of the idiomatic expressions of which they form a part, we cannot analyse them as DOs in the following sentences: (21) Ed believes the coast to be clear. (22) Ed believes the fat to be in the fire. We conclude that the idiom chunks the coast and the fat function as Subject in the subordinate clauses the coast to be clear and the fat to be in the fire. 14.1.3 Passivisation Apart from arguments based on meaning, dummy elements and idiom chunks, there is an additional argument we can use to show that the NP in believe + NP + to-infinitive constructions is not a DO. Consider the following data: (23) Ed believes the jury to have given the wrong verdict. (24) Ed believes the wrong verdict to have been given by the jury. The first thing we can say about this pair of sentences is that they mean the same: Ed holds a belief in the content of a proposition, namely the proposition that the jury has given the wrong verdict. As in the other believe + NP + to-infinitive constructions that we looked at, it is not the case that ‘Ed believes the jury’ in (23), or that ‘Ed believes the wrong verdict’ in (24). In other words, there exists no thematic relationship between believe and the NPs the jury in (23) and the wrong verdict in (24). These phrases cannot therefore function as the DO of believe. Yet again we are led to an analysis in which the postverbal NP in the believe + NP + to-infinitive construction should be taken to be the Subject of a subordinate clause, rather than the DO of the main clause. The verb believe has a thematic relationship with a proposition, not with an NP in these instances. The syntactic difference between (23) and (24) is the passivisation process that has taken place in the clausal Complement of believe. With regard to (23) and (24) the generalisation we can now make is that if we can passivise the postverbal portion in any verb + NP + to-infinitive construction without a resulting change in meaning, then the postverbal NP is not a DO, but the Subject of a subordinate clause. Sentences (23) and (24) are bracketed as follows: 242

Predicates and Arguments Revisited

(25) Ed believes [the jury to have given the wrong verdict]. (26) Ed believes [the wrong verdict to have been given by the jury]. Incidentally, do not confuse the passive in (24) with an alternative passive version of (23), namely (27): (27) The jury is believed to have given the wrong verdict by Ed. Here, the main clause, rather than the subordinate clause, has been passivised.

14.2 Two further types of verb + NP + to-infinitive construction: persuade and want In Section 14.1.3 we looked at ways of testing argumenthood in a very specific construction of English, namely the pattern believe + NP + to-infinitive. In Sections 14.2.1–14.2.2 we will look at two further types of verb + NP + to-infinitive construction, this time involving the verbs persuade and want. We will see that these verbs behave very differently from a syntactic point of view. 14.2.1 Persuade Take a look at the following sentence: (28) Ed persuaded Brian to interview Melanie. The issue with regard to (28) is which elements are the arguments of persuade. Clearly, Ed is the Subject, but is Brian a Direct Object, or does it function as the Subject of a subordinate clause, like the NP in the believe + NP + to-infinitive construction? To answer this question, let us first see what (28) actually means. Unlike in the believe + NP + to-infinitive construction, notice that there is a thematic relationship between the verb persuade and the NP that follows it: in (28) the individual Brian undergoes Ed’s act of persuasion, and the NP Brian can therefore be said to function as DO. Now, if the postverbal NP in the persuade + NP + to-infinitive construction is indeed a DO, it should not be possible for this position to be occupied by dummy elements, because these can only occur in a Subject position. This expectation is borne out: (29) *Ed persuaded it to be hot in the room. (30) *Ed persuaded there to be a party. The position following persuade can only be filled by constituents that can be assigned a thematic role. Because dummy elements are meaningless, they cannot stand in a thematic relationship with persuade. Idiom chunks also cannot occupy the position following persuade: 243

English Syntax and Argumentation

(31) *Ed persuaded the coast to be clear. (32) *Ed persuaded the fat to be in the fire. This is what we expect if the NP slot after persuade is indeed a DO position: given the fact that the coast and the fat are Subject idiom chunks, they cannot appear in a DO position. What about the passivisation test? Consider the following pair of sentences: (33) Ed persuaded Brian to interview Melanie. = (28) (34) Ed persuaded Melanie to be interviewed by Brian. Unlike in the believe + NP + to-infinitive construction, we can establish a thematic relationship between the verb and the postverbal NPs here, i.e. between persuade and Brian in (33), and between persuade and Melanie in (34). Put differently, Ed persuaded an individual in both cases, not a proposition. Recall that we said that if we can passivise the entire postverbal portion in a verb + NP + to-infinitive construction without a change in meaning, then the postverbal NP is not a Direct Object, but the Subject of a subordinate clause. Clearly, (33) and its passivised version (34) do not mean the same, and we therefore conclude that the NP in the persuade + NP + to-infinitive construction functions as a DO. Persuade is a three-place predicate, and apart from a Subject and DO we have a to-infinitive clause which functions as Complement. The implied Subject of this clause has the same referent as the DO of the main clause. In a labelled bracketing we can indicate this implied Subject using the symbol ‘Ø’, which we introduced in Section 11.3.2 to denote implied arguments. In addition, we indicate the fact that the main clause DO and the Subject of the Complement clause are coreferential (i.e. share the same referent) by using a subscript letter ‘i’. The representation for (28) is then as in (35): (35) Ed persuaded Briani [Øi to interview Melanie].

14.2.2 Want Like believe and persuade, the verb want can also occur in the verb + NP + to-infinitive construction. Here is an example: (36) Kate wants Ralph to get out of her life. Is want like believe or like persuade, or different again? As before, the question is which are the arguments of the verb want. Clearly, Kate is the Subject argument, but what about the NP Ralph? Is it a Direct Object (as with persuade), or is it perhaps the Subject of a subordinate clause (as with believe)? To answer this question, let us see what (36) means. If the first possibility is correct, namely that Ralph is a DO, then we expect there to be a thematic relationship between the verb want and the NP Ralph, i.e. we expect it to be the case that ‘Kate wants Ralph’. This is obviously not the case, because the sentence expresses exactly the opposite meaning: Kate wants to lead her life without Ralph, and hence we can confidently say that she does not want him. What is it, then, that Kate wants? Clearly, 244

Predicates and Arguments Revisited

what she wants is a situation, and situations are described by propositions, in this case ‘that Ralph gets out of her life’. In other words, the thematic relationship in (36) holds between want and its Subject Kate, and between want and the string Ralph to get out of her life. The latter is a nonfinite clause which takes Ralph as its Subject, and functions as Direct Object. It appears, then, that want is like believe. Before drawing this conclusion, however, let’s apply our other tests. Consider (37) and (38): (37) Kate wanted it to rain on Ralph’s birthday. (38) Ralph wanted there to be a ceasefire between him and Kate. In these sentences the dummy elements it and there appear in the postverbal position. We know that they cannot be DOs, because there can be no thematic relationship between a verb and an element that is devoid of meaning. We must therefore analyse it and there as the Subjects of subordinate clauses. The same conclusion can be drawn from sentences that contain idiom chunks: (39) Kate wants the coast to be clear, in order for her to escape from Ralph. (40) Kate doesn’t want the fat to be in the fire, because of some stupid action of Ralph’s. Turning now to the passivisation test, we find that if we passivise the entire postverbal string of a want + NP + to-infinitive construction, the meaning of the overall sentence remains constant: (41) Kate wanted Janet to poison Ralph. (42) Kate wanted Ralph to be poisoned by Janet. Again, we conclude that there is no thematic relationship between want and the NPs that follow it, namely Janet in (41) and Ralph in (42). It seems, then, that our earlier supposition that want is like believe is warranted. However, this is only partially the case. The similarity between believe and want is that both verbs take a clausal postverbal argument in the verb + NP + to-infinitive pattern. The difference is that in the case of believe, but not in the case of want, the main clause can also be passivised: (43) Ed believes the jury to have given the wrong verdict. = (23) (44) The jury is believed to have given the wrong verdict by Ed. = (27) (45) Kate wanted Janet to poison Ralph. = (41) (46) *Janet was wanted to poison Ralph by Kate. This is a general difference between believe and want, which also shows up when these verbs take simple DOs in the form of a noun phrase: (47) Ed believed the wild allegations. (48) The wild allegations were believed by Ed. 245

English Syntax and Argumentation

(49) Ed wanted a new CD player. (50) ?*A new CD player was wanted by Ed. Summarising our results so far: we have looked at verb + NP + to-infinitive constructions involving the verbs believe, persuade and want, and found them to be different in each case. The differences resulted from the distinct argument-taking and passivisation properties of these verbs. In Chapter 16 we will discuss a further construction instantiating the verb + NP + to-infinitive pattern, namely allow + NP + to-infinitive.

14.2.3 Overview To conclude our discussion of verb + NP + to-infinitive constructions, compare sentences (7), (28) and (36), repeated here as (51), (52) and (53): (51) Ed believes the story to be false. (52) Ed persuaded Brian to interview Melanie. (53) Kate wants Ralph to get out of her life. All three sentences conform to the pattern verb + NP + to-infinitive, and yet they are syntactically different: in the believe + NP + to-infinitive construction in (51) the postverbal NP functions as the Subject of a subordinate clause, while the NP in the persuade + NP + to-infinitive construction in (52) functions as a DO. In the want + NP + to-infinitive construction in (53) the postverbal NP is also the Subject of a subordinate clause, but, unlike the postverbal NP in the believe + NP + to-infinitive construction, it cannot be fronted when the main clause is passivised. With regard to verb + NP + to-infinitive constructions we can now set up three classes of verbs: Believe class Verb + a clause functioning as DO in the form of an NP + to-infinitive. The NP can be fronted under passivisation.

Other verbs: consider, expect, intend, know, suppose, understand. (Note: this list is not exhaustive, and some of these verbs can also appear in other patterns.) Persuade class Verb + an NP functioning as DO + a second Complement in the form of a toinfinitive clause with an implied Subject that is coreferential with the main clause DO. The NP can be fronted under passivisation.

246

Predicates and Arguments Revisited

Other verbs: advise, convince. (Note: this list is not exhasustive, and some of these verbs can also appear in other patterns.) Want class Verb + a clause functioning as DO in the form of an NP + to-infinitive. The NP cannot be fronted under passivisation.

Other verbs: hate, love, prefer, wish. (Note: this list is not exhaustive, and some of these verbs can also appear in other patterns.)

14.3 Concluding remarks In order to establish the argument-taking properties of a particular predicate, we can use tests based on meaning, the distribution of dummy elements and idiom chunks, and passivisation. In this chapter we have applied these tests to verb + NP + to-infinitive patterns. It is important to realise that the way in which we resolve issues pertaining to predicates and arguments in particular sentences has consequences for the way that those sentences are analysed into constituents. Thus, we have seen that the NP in the pattern believe + NP + to-infinitive is arguably not a DO of the verb. The consequence is that the functional bracketing of this pattern should be as in (54) below, not as in (55): (54) believe [DO NP to-infinitive] (55) believe [DO NP] [Complement to-infinitive] The tests that we have looked at have a use beyond the verb + NP + to-infinitive constructions discussed here. In Chapter 15 we will see how we can use the argumenthood tests, together with the constituency tests, to set up verb complementation patterns in English.

247

English Syntax and Argumentation

KEY CONCEPTS accusative case argumenthood idiom idiom chunks nominative case pleonastic elements

tests for argumenthood meaning dummy elements idiom chunks passivisation

EXERCISES 1. Construct verb + NP + to-infinitive constructions with the ‘other verbs’ given in the three verb classes at the end of Section 14.2.3, and think of possible further verbs that might fit these patterns. 2. In the text we claimed that the NP in persuade + NP + to-infinitive constructions is a DO. How is the following example a problem for this claim? (i) We persuaded Charlie to cook and Nick to do the washing up. 3. As we have seen, traditional and modern descriptive grammars of English often use two criteria for establishing whether a particular NP is a DO or not: accusative case and passivisation. So, in sentence (i) below him is regarded as the DO of believe, because this pronoun carries the accusative case, and because the clause can be passivised, resulting in the pronoun him being fronted, cf. (ii). (i) She believes him to be an Adonis. (ii) He is believed to be an Adonis by her. How does a sentence like (iii) below pose problems for such an account? (iii) She wants him to be more considerate. 4. Discuss the function of the NP following preventt in (i) below. Base your discussion on sentences (ii) – (v). (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

Des prevented the council from granting planning permission. Des prevented planning permission from being granted by the council. Des prevented there from being an outcry over the council’s planning policy. In Soviet times artificial means were often used to prevent it from raining. Des prevented the fat from being in the fire.

5. In Section 14.1.2 we saw that pleonastic elements (meaningless elements) like it and there cannot occur in a DO position. The reason is that they do not carry meaning, and cannot therefore be assigned a thematic role. Because DO positions are always assigned a thematic role, pleonastic elements are barred from appearing in this position. Postal and Pullum (1988) have challenged the claim that they cannot occur in DO position. They cite expressions like those below: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

248

Beat it. Cool it. Move it. Hop it.

Predicates and Arguments Revisited

How are these examples problematic for the claim that pleonastic elements cannot occur in subcategorised positions? Is there a way of dealing with these data without abandoning our claim? *6. Consider the following sentences, taken from Givón’s English Grammarr (1993: 125): (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

They elected him president. They appointed her judge. We consider them members. They judge him a good man. She deemed their marriage a fiasco.

Givón Givón treats all these sentences as being syntactically the same. More specifically, he claims that their lexical verbs all take two DOs. Assess this claim, paying particular attention to the thematic roles each of the individual verbs assigns to its arguments in (i)–(v). You will, of course, first need to establish which are the arguments of each of these verbs. *7. In Morenberg’s Doing Grammarr (1991: 6), the following observation about DOs is made: ‘Often the subject of a transitive verb “does something to” the object noun phrase.’ In the following sentences Morenberg regards the postverbal NPs as DOs: (i) American analysts consider Kaddafi a terrorist. (ii) Soviet music critics consider the Rolling Stones decadent. Do you agree that the referent of the Subject ‘does something to’ the postverbal NPs here? Morenberg (1991: 8–9) goes on to observe that: In the first example, considerr is followed by a noun, Kaddafifi, that functions as a Direct Object, and that is in turn followed by a noun phrase, a terroristt, that functions as a COMPLEMENT. Similarly, the [verb] in the second example is followed by a noun, the Rolling Stones, and then by an adjective, decadentt. Whether it is an adjective or noun, by the way, this type of complement that follows a Direct Object in a sentence with a [verb like considerr] is called an OBJECT COMPLEMENT . . . A complement in grammar is rather like one in mathematics: it completes something, not a 90o angle, but an idea. In the example sentences above, ‘American analysts’ don’t simply ‘consider Kaddafi’, but they ‘consider him a terroristt’; nor do Soviet music critics ‘consider the Rolling Stones’, but they consider ‘the Rolling Stones decadent’. decadentt’. Write a short critique of this passage. (Be aware that Morenberg uses different terminology from that used in this book. In fairness, in subsequent editions of his book, Morenberg changed the passage above.)

FURTHER READING The criteria for argumenthood presented in this chapter are often not mentioned or explained in grammars or textbooks dealing with English syntax, or, if they are mentioned, they are not dealt with systematically in one place. However, you may wish to consult Huddleston and Pullum (2002), Palmer (1987), Haegeman (2006) and Tallerman (2019), which deal with some of the material discussed here.

249

250

PART IV APPLICATION

251

252

INFORMATION PACKAGING

15

Argumentation plays an important role in linguistics, because at every stage of linguistic inquiry we need to make motivated choices in favour of or against particular analyses. These choices often have repercussions. Thus, analysing him in a sentence like I believe him to be friendly as the Subject of a subordinate clause means that we have to drop the traditional assumption that only Direct Objects can be fronted under passivisation; after all, in He is believed to be friendly a Subject has been fronted (namely the Subject of the subordinate clause him to be friendly), not a Direct Object. The importance of argumentation is especially clear when we deal with issues pertaining to constituency and argumenthood, as we saw in Part III. However, it is not just in these areas that argumentation is important, but at just about every stage of analysis. For this reason it is essential that you have a good understanding of the way argumentation proceeds. The aim of this part of the book is to look at a number of further areas of grammar in which argumentation plays a role. In this chapter we will discuss ways in which speakers can change the order of constituents so as to highlight information which they wish to draw the hearer’s attention to. In Chapter 16 we will look more closely at categorisation and the important role it has played, and continues to play, in linguistics. Specifically, we will be looking at what we might call ‘grammatical indeterminacies’, i.e. cases where it is not immediately obvious which category to assign a particular element to. Finally, the aim of Chapter 17 is to engage you in syntactic argumentation yourself. To this end we will discuss a number of case studies which illustrate the kind of reasoning involving argumentation that has come to play such a crucial role in linguistics. Let’s turn now to the present chapter. In chapters 12–14 we came across a number of ways in which the structure of sentences can be changed, mainly through movement (i.e. displacements). The various kinds of movements were discussed principally to illustrate the fact that words combine into units, which we call constituents, and to test sentences in terms of their constituent structure. In this chapter we will explore how speakers can vary the structure of sentences either to draw attention to particular parts of their message, or to facilitate the processing of a sentence. This is called information packaging (sometimes information processing). It involves a reordering of the constituents of a sentence, sometimes with some additional adjustments. In general, such reordering does not affect the meaning of the sentence involved, in terms of the proposition it expresses. In what follows we will look at several processes and constructions that can be used to highlight information: preposing, postposing, inversion, cleft constructions, existential constructions and passive constructions.

253

English Syntax and Argumentation

15.1 Preposing As the name suggests, preposing involves moving a constituent to the left from its original position. Sections 15.1.1 and 15.1.2 look at two kinds of preposing, namely Topicalisation and Left Dislocation and the effects of these displacements. 15.1.1 Topicalisation The typical order of the functional units in a clause (sometimes called the ‘unmarked’ order) is Subject – Predicator – Complement(s) – Adjunct(s), as in the following sentence: (1) [Subject Students] [Predicator use] [Direct Object social media] [Adjunct in the evening], but [Subject they] [Predicator write] [Direct Object their emails] [Adjunct in the morning]. In English this is the most common constituent order. In both clauses in this coordinated sentence the Subject is placed at the start of the sentence, followed by the Predicator (realised as a verb). This, in turn, is followed by a Direct Object and an Adjunct. The first element of a clause is often what the clause is about. We will say that it is its topic. In both clauses of (1), as in most clauses, the Subject is the topic. However, this need not always be the case. Sometimes, we change the order of the constituents, as in this reordered version of (1) (with the noun students replaced by a pronoun): (2)

EXERCISE Describe as fully as you can how (2) differs from (1) in syntactic terms.

What has happened here is that the Direct Object of the verb use in the first clause, namely social media, has been placed at the beginning of that clause, before the Subject they. In the second clause the Direct Object of the verb write has also been preposed to a position before the Subject. When we first discussed it as a constituency test in Section 12.1.1, we called this type of movement Topicalisation. Topicalisation can also involve constituents other than Direct Objects. Consider (3): (3)

254

Information Packaging

In this case the Adjuncts in the evening and in the morning, which normally occur later in the sentence, have been preposed. At first sight a sentence like (2) perhaps sounds somewhat unnatural, but if we embed it in a context it sounds better: (4) Students use social media and email, but at different times during the day.

EXERCISE What is the effect of Topicalisation in terms of the way information is presented to the hearer by a speaker?

Notice that in (4) social media and email are introduced in the first sentence. By the time we reach the second sentence these phrases constitute given information, i.e. information that is already known to the hearer. Put differently, this information has already been introduced into the discourse context. In the second sentence in (4) social media and their emails are topicalised. This foregrounding is in line with a general principle of information structuring called the Given Before New Principle, which many speakers unconsciously adhere to. It stipulates that given information (also called the topic, or discourse-old information) precedes new information (also called the focus, or discoursenew information). Having new information at the end of the sentence makes it easier to process. Notice that in the second sentence in (4) the new information (namely in the evening and in the morning) comes last, where it is prominent. Topicalisation thus creates a natural flow of information. 15.1.2 Left Dislocation Left Dislocation is very similar to Topicalisation, except that a pronoun is inserted in the position ‘vacated’ by the preposed constituent. Here are some examples: (5) The staff at the library issue desk, they are always so rude! (6) That movie about a cowboy in New York, I loved it. In (5) the Subject of the clause has been displaced to the left, and in its original location they has been inserted. In (6) the Direct Object that movie about a cowboy in New York has been preposed and it has been put in its place. Other kinds of functional units can also be dislocated. As with Topicalistion, the effect of Left Dislocation is often to create an informational link to a previous sentence, but this need not be the case, as the dislocated phrase can also represent information that is new in the discourse.

255

English Syntax and Argumentation

15.2 Postposing Postposing involves moving a constituent to the right from its original position. Here we will consider three kinds: Right Dislocation, Heavy NP Shift and Extraposition. We discussed the latter two displacements briefly in Section 12.1.2. 15.2.1 Right Dislocation With Right Dislocation, we move a constituent to the right, and then insert a pronoun in the place from where it is moved. Several kinds of functional units can be displaced, e.g. Subjects and Direct Objects: (7) Moneylenders will always try to get more business from you. They never leave you alone, those loan sharks. (8) Your intervention at the meeting was not helpful. We didn’t appreciate it, your silly and thoughtless comment. In (7) the Subject those loan sharks has been moved to the right and the pronoun they is inserted in its original location. In effect, we have two Subjects: a ‘light’ version in the shape of the pronoun they, and the ‘full’ italicised version. Similarly, in (8) we have two Direct Objects, namely the pronoun it, and the displaced italicised version. In both cases the dislocated phrases represent given information: in (7) those loan sharks relates back to moneylenders in the sentence before it, whereas in (8) your silly and thoughtless comment relates back to your intervention. What is the effect of Right Dislocation? In both (7) and (8) after displacement a ‘stand-in’ pronoun points forward to the full NP that follows. This has the effect of the dislocated NP becoming more prominent by being set apart from the clause from which it was moved. In spoken language, Right Dislocation can also be used to make clear how the referent of a pronoun, e.g. they and it in (7) and (8), should be interpreted. 15.2.2 Postposing of heavy constituents Another principle of information processing is that in language ‘heavy’ constituents tend to like to come at the end of clauses. This is sometimes called the Principle of End Weight. By ‘heavy’ we simply mean constituents that contain many words, for example noun phrases that contain not only determinatives, but also adjectives, prepositional phrases or relative clauses; e.g. the trains on the Edinburgh to London line; the important travel documents that they took with them and all the different colours of the leaves on the trees in New England in the autumn. In Section 12.1.2.1 we saw the Principle of End Weight at work when we discussed Heavy NP Shift in sentences such as (9): (9)

256

Information Packaging

Here, the Direct Object the friends whom I met in Bangkok last January has been moved to the right. This movement is not obligatory, and it does not change the overall meaning of the sentence. However, because the sentence is harder to process when the heavy NP occurs directly after the verb leave, speakers often choose to postpose it. Not only heavy noun phrases can be moved, as the examples below show: (10)

(11)

(12)

In (10) the prepositional phrase to several large countries in Southeast Asia has been moved to the right, whereas in (11) the adjective phrase upset at the thought of having to leave his house early is displaced. Finally, in (12) a clause has been postposed.

EXERCISE Can you think of a reason why the underlined phrases or clauses in (10)–(12) have been postposed?

As with (9) the principal reason for the movements in (10)–(12) is to make it easier for hearers to understand these sentences, and for speakers to produce them. Put the moved constituents back in their original location, then read the sentences out loud, and you will see why. 15.2.3 Extraposition We came across Extraposition in Sections 12.1.2.2 and 12.1.2.3. This occurs when we postpose a clause and insert it in the location ‘vacated’ by the moved clause. This process is sometimes called It-Extraposition. Here are two examples: (13)

257

English Syntax and Argumentation

(14)

In (13) a Subject has been extraposed, whereas in (14) a Direct Object has been moved. Extraposition is similar to the postposing of heavy constituents that we discussed in Section 15.2.2, as it will be clear that the constituents that have been extraposed in the examples above are heavy in terms of the number of words they contain. In other words, Extraposition is in harmony with the Principle of End Weight, and because of this, the processing of sentences involving Extraposition is facilitated for hearers. For most authors, Extraposition differs from the general process of postposing because it involves it-insertion. However, sometimes the term is used to include the kind of movement that we discussed in Section 12.1.2.3 involving the Extraposition of constituents out of other constituents: (15)

15.3 Inversion Inversion is a process whereby two constituents exchange places, as in examples (16) and (17): (16) [1 The idea that we might all soon be travelling to the moon for our summer holiday] is [2 completely inconceivable] (17) [2 Completely inconceivable] is [1 the idea that we might all soon be travelling to the moon for our summer holiday] In (16) the Subject of the sentence is the noun phrase the idea that we might all soon be travelling to the moon for our summer holiday. After the verb be we have the adjective phrase completely inconceivable, which functions as a Complement of that verb (see Section 11.2.2.2). In (17) the NP and AP have exchanged places: the adjective phrase is placed at the beginning of the sentence in the position where the Subject normally appears. Note that in this example the AP is not the Subject of the sentence, despite the position it occurs in.

EXERCISE Which test can you apply to show that completely inconceivable is not the Subject in (17)? Refer back to Section 2.4.

258

Information Packaging

One of the tests for subjecthood is Subject–Auxiliary Inversion, discussed in Section 2.4. If we apply this to (17), you obtain the ungrammatical sentence in (18): (18) *Is completely inconceivable the idea that we might all soon be travelling to the moon for our summer holiday? This shows that the AP cannot be the Subject. Its function in (17) remains as Complement of the verb be. Why would a speaker choose to utter (17) rather than (16)? The answer to this question is related to the ‘heaviness’ of the Subject. In harmony with the Principle of End Weight, (17) is much easier to process than (16). In other cases of inversion, the motivation is to satisfy the Given Before New Principle. Consider (19) and (20): (19) [1A small mouse] was [2 munching the cables in the living room]. (20) [2Munching the cables in the living room] was [1a small mouse]. Here, the phrase a small mouse constitutes new information (witness the indefinite determinative a), and hence is best placed at the end of the sentence. Notice that inversion takes places despite the fact that the VP munching the cables in the living room is heavier. This shows that sometimes the information-packaging devices are in competition, and one or the other device ‘wins’. Finally, here is an example of inversion involving an expression that specifies a location: (21) A snake emerged out of the hole. (22) Out of the hole emerged a snake.

15.4 Cleft constructions In Section 13.2, I introduced two kinds of cleft constructions: it-clefts and pseudoclefts, and how these can be used to demonstrate that a particular string of words is a constituent. In Sections 15.4.1 and 15.4.2 we will look at ways in which these cleft constructions allow speakers of English to foreground particular parts of a message. 15.4.1 It-clefts Recall that the basic structure of it-clefts is as follows, with the focus indicating a unit that is being highlighted: It-cleft sentence It + form of be + focus + relative clause (who/that/Ø/which . . .) Consider the following simple sentence of English, which displays an ‘unmarked’ constituent order: 259

English Syntax and Argumentation

(23) Maggie watched a scary film about mobsters in Sicily last night. We can form various it-cleft sentences from (23): (24) It was maggie who watched a scary film about mobsters in Sicily last night. (25) It was a scary film about mobsters in sicily that Maggie watched last night. (26) It was last night that Maggie watched a scary film about mobsters in Sicily. In each of these sentences a constituent of (23) is in the focus position of an it-cleft sentence: the Subject in (24), the Direct Object in (25), and the Adjunct in (26). Notice that (23) is ambiguous, depending on whether Maggie watched a scary film about mobsters in Sicily or whether she watched a scary film about mobsters while she was in Sicily. Under the second reading, we have (27) instead of (25), as well as (28): (27) It was a scary film about mobsters that Maggie watched in Sicily last night. (28) It was in sicily that Maggie watched a scary film about mobsters last night.

EXERCISE Can you think of reasons why a speaker would use cleft constructions like those shown in (24)–(28)?

It-clefts can be used to correct an assumption expressed by another speaker. Thus, someone may have misheard (23) as Aggie watched a film about mobsters in Sicily last night. This misunderstanding can then be corrected using (24). Most of the time, however, the focus position in it-clefts highlights a constituent that the speaker wishes to draw attention to. The following relative clause then gives background information about that constituent which can be either given or new. Bear in mind that not every element in a clause can be in the focus of an it-cleft. Verbs and verb phrases are excluded from this position: (29) *It was watch that Maggie did a scary film about mobsters in Sicily last night. (30) *It was watch a scary film about mobsters in sicily that Maggie did last night. (31) *It was watch a scary film about mobsters that Maggie did in Sicily last night. 15.4.2 Pseudoclefts Recall that pseudoclefts (also called wh-clefts) conform to the following structure: 260

Information Packaging

Pseudocleft sentence wh-item + . . . + form of be + focus The wh-item is usually what, but can also be where or when. If we take sentence (23) again as the unmarked structure, here are some pseudocleft versions of the first interpretation mentioned in the preceding section, i.e. that ‘Maggie watched a scary film about mobsters in Sicily’: (32) What Maggie watched last night was a scary film about mobsters in sicily. (33) What Maggie did last night was watch a scary film about mobsters in sicily. Under the second interpretation (‘Maggie watched a scary film about mobsters while she was in Sicily’), here are some possible pseudocleft versions: (34) What Maggie watched last night in Sicily was a scary film about mobsters . (35) What Maggie did last night in Sicily was watch a scary film about mobsters . (36) Where Maggie watched a scary film about mobsters last night was in sicily. Notice that in (33) and (35) a verb phrase is in the focus position. As we have seen, this is not possible in it-clefts.

EXERCISE Can you think of reasons why a speaker would use pseudocleft constructions like those shown in sentences (32)–(36) above?

Unlike with it-clefts, in pseudocleft sentences the focus position is at the end of the clause. It identifies or specifies an individual, object etc., and as such supplies foregrounded information. The first part of a pseudocleft construction (i.e. the part before the form of the verb be) provides information that is not of primary importance, but constitutes background information. What this means is that the information is already known, because it has been mentioned before in some form. So, sentence (32) might occur in the following context: (37) The film festival was on every evening this week. Last night Maggie, Robbie and I went to see different films. What Maggie watched last night was a scary film about mobsters in Sicily.

261

English Syntax and Argumentation

Here what Maggie watched last night is background information because the fact that Maggie watched a film the previous evening is mentioned in the preceding sentence. In reversed pseudoclefts the what-clause is positioned at the end, as the reversed versions of (32) and (33) show: (38) A scary film about mobsters in Sicily is what Maggie watched last night. (39) Watch a scary film about mobsters in Sicily is what Maggie did last night.

15.5 Existential constructions Existential constructions were first discussed in Section 3.1. They are used to make statements about the existence of some individual or entity in the world. They are formed using the meaningless word there, which we called existential there. In Sections 15.5.1– 15.5.3 I will discuss three types of existential clauses: bare existentials, extended existentials and presentational constructions. 15.5.1 Bare existentials A bare existential sentence has the following skeletal form: Bare existential There + be + semantic Subject + (Adjunct(s)) In this pattern there functions as the grammatical Subject. This is followed by a form of the verb be (which can be preceded by other verbs, e.g. auxiliary verbs), a semantic Subject and sometimes one or more Adjuncts. Here are some examples: (40) There were objections. (41) There is anxiety about this. (42) There is a real sense of achievement here. (43) There was an audible sigh of relief in the room. (44) There will be an investigation. What is the difference between a grammatical Subject and a semantic Subject? The grammatical Subject is simply the constituent in a sentence that is identified as a Subject by the criteria we developed in Section 3.1. Thus, it is the unit that inverts with the first verb to form an interrogative clause: (45) Were there objections? (46) Is there anxiety about this? (47) Is there a real sense of achievement here?

262

Information Packaging

(48) Was there an audible sigh of relief in the room? (49) Will there be an investigation? By contrast, the semantic Subject is the individual, entity or concept in the world that is said to exist. Thus, in the sentences above: objections, anxiety, a real sense of achievement, an audible sigh of relief and an investigation. Bare existentials do not have a nonexistential counterpart in which the semantic Subject functions as the grammatical Subject. Compare (40)–(44) with (50)–(54): (50) *Objections to the plan were. (51) *Anxiety about this is. (52) *A real sense of achievement is here. (53) *An audible sigh of relief was in the room. (54) *An investigation will be. By placing the semantic Subject further towards the end of the sentence, the information it communicates (i.e. what is in existence) is presented as new, in accordance with the Given Before New Principle. 15.5.2 Extended existentials Extended existentials, as their name suggests, are typically longer than bare existentials. They conform to the following pattern: Extended existential There + be + semantic Subject + extension Some examples are shown below. The extension is shown in italics: (55) There were six security guys at the door. (56) There are people waiting in the corridor. (57) There is an assistant present. (58) There is a new job to be done. Extended existentials often have a nonexistential counterpart in which the semantic Subject appears in the grammatical Subject position, and the extension typically performs the grammatical function of Complement: (59) Six security guys were at the door. (60) People are waiting in the corridor. (61) An assistant is present. (62) A new job is to be done.

263

English Syntax and Argumentation

The extension cannot be left out of the nonexistential version, which shows that it plays an important role in the interpretation of the sentences: (63) *Six security guys were. (64) *People are. (65) *An assistant is. (66) *A new job is. Like with the bare existentials, as a result of using the meaningless Subject slot filler there, extended existentials highlight the information that is placed further towards the end of the sentence, where it is easier to process. 15.5.3 The presentational construction In some existential constructions, a set of verbs other than be is used, e.g. appear, arise, arrive, begin, come, develop, emerge, enter, escape, exist, live, loom, occur, remain, rise and stand. We then speak of the presentational construction: (67) There loomed a storm in the sky that morning. (68) There escaped a foul-smelling gas from the house. (69) There began a long period of silent contemplation. Compare the sentences above, which have there as a grammatical Subject, with the ones below in which the semantic Subjects in the sentences above (a storm, a foul-smelling gas, a long period of silent contemplation) are in the grammatical Subject position: (70) A storm loomed in the sky that morning. (71) A foul-smelling gas escaped from the house. (72) A long period of silent contemplation began.

EXERCISE What reasons could a speaker have for using the presentational construction?

As with the previous two existential constructions, this pattern allows a speaker to position the newest information towards the end of the sentence, in accordance with the Given Before New Principle, thus making it easier to process. Another reason for using the presentational construction could be to satisfy the Principle of End Weight. If you compare (69) with (72), you will find that the long Subject in (72) makes the sentence sound a bit clumsy. This can be ‘repaired’ by using the presentational construction.

264

Information Packaging

15.6 The passive construction We discussed the passive construction in Sections 2.4, 3.3 and 9.2. Here’s an example of an active clause and its passive counterpart: (73) The government changed the law on gambling (74) The law on gambling was changed by the government. Recall from Section 9.2 that passive clauses are related to active ones through the movement of a noun phrase from a position after the lexical verb to the Subject position, and also through the movement of the passive auxiliary be to the I-node, as is shown in (75): (75)

Passive sentences do not differ in meaning from active sentences in terms of the state of affairs in the world (the proposition) that they express. Sentence (73) expresses the state of affairs that ‘the government did something to the law’. Its passive counterpart in (74) expresses exactly the same meaning, but in this case the structure of the sentence has changed: the Direct Object of the active sentence appears as the Subject of the passive sentence, and the Subject of the active sentence appears in a by-phrase (i.e. a prepositional phrase headed by the preposition by). Finally, the passive auxiliary be has been inserted.

EXERCISE If sentences (73) and (74) above do not differ in meaning, why would a speaker choose to use either of these sentences?

The answer to the question above again lies in how information is optimally conveyed by speakers. Consider the short news report shown in (76) below, in which (74) appears as the last sentence: (76) For many years the government has been trying to propose a revised law on gambling. This hasn’t been easy as the gambling industry has fiercely resisted any kind of government interference. Some progress was made last month in Parliament where the issue was debated at length. And yesterday we had a result: the law on gambling was changed by the government. In this extract the passive version of the last sentence is preferred over its active counterpart. What is the reason for this? Notice that in the first sentence of the report mention is made of a law on gambling. The indefinite determiner a in this NP indicates that the law in question has not been mentioned before. However, when we reach the last 265

English Syntax and Argumentation

sentence, this information has become given, and hence it is more natural to position it earlier on in the sentence. It’s important to be aware that the active version would also have been possible as the last sentence, but the text ‘flows’ somewhat better with the passive version. With regard to passive constructions, we find that the Given Before New Principle and the Principle of End Weight may also play a role. Consider the following two versions of a headline: (77) Fans of Russian cult movies mobbed the actor at the Oscars. (78) The actor was mobbed by fans of Russian cult movies at the Oscars. The passive version of (77) in (78) is easier to process, because it is in accordance with the Given Before New Principle. We know this, because the Subject has the definite determinative the, which signals that the actor in question is identifiable to the hearer from the preceding context, which is not shown here. In addition, notice that in (78) the long noun phrase fans of Russian cult movies appears at the end, in accordance with the Principle of End Weight.

KEY CONCEPTS Dislocation Left Dislocation Right Dislocation existential constructions bare existential extended existential presentational construction given information (topic; discourse-old information)

Given Before New Principle information packaging new information (focus; discourse-new information) Topicalisation Principle of End Weight

EXERCISES

1. Apply preposing to suitable constituents in (i) below: (i) Many people like a hot shower in the morning before work. 2. With regard to sentence (i) below, answer the questions in (ii)–(v). (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

That he liked Thailand was obvious to everyone. Which word class does the word thatt belong to? What is the Subject of this sentence? Produce a modified version of (i) that involves Extraposition. Why would a speaker use the extraposed version of (i)?

3. Consider passage (i) below and discuss the motivation(s) for inversion in the second sentence:

266

Information Packaging

(i) An almighty political disagreement broke out in Parliament between leftwing politicians. On its resolution will depend the survival of one of two parties: the Workers’ Party or the Socialist Party. 4. Produce as many itt-clefts and pseudoclefts as you can for the following sentence: (i) The team left the building through a back door. *5. In the text I wrote that active and passive sentences mean the same. That claim was challenged by Noam Chomsky (1957: 100–1), who contrasted the sentences below: (i) Everyone in the room knows at least two languages. (ii) At least two languages are known by everyone in the room. How do these sentences differ in meaning?

FURTHER READING Good overviews of the topics discussed in this chapter, as well as more specialised treatments, can be found in Birner and Ward (1998), Collins (1991), Kaltenböck (2021), Patten (2012), Prince (1997), Rochemont and Culicover (1990), Ward (1988) and Ward and Birner (2001).

267

GRAMMATICAL INDETERMINACY

16

So far in this book we have classified words, phrases and clauses into a number of different categories, such as noun, verb, noun phrase, adjective phrase, main clause, subordinate clause etc. Many of these categories have been in use for centuries. Ideas on classification have been strongly influenced by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 bc ), who held that elements are assigned to categories if a number of defining criteria jointly apply. If one of the defining criteria of a class α does not apply to a particular element, then it cannot be a member of α. Aristotle also claimed that a particular manifestation of an element cannot belong to more than one category at the same time, and that all members of a category have equal status. However, work in psychology has shown that perhaps the Aristotelian view of categorisation is too strong. Thus, when people are shown a series of pictures of different types of birds, they do not consider all birds to be equally ‘birdy’. Instead, they will pick out the sparrow as a typical representative of the category of birds, while penguins and emus are regarded as less typical birds because they cannot fly. Typical exemplars of categories are called ‘prototypes’. In this chapter we will discuss ways in which ideas from psychology can be applied to the grammar of English. We will investigate to what extent English can be said to display gradience, i.e. the phenomenon whereby we have more or less typical members of grammatical categories, or whereby grammatical elements share properties of two word classes.

16.1 Category boundaries and gradience Just as in the natural world, in grammar too we can observe that there are typical members of grammatical categories and less typical members, as regards their distributional properties. I refer to this phenomenon as subsective gradience. We can also observe in grammar that some elements share properties of more than one word class. This is called intersective gradience. I will look at some examples of these phenomena in Sections 16.2 and 16.3.

16.2 Subsective gradience 16.2.1 Nouns Consider the words dog, information and there. The first is clearly a noun if we apply the criteria for nounhood from Chapter 2, namely:

268

Grammatical Indeterminacy

1. A noun can function as the Head of a noun phrase which in turn can function as Subject, Direct Object, Indirect Object or Complement of a preposition: The dog chased the cat.; We saw the dog in the park.; We gave the dog a bone.; We gave a bone to the dog. 2. A noun can be preceded by a determinative like a or the: a/the dog. 3. A noun can take a genitival suffix: dog’s. 4. A noun can take a plural suffix: dogs. If we apply these criteria to the word information, we find that Criteria 1–3 apply, but not 4: we cannot say *I received informations in Standard English. What about the word there? In this case, we find that this word is an even less typical noun because it cannot be preceded by a determinative, nor can it take a genitival or plural suffix. However, as we have already seen, it is possible for there to occur in Subject position (although not in Direct Object position): There are four dogs in the kitchen. We can say, then, that there is a ‘defective’ noun, less typical than dog and information. We can show the difference in behaviour between dog, information and there in a matrix. Criteria Nouns

1

2

3

4

dog

Î

Î

Î

Î

information

Î

Î

Î

×

Î

×

×

×

there

Nouns which are also arguably less typical are so-called pluralia tantum (singular: plurale tantum). These are words like scissors, trousers etc. which only appear in the plural. 16.2.2 Adjectives Within the class of adjectives, a word like nice is a typical member because all the adjective criteria that we discussed in Chapter 2 apply to it, namely, the ability to: 1. appear in attributive position: a nice house 2. appear in predicative position: that house is nice 3. be preceded by an intensifier like very: very nice 4. take comparative and superlative forms: nice/nicer/nicest. A word like utter is less typically adjectival, because it cannot be preceded by very, has no comparative or superlative forms, and cannot appear in predicative position.

269

English Syntax and Argumentation

EXERCISE Which of the criteria above apply to illl in your speech?

For some speakers ill is a central member of the class of adjectives because it conforms to all the adjective criteria, while for others ill is a peripheral adjective because for them an NP like the ill student is not acceptable. What about the adjective alive? The number of speakers who would reject alive occurring in attributive position (as in an alive rat) is probably quite large, and for them this word is a peripheral member of the class of adjectives. However, there are signs that alive is becoming a more central member of its class; witness the following example I came across in the Camden New Journal, a London newspaper: Snow, who lives in Kentish Town, has an alive presence, an abiding awareness, a serious desire to seek the truth and make some sense of life amid the vortex of confusion in the modern world that daily manifests itself on screen, along with his charismatic ties. In this example alive occurs before the Head noun, maybe by analogy with the structure of the following NPs (abiding awareness, serious desire), thus creating neatly parallel patterns. With regard to the examples we discussed, we see a cline (or gradient) of typicality of membership within the class of adjectives, which can again be shown in a matrix.

Criteria Adjectives

1

2

3

4

nice

Î

Î

Î

Î

ill

?

Î

Î

Î

alive

?

Î

?

?

Î

×

×

×

utter

16.2.3 Verbs In this book, we have taken auxiliary verbs to behave in some ways like lexical verbs, an analysis that is controversial, but fairly widely adopted (for example in Huddleston and Pullum’s The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language). This is not to say, of course, that there are no differences between the auxiliaries and ‘regular’ lexical verbs. As we saw in Chapter 2, auxiliaries display the NICE properties, whereas lexical verbs do not. In

270

Grammatical Indeterminacy

addition, notice that a subset of auxiliaries, namely the modal auxiliaries, do not take verbal endings like the third person singular -s or -ing, as the following examples make clear: (1) *He musts go to Paris. (2) *She wills eat fish and chips. (3) *We are canning to open the door. Notice also that whereas most auxiliary verbs have morphological past tenses (will/ would, shall/should, can/could etc.), the verb must has no past tense form (*I musted do it.). Again, we see that within the class of verbs, different elements behave differently depending on their distribution. This can lead us to do two things: either we say that there are two different classes, namely auxiliary verbs and lexical verbs, a strategy called splitting, or we say that all these elements belong to a single class of verbs whose members are more or less typical exemplars of their class, a strategy called lumping. In this book we have opted to lump together the auxiliaries and lexical verbs in one class, because all these elements share enough properties.

16.2.4 Prepositions As we have seen, prepositions are usually short monosyllabic words typically followed by a noun phrase Complement (in the house, on the mat). Many prepositions allow ‘stranding’, which occurs when an NP Complement is moved to the front of a sentence, as in the following examples: (4) What are you looking at –? (cf. I am looking at the window.) (5) Which book did you get a discount for –? (cf. I got a discount for all the books.) However, not all prepositions allow stranding felicitously, especially complex ones: (6) ?What did he put the document inside –? (cf. He put the document inside the box.) (7) ?Who did she leave without –? (cf. She left without her sister.) This leads us to set up a gradient of ‘prepositionhood’, which looks like this:

But we’re not quite there yet, because we also have a number of items that have sometimes been called ‘marginal prepositions’. They include, for example, notwithstanding, which is an odd word because it can be a preposition, as in notwithstanding his excellent results, as

271

English Syntax and Argumentation

well as a postposition, as in his excellent results notwithstanding. The words apart and aside behave similarly syntactically. We can now refine the gradient above as follows:

We have seen, then, that it is possible to recognise a number of items within the class of prepositions as being more typical exemplars of the class than others.

16.3 Intersective gradience In the sections that follow we will look at a number of cases where elements appear to belong to more than one class at the same time. We will see, however, that in all these cases, a particular set of word class properties outweighs another set of properties. 16.3.1 Word classes: adjective or adverb? Consider the noun phrase below: (8) the then president of America The question we need to address here is which word class we should assign then to. Although it looks like an adverb, it would not be unreasonable to hypothesise that this word is in fact an adjective, because it is positioned immediately in front of the Head noun president, a typical adjectival position. We should then investigate whether then behaves like an adjective in other respects too. For example, we might ask whether it can be preceded by a modifier like very. The answer is clearly ‘no’, as the following phrase shows: (9) *the very then president of America Next, we might see whether then takes comparative or superlative forms. It turns out that it doesn’t: (10) *the more/most then president of America You will recall from Chapter 2 and Section 16.2.2 above that another typical property of adjectives is that they can occur predicatively (review Section 2.3 if you’ve forgotten what this term means).

EXERCISE Try to construct a sentence in which then occurs in a predicative position after a linking verb.

272

Grammatical Indeterminacy

You will have found that then cannot occur predicatively: (11) *The president of America was then. We have to conclude that then shares only one of the properties of adjectives, namely the ability to occur in the attributive position in noun phrases. However, this is not a sufficient reason for assigning this word to the adjective class. What we will say is that then is an adverb which can exceptionally be placed in front of a noun, in the same way that some nouns can be placed in front of other nouns (as in, for example, the fan heater). 16.3.2 Word classes: verb or noun? Consider the following examples, taken from Quirk et al.’s A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985: 1290–1): (12) some paintings of Brown’s (13) Brown’s paintings of his daughters (14) The painting of Brown is as skilful as that of Gainsborough. (15) Brown’s deft painting of his daughter is a delight to watch. (16) Brown’s deftly painting his daughter is a delight to watch. (17) I dislike Brown’s painting his daughter. (18) I dislike Brown painting his daughter. (when she ought to be at school) (19) I watched Brown painting his daughter. (‘I watched Brown as he painted’/‘I watched the process of Brown(’s) painting his daughter’) (20) Brown deftly painting his daughter is a delight to watch. (21) Painting his daughter, Brown noticed that his hand was shaking. (22) Brown painting his daughter that day, I decided to go for a walk. (23) The man painting the girl is Brown. (24) The silently painting man is Brown. (25) Brown is painting his daughter. At the top end of this sequence the word painting is clearly a noun: it has a determinative in front of it (some) and is followed by a PP. At the bottom end painting is clearly verbal by virtue of being part of a progressive construction. Somewhere in the middle of the sequence we run into some less clear-cut cases. How should we categorise painting in (16)? There appears to be a mixing of different types of properties: nominal and verbal. Let’s look at these properties in more detail, starting with the nominal ones. It turns out that painting has two nominal properties: 1. It is the Head of a phrase positioned in the Subject slot, which is a typical position for NPs to occur in. 2. It occurs with a genitival NP: Brown’s. 273

English Syntax and Argumentation

Painting has six verbal properties: 1. It carries a verbal inflection (-ing) 2. It takes an NP Complement 3. It is preceded by a manner adverb 4. It can be preceded by not 5. Passivisation of the italicised string is possible: His daughter’s being deftly painted by Brown is a delight to watch 6. A perfect auxiliary can be inserted: Brown’s having deftly painted his daughter was a true feat. What can we conclude from these facts? Well, what at first sight appears to be a hybrid structure that displays both nominal and verbal properties is probably best regarded as verbal, because the latter properties outweigh the former. All this leads us to analyse the string Brown’s deftly painting his daughter in (16) as a clause which functions as the Subject of the overall sentence. 16.3.3 Phrases: adjective phrase or prepositional phrase? So far we have looked at intersective gradience between word classes. What about phrases? Can we have gradience between phrasal categories? Consider the following examples: (26) off-campus facilities (27) with-profits shares These are set phrases used in the worlds of education and finance. We also come across more creatively used examples such as the following: (28) the under-construction stadium In each of these cases we have what look like PPs in typical pre-noun adjective positions, and for this reason they are sometimes listed as adjectives in dictionaries. Now, recall from Section 11.2.2.1 that we have two types of prepositions: transitive and intransitive, the latter occurring in verb-preposition constructions such as let the dog out, look up the facts etc. If we regard in, through, up and above in examples (29)–(32) below as intransitive prepositions, then again we have PPs in attributive position: (29) the in crowd (30) a through road (31) the down escalator (32) the above examples Analysing the italicised portions in (29)–(32) as adjective phrases would be misguided because occurring in attributive position is the only adjectival property that they possess. 274

Grammatical Indeterminacy

Other adjectival properties (see Section 15.2.2) do not apply: the items in, through, up and above can’t be placed in predicative position; it is impossible to put intensifiers in front of them, and they do not have comparative or superlative forms: (33) *the crowd is in/*the very in crowd/*the inner crowd (ungrammatical in the sense ‘more in’) (34) *the road is through/*the very through road/*the througher road (35) *the escalator is down/*the very down escalator/*the downer escalator (36) *the examples are above/*the very above examples/*the abover examples However, we should also note that the PP modifiers right and straight (see Section 11.2.2.1) cannot be put in front of the italicised items in (29)–(32), which argues against analysing them as prepositions. If we look at these examples in terms of which properties predominate, we would have to say that calling the italicised items in (29)–(32) PPs makes most sense, but this is by no means a secure conclusion. If they are PPs, they are certainly not typical ones. 16.3.4 Constructional gradience In Quirk et al. (1985: 1218–19), we find a cline between V + NP + to-infinitive patterns of the type we discussed in Chapter 14: (37) We like all parents to visit the school. (38) They expected James to win the race. (39) We asked the students to attend a lecture. They say that in (37) the italicised NP is clearly not an argument of the verb while in (39) it certainly is. By contrast, in (38) the postverbal NP has both Subject and Direct Object properties: it is Subject-like with respect to the verb win, but Object-like with respect to expect.

EXERCISE Referring to Chapter 14, what would you say are the Subject-like properties of James in (38), and what are its Direct Object-like properties?

James is Subject-like because this NP has the role of Agent with respect to the predicate win. Also, expect can be followed by nonreferential it, by existential there and by a Subject idiom chunk:

275

English Syntax and Argumentation

(40) I expected it to rain yesterday. (41) I expected there to be trouble. (42) I expected the bird to have flown. What’s more, if we passivise the subordinate clause in (38), the meaning of the overall clause does not change. Thus (43) means the same as (44): (43) They expected James to win the race. (44) They expected the race to be won by James. By contrast, what makes James Direct Object-like is the fact that if we replace this name by a pronoun, it must be a pronoun in the accusative case: (45) They expected him to win. Also, we can say James was expected to win the race, where the main clause has been passivised. We thus seem to have gradience between the structures in (46) and (47): (46) V NP [to-infinitive] (47) V [NP + to-infinitive] As we saw in Chapter 14, the solution to this grammatical indeterminacy in this book has been to say that, on balance, there is rather more evidence for saying that James is a Subject in (38). However, it is important to stress that not everyone would agree. Some linguists would argue that although James is not a semantic argument of expect, grammatically it is still a Direct Object.

16.4 Concluding remarks Gradience, conceived of as grammatical indeterminacy, pervades grammar. In this chapter I have distinguished between two types: subsective gradience and intersective gradience. We have seen that the former involves the recognition that members of grammatical categories can be more or less typical exemplars of their class, while the latter involves the phenomenon of particular elements displaying distributional features of two classes. Despite this, with intersective gradience we should not conclude that the elements in question belong to two classes at the same time. Instead, there is usually a preponderance of distributional features associated with one of the two classes, which then ‘wins out’.

KEY CONCEPTS Gradience intersective gradience subsective gradience

276

grammatical indeterminacy lumping splitting

Grammatical Indeterminacy

EXERCISES

1. In the following noun phrases is the italicised element a verb or an adjective? Give reasons for your answer. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

a disappointing result a waiting taxi a moving film a moving target

2. To which word class would you assign the italicised elements in the bracketed noun phrases below? Give reasons for your answer. (i) [The freeing of the hostages] was a dangerous enterprise. (ii) [This computerr virus] was developed by a hacker in America. 3. In (i) below, is broken an adjective or a verb? How do you decide? (i) The window was broken. 4. Consider the word fun. Which word class would you assign this word to? Next, consider the sentences below. Do they confirm or refute your answer? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

I want to have some fun today. For children, running up and down the stairs is fun. He’s fun to be with and friendly. It was so fun! This is the funnest thing I’ve ever done!

*5. Consider (i) below, uttered by a woman in response to her husband suggesting they buy a particular sofa that they are looking at in a shop: (i) Yes, I think that’s very us. What do you think the speaker meant? Which word class does us belong to? Is (i) problematic in any way? *6. In Herbst and Schüller (2008: 54–5), the word those in the examples below is assigned to a word class called determiner-pronoun: (i) I like those books. (ii) Those are not for sale. Why do you think the authors chose this label? (Note: these authors use determiner as a grammatical form label.) *7. The word manyy is often regarded as a determinative, and is listed as such in Table 2.1. Consider the examples below. Do they support the view that manyy is a determinative? If not, which word class would you assign this word to instead? (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

her very many good sides Her good sides are many. She has more good sides than anyone else I know. She has many a good side.

277

English Syntax and Argumentation

*8. Biber et al. (2021: 280–1) recognise a word class of semi-determinerr, which includes same/otherr, former/latterr, last/next and certain/such. These are ‘determiner-like words which are often described as adjectives’. (Note: these authors use determinerr as a grammatical form label.) In the light of this quotation, consider the examples below and discuss to what extent such is determinative-like and to what extent it is adjective-like. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Such people are everywhere. He is such a fool! His problems are such that he has to be hospitalised. Such is his ego that he doesn’t even bother to check his facts.

*9. Which word class would you assign the word nearr to? Give reasons for your conclusion.

FURTHER READING There is a vast literature on indeterminacy in the fields of psychology and linguistics, but less work on gradience in the subfield of grammar. However, see Taylor (2003) on linguistic categorisation and the references cited in this book. For a collection of texts on ‘fuzzy grammar’, see Aarts et al. (2004). The problems we encounter in assigning words to word classes are discussed in Huddleston (1984), chapters 3 and 9, and Aarts (2007a). The latter is a monograph on gradience in grammar and contains a wealth of further references.

278

17

CASE STUDIES

This final chapter will give you the opportunity to practise syntactic argumentation by working your way through a number of case studies which centre on specific problem areas in English syntax. In each case we’ll be tackling the problems in the same way: we start out with a hypothesis as to how to solve the problem at hand, and we then proceed to find arguments that either support or disconfirm the initial analysis. Sometimes we will arrive at a conclusion, sometimes we won’t. This last point is important, as you will come to realise that there are many unsolved issues in English syntax.

17.1 Negated modal auxiliaries In Section 12.2.2 we discussed the processes of VP-Deletion and Vʹ-Deletion. To refresh your memory, here are some of the sentences we looked at: (1) Wayne: Greg: (2) Henry: Jake:

Can you play the piano?’ Yes, I can – . You take a lot of risks. I aim to – .

(3) Dawn will clean the windows diligently, but Shawn will – lazily. (4) Ray will rudely interrupt the speaker, but Bruce will politely – . We argued that in (1) and (2) VPs have been deleted, whereas in (3) and (4) V-bars have been left out. Let’s now look at some further examples: (5) Nick should read more books, but he can’t – . (6) Millie can lend her sister some money, but she won’t – .

EXERCISE What lexical material has been deleted in (5) and (6) above?

In (5) we have deleted a V + DO sequence (read more books), while in (6) a V + IO + DO string (lend her sister some money) has been left out. The question now arises of how to 279

English Syntax and Argumentation

account for these sentences. The problem centres around the negated modal verbs can’t and won’t. Recall that we argued that modals are positioned in ‘I’. We also claimed that negative elements like not are positioned in the Specifier-of-VP position. But we haven’t yet dealt with elements like can’t, won’t, mustn’t etc. in which the negative element is tagged onto the modal. The problem with negated modals is that they appear to be units. But this is irreconcilable with the fact that the modal itself belongs to the I-node, whereas the negative bit -n’t belongs in the VP. There are now two possible analyses for sentences like (5) and (6). One way of looking at (5) and (6) is to say that in the but-clauses, the negative element not first moves up to ‘I’ and then merges with the modal, after which the VP-shell is deleted. This process is shown in (7) for (5), and in (8) for (6): (7) Nick should read more books, but . . .

280

Case Studies

(8) Millie can lend her sister some money, but . . .

An alternative way of looking at (5) and (6) is to assume that in the but-clauses, the negated modals are positioned in ‘I’ and that what gets deleted is the following VP as a whole. From this viewpoint, we take negated modals to be lexical elements in their own right and there is no movement: (9) Nick should read more books, but . . .

(10) Millie can lend her sister some money, but . . .

281

English Syntax and Argumentation

Which of these analyses is correct? You will have realised that the two accounts are only very subtly different, but it should nevertheless be possible to give arguments which favour one or the other analysis. Recall that in (7) and (8) we have a movement process, while in (9) and (10) we are regarding the negated modals as lexical elements in their own right. Notice that in the first analysis, shown in (7) and (8), we need a new rule of NotMovement. Of course, there is nothing to stop us positing such a rule, but unless we can find independent justification for it (see Section 11.3.2), this strategy is unappealing. However, even if we were to find some independent justification, the rule would be complicated to state. The reason is that it would not be exceptionless, because not all modal verbs can contract with the negative element not: (11) He may not arrive early./*He mayn’t arrive early. Furthermore, notice that unlike contractions such as he will > he’ll, where will is simply tagged onto the pronoun and two letters are omitted, negative elements do not combine with the modals in such a straightforward way. Thus, we have will + not > won’t and shall + not > shan’t etc., which show that contraction would involve idiosyncratic modifications such as vowel changes. What about the second proposal, in which the negated modals are regarded as lexical items in their own right? The first point to observe is that it is much simpler: we assume that the grammar selects negated modals directly from the lexicon and inserts them in ‘I’. Consider now (12): (12) You can’t not invite your boss. You can imagine somebody saying this to a colleague who has just announced that he is not going to invite his boss to a party. What’s interesting about (12) is that, in addition to -n’t being tagged onto the modal, there is a second negative element, namely not, which is placed immediately before the verb invite. (Notice, incidentally, that it is stressed.) We can account for the structure of this sentence straightforwardly if we assume that the negated modal is positioned in ‘I’, while not is positioned in the Specifier-of-VP position: (13)

If we assumed movement of not to ‘I’, we would be able to account for the first, but not for the second, negative element in this sentence. Consider next (14):

282

Case Studies

(14) You can’t kiss her and not hug her. Here again we have a negated modal and a second negative element further to the right in the sentence. Assuming once more that the negated modal is positioned in ‘I’, we can easily account for the syntax of this sentence, by coordinating two VPs, as below: (15)

If we assumed Not-Movement, we would have to explain why the first not moves, but not the second. Furthermore, (15) accounts naturally for what are called the scope properties of the first negative element. After all, what (14) means is what you cannot do is ‘kiss her and not hug her’. What it doesn’t mean is that you can ‘not kiss her and not hug her’, which would be the expected meaning if the first not originated inside the leftmost of the coordinated VPs. The conclusion of this discussion must be that negated modals are positioned in ‘I’, and that there is no process of Not-Movement.

17.2 Noun phrase structure In this section we will be looking at some problems in the structural analysis of noun phrases. Specifically, we will look in detail at how NPs such as a lot of books and a giant of a man can be analysed. 17.2.1 A lot of books When we discussed X-bar syntax in Chapter 7 we saw that all phrases must be properly headed. Thus, a verb phrase must be headed by a verb, a prepositional phrase must be headed by a preposition etc. There are cases, however, where it is not clear which particular element is the Head. In this section we will be looking at noun phrases of the type in (16) below: (16) a lot of books

283

English Syntax and Argumentation

In this NP we have two nouns, namely lot and books, and we might wonder which is the Head of the overall NP. Your first inclination might be to say that the first noun must the Head, with the structure in (17) for the NP as a whole: (17)

Here we have analysed the PP of books as a sister (i.e. Complement) of the Head noun lot. Another possibility is to take the second noun (books) in (16) to be the Head. It then becomes more difficult to decide what would be the tree structure representation of the NP. Structures like those in (18) and (19), among others, have been put forward in the linguistic literature: (18)

(19)

In (18) the sequence a lot of is regarded as a complex Specifier, while in (19) a is the Specifier and lot of is a complex modifying string. How do we decide between these three representations? You will have realised that the nature of the problem we are dealing with here concerns the constituency of the NP in (16). Can we use any of the constituency tests in Chapters 12 and 13 to help us out? Let us take a closer look at each of the trees in (17)–(19). With regard to the structure in (17), notice that it parallels noun + Complement sequences of the type we have in (20), which we analysed in Section 7.1 in the same way as in (17), namely as a noun taking a PP as its sister: (20) This newspaper publishes a review of books every month. 284

Case Studies

However, recall that whereas we can draw a parallel between review of books in (20) and the verbal construction [they] review books, the string of books in (16) seems to be a different kind of Complement from the PP in (20), to the extent that the noun lot cannot be related to a verb in the way that review can. So, from the point of view of meaning there doesn’t seem to be much support for (17). We should now ask whether analysing the PP of books in (17) as a constituent can be motivated syntactically. By proposing an analysis along the lines of (17) we are making an important claim regarding the constituency of (16). Notice that the words of and books together form a prepositional phrase. It should be possible for us to test whether this string actually behaves like a constituent. Not all our tests are applicable to this structure, but quite a few are. We consider the Movement Test first. Movement Test Compare sentences (21) and (22): (21) *[Of books] we buy a lot –. (22) We don’t publish a review of CDs, but [of books] we do publish a review –. Here, in both cases, the PP of books has been moved to the left under Topicalisation. Clearly, the result is much worse in (21) than it is in (22). This suggests that there is a difference between the of-string in (21) and the undisputed Complement of books in (22). So far, we have only looked at leftward movement. Let’s now see if the of-string in question can be moved to the right. In the following passive sentences, we cannot move the of-string from an NP containing the noun lot, but moving the same string from an NP headed by review causes no problems: (23) *A lot – were rubbished [of books by new young novelists]. (24) A review – was published [of books by David Lodge]. Again, we see that the string introduced by of in (23) behaves differently from that in (24). The data in (22) and (24) prove that the of-strings are constituents. In (21) and (23), however, we must be careful: here we cannot draw any firm conclusions about the constituency of the PPs. Remember that the Movement Test works only in one direction (see Section 13.8): if we can move a string of words it is a constituent, but if we cannot move a string of words, it is not necessarily not a constituent. We need to look at some further data before we can draw any conclusions. The Substitution Test isn’t of any use to us in this case, because only locative PPs can be replaced by a proform (namely there, see Section 11.2.2.1). Of the tests in Chapter 13, only coordination and the cleft construction are useful. Coordination First compare the sentences below: 285

English Syntax and Argumentation

(25) *We buy a lot [of books] and [of records]. (26) We published a review [of books] and [of CDs]. In (25) it is impossible to coordinate the of-strings, but this poses no problems in (26). This again suggests that the PPs are constituents in (26), but not in (25). Cleft construction We turn now to the cleft construction. (27) *It is [of books] that he buys a lot. (28) It is [of books] that we publish a review. Once again, we end up with a contrast in grammaticality: (27) is clearly bad, while (28) is perhaps somewhat clumsy, but certainly markedly better than (27). The constituency of the PP in (28) is again established, whereas the of-string in (27) is likely not to be a constituent. We have so far looked at data which strongly suggest that the of-string in a review of books is a true constituent, whereas the of-string in a lot of books is not. We turn next to a piece of evidence that will clinch the matter. Consider (29): (29) A lot of books were destroyed by the fire. This example is very instructive. Notice that the verb were agrees in number with what is evidently a plural noun phrase. As the number of an NP is determined by its Head, we conclude that books is the Head of the NP a lot of books in (29). Summarising the evidence we have amassed so far, we can say that there are three different processes (movement, coordination and clefting), which suggest that the sequence of books in the NP a lot of books is not a constituent. Furthermore, the observed number concord between a lot of books and a following plural verb leads us to conclude that books is the Head of the overall NP. Notice that tree diagrams (18) and (19) both reflect the fact that of books is not a constituent and that books is the Head. We now need to decide between these two analyses. One thing that will immediately strike you is that in (18) a lot of and in (19) lot of are analysed as constituents. This looks a bit funny, as intuitively it doesn’t seem to be the case that these strings are units. I will return to this matter in a moment. Deciding between (18) and (19) is quite straightforward. Recall that we established that books is the Head of the NP a lot of books. If this is so, then the representation in (19) is automatically ruled out because Specifiers must agree with their Heads (cf. *those book, *this windows). In (19) the Specifier is singular, whereas the Head is plural. The correct representation of the NP a lot of books, pending further possible evidence, would seem to be (18), where a lot of is regarded as a complex Specifier. Additional support for this analysis comes from the fact that we can substitute many for a lot of. An objection to (18), hinted at above, could be the fact that intuitively a lot of doesn’t look like a constituent. However, if we allow ourselves to view grammar in a slightly 286

Case Studies

different way than we have been doing so far, namely as a system that is constantly in a state of flux in which shifts in patternings can occur, then maybe (18) becomes less strange. We could hypothesise that initially lot was the Head of the NP a lot of books, but that over time users of the language have begun to feel that a lot of somehow functions as a complex Specifier. A process like this would then be an instance of grammaticalisation, which happens when elements that formerly behaved like individual lexical items regroup and attain a particular grammatical function (e.g. Specifier, Adjunct etc.). All this is speculative, and you may want to look at the Further Reading section at the end of this chapter for references to discussions of this topic in the linguistic literature. 17.2.2 A giant of a man We now turn to a construction that bears some similarities to the one discussed in Section 17.2.1, shown in (30)a–d: (30) a. b. c. d.

a giant of a man that idiot of a policeman these nitwits of politicians those geniuses of doctors

Because they contain two prominent nouns, we will call NPs like those in (30) binominal noun phrases (BNPs). I will refer to the leftmost noun as N1, and to the rightmost noun as N2. Just like the construction we discussed in Section 17.2.1, it is not immediately obvious which of the two italicised nouns in the examples above is the Head of the BNP. In discovering what is the best analysis for this type of construction, we will follow the same line of argumentation as we did in the previous section. Let’s start by looking at some of the characteristics of BNPs. First, they are often used as negative qualifications, as (30)b and (30)c show, although not always, as (30)a and (30)d illustrate. Notice that the NPs that can occur in this construction can be either singular, as in (30)a–b, or plural, as in (30)c–d. In the singular both nouns are singular and N2 is always preceded by the determinative a. In the plural both nouns are plural, and nothing precedes N2. If there is a plural determinative it must precede N1.

EXERCISE Draw two trees for the NP a giant of a man. In one of these, assume that a is a determinative, giantt is the Head and of a man its Complement. In the other tree, again take a to be a determinative, giant of a to be a complex Adjunct in the shape of an NP, and man to be the Head. Use triangles for the complex Adjunct and for the PP.

287

English Syntax and Argumentation

The trees should look like this: (31)

(32)

In (31) N1 is the Head and the PP of a man is its Complement. By contrast, in (32) N2 is the Head and giant of a is regarded as a constituent that modifies man. (I have assigned the label ‘NP’ to giant of a, which may seem somewhat odd, but this problem is peripheral to our present concerns.) We now need to see which of the representations above fits in best with the evidence we can gather. At first sight (31) looks more plausible than (32). This is because intuitively giant of a in (32) doesn’t look like a unit. However, we shouldn’t be relying on our intuition, at least not exclusively, but we must argue systematically for or against either of these analyses. Before discussing the trees above further, let us return to the phrases in (30). Recall that the issue that we are investigating is which of the two nominals is the Head of the BNP. A criterion for headedness that has been put forward by linguists stipulates that the Head of a construction is the element of which the phrase as a whole is a kind. With regard to the BNPs in (30), it is easy to see that N2 qualifies as the Head in each case. After all, a giant of a man is a kind of man, not a kind of giant and an idiot of a policeman is a kind of policeman, not a kind of idiot etc. So there is some initial semantic evidence for an analysis of BNPs along the lines of (32) where N2 is the Head. Now, let us take a closer look at (31). The syntactic claim that this tree structure makes is not only that N1 is the Head, but also that of a man is a constituent. We can now test whether this is indeed the case. Contrast the following sentences: (33) *[Of a man], he was a giant –. (34) The company didn’t announce the release of the record, but [of the CD] they did announce the release –.

288

Case Studies

Moving the of-string to the left results in ungrammaticality in (33), but not in (34). Again, as in (21) and (22), we notice a difference between the of-string in (33) and the undisputed Complement of the CD in (34) (cf. They released the CD.). The different behaviour of the two of-strings is likely to be due to the fact that in (33) of a man is not a constituent. What about rightward movement?

EXERCISE In the following sentences, try moving of a man and of a CD by the Pope to the right (cf. (23) and (24) above): (i) A giant of a man was arrested. (ii) The release of a CD by the Pope was announced.

The results are as follows: (35) *A giant – was arrested [of a man]. (36) The release – was announced [of a CD by the Pope]. Again, the string introduced by of in (35) behaves differently from that in (36). As we have seen, in (36) the of-string is without doubt a Complement, but not in (35). Let’s now try to apply the Coordination Test. We get the following results: (37) *We spotted a giant [of a man ] and [of a woman]. (38) We announced the release [of a CD] and [of a record]. In (37) it is impossible to coordinate the of-strings, whereas this poses no problems in (38). This again suggests that the PPs are constituents in (38), but not in (37).

EXERCISE Now, using (27) and (28) as a model, apply the Cleft Test to the off-strings in (i) and (ii) of the previous exercise.

The results are as in (39) and (40): (39) *It was [of a giant] that a man was arrested. (40) It was [of a CD by the Pope] that the release was announced.

289

English Syntax and Argumentation

All the data we have been looking at show that in the second sentence of each of the pairs the of-string is a constituent. The ungrammaticality of the first sentence in each pair suggests that the of-strings are not constituents. At this point in our discussion, it is beginning to look as though (31) is not an appropriate representation for the BNP a giant of a man. In other words, there are strong reasons for taking N2 to be the Head of BNP constructions. What other evidence can we find that could decide the matter? What about Subject-verb agreement when we pluralise BNPs? Recall that when we discussed the NP a lot of books, we saw that a following verb must be plural, cf. (29), repeated here: (41) [A lot of books] were destroyed by the fire. On the basis of this sentence, we decided that books is the Head in the bracketed NP above. In the case of BNPs we cannot use this test, because N1 and N2 are either both singular or both plural: (42) A giant of a man was arrested after the incident. (43) Giants of men were arrested after the incident. Consider next the following BNPs (all real, attested examples, so no apologies for their political incorrectness!): (44) this oceanic barge of a woman (45) another bitchy iceberg of a woman I want to concentrate here on the adjective phrases that precede N1 in these examples. Notice that in (44) oceanic is semantically an appropriate Adjunct for barge, but not for woman. However, in (45) the situation is the other way round: bitchy is a possible Adjunct for woman but not for iceberg. Our analysis of BNPs must allow for an AP that precedes N1 to modify either N1 or N2. Now, if we adopt a structure like (31) for (44) and (45), the trees would look like this: (46)

290

Case Studies

(47)

What these structures encode is that in (46) oceanic modifies barge of a woman and in (47) bitchy modifies iceberg of a woman. While (46) is not ruled out, the structure in (47) is clearly inappropriate because bitchy should modify a constituent which has the noun woman as its Head. If we now adopt structures like (32) for our NPs in (44) and (45), we get the following results: (48)

(49)

Here, we get the right results in both cases: in (48) oceanic modifies barge, while in (49) the strings bitchy and iceberg of a modify woman. Notice that both Adjuncts are sisters of N′.

EXERCISE Why can’t oceanic in (48) be a sister of the N′ woman?

291

English Syntax and Argumentation

The answer is that there would then be a semantic clash between these two elements, as the combination oceanic woman is meaningless. It appears, then, that tree structures like (48) and (49) make the right predictions regarding (44) and (45). As a final piece of evidence in favour of an analysis in which N2 is the Head in BNPs, consider the phrase below: (50) a hell of a problem Hell of a-BNPs are common in English. If our proposed analysis of BNPs is correct, then problem is the Head, as in (51): (51)

This analysis is corroborated by the fact that in spoken English we can contract the sequence hell of a to helluva. Even in written English, this contraction has been attested. All in all, we have overwhelming evidence in favour of an analysis of BNPs in which N2 is the Head. Again, as in the case of the string a lot of in NPs like a lot of books, a sequence like hell of a in (51) seems to be an unlikely constituent. However, almost certainly, this construction is in an intermediate stage of development, and our grammar should allow for patterns like (51), as there is supporting evidence for them.

17.3 Verb complementation In this section we will be looking at verb complementation, a much-debated area of English grammar about which there is a great deal of disagreement among linguists. The term verb complementation refers to the description of the Complement-taking properties of verbs, i.e. which Complements verbs take, and how these Complements are realised. In Chapter 5 we looked at ways in which the grammatical functions of English (Subject, Direct Object etc.) can be realised. Some of these function–form pairs were quite straightforward, and needed little justification. Thus, the claim that Direct Objects can be realised as NPs (as in I kicked the ball), or as finite clauses (as in Everyone thinks that it is late) is fairly uncontroversial. Other function–form relationships are less straightforward (e.g. that DOs can be realised as nonfinite clauses, as in the type of constructions we discussed in Sections 14.1 and 14.2). In these cases, it is often hard to establish which string of words in a sentence realises a particular grammatical function.

292

Case Studies

In Chapter 5 we made a number of tacit assumptions about these less obvious cases. Having acquainted ourselves in earlier chapters of this book with the skills to set up reasoned analyses of sentences, we are now in a position to assess those early claims. Before proceeding let us briefly recapitulate the subdivision of the class of lexical verbs in English. As we have seen, lexical verbs can be either transitive (i.e. they take internal arguments) or intransitive (no internal arguments). Because they do not pose any analytical problems, we’ll leave intransitive verbs aside, and deal only with transitive verbs. One of the main areas of disagreement among linguists with regard to English verb complementation concerns sentences that conform to one of the following patterns: Pattern 1: V + to-infinitive (52) Jim wanted [to leave London]. Pattern 2: V + NP + to-infinitive (53) My sister believes [Jim to be a loner]. (54) We persuaded [Jim] [to stay]. (55) My friends want [Jim to stay]. (56) The prime minister allowed [the finance minister to increase taxes]. Pattern 3: V + NP + {NP, AP, PP} (57) I considered [Jim a genius]. (58) I considered [Jim foolish]. (59) I want [the kids in the car]. Pattern 4: V + NP + bare infinitive (60) Antoinet heard/made [Jim leave the flat]. Pattern 5: V + NP + -ing participle clause (61) Abdul saw [Jim leaving the flat]. Pattern 6: V + NP + -ed participle clause (62) Pavel had [the TV repaired]. In each of these example sentences, the brackets indicate the analyses we’ve been assuming in this book. It’s time now to justify these analyses, and look for the arguments that underpin them. In this chapter we will be concentrating on patterns 1–3.

293

English Syntax and Argumentation

17.3.1 Pattern 1: V + to-infinitive The first example sentence for pattern 1 above involves the verb want. The analysis implied in (52) is that to leave London is the Direct Object of this verb. This DO takes the form of a clause whose Subject remains implicit, but is interpreted as having the same referent as the matrix clause Subject. You will remember that we indicate implied arguments with the symbol ‘Ø’ (see Section 11.3.2). Sentence (52) can then be represented as in (63): (63) Jimi wanted [Øi to leave London] The subscript letter ‘i’ indicates coreferentiality (i.e. the fact that Jim and Ø refer to the same individual in this case). What is the evidence for analysing to leave London as the DO of want? We need to show that from both a semantic and a syntactic point of view, the bracketed string in (52) functions as a constituent. Let’s start with semantic reasons for our analysis. By semantic reasons I mean evidence pertaining to argumenthood. The question is the following.

EXERCISE Can we reasonably say that ‘leaving London’ is what Jim wanted in sentence (52) above?

The answer to this question is surely ‘yes’. If this is indeed the case, i.e. if to leave London is indeed the DO of want, then this string ought to behave as a constituent. So, let’s apply the tests we set up in Chapters 12 and 13 one-by-one to see if there is syntactic support for the analysis in (52). Let’s first apply the Movement Test. The question we must ask ourselves is whether it is possible to move the string to leave London in (52). We could hypothesise that to leave London is a Complement of the verb want in the form of a VP. One way to test this hypothesis is to apply VP-Preposing. If we do this, it turns out that only (64) is possible (although stylistically somewhat clumsy), whereas (65) is completely ungrammatical: the element to cannot be moved along with the lexical verb and DO. Movement Test (64) ?Jim says that he will want to leave London, and [leave London] he will want to –. (65) *Jim says that he will want to leave London, and [to leave London] he will want –. Though-Movement If we apply Though-Movement the result is (66): (66) [Leave London] though he wanted to –, he still loves the place. 294

Case Studies

However, (67) is ungrammatical: (67) *[To leave London] though he wanted –, he still loves the place. Again, only the verb and its DO can be moved. Infinitival to is left behind, and cannot also be moved. (Notice that these data confirm our conclusion in Chapter 8 that the infinitival marker to is not part of VP, but positioned inside ‘I’.) The data we have looked at so far show that to leave London in (52) is not a VPconstituent. However, even if it is not a VP, it could be some other type of constituent. In (63) we analysed this string as a clausal Direct Object of want with an implicit Subject. Can we apply passivisation, also a movement process, to this DO? The answer is ‘no’, as (68) shows: (68) *[To leave London] was wanted by Jim. It now seems that to leave London is not a constituent, VP or otherwise. I use the word seems advisedly here, because it is important to remember that the constituency tests work in only one direction: if a string of words can be moved, it must be a constituent; if it cannot be moved, it is not necessarily not a constituent. Another major test for constituency is the Substitution Test. We should check to see whether to leave London in (52) can be replaced by a proform.

EXERCISE Can you think of a way to replace the string to leave London by a proform?

The sentence in (69) shows that to leave London can be replaced by the pronoun it. Substitution Test (69) Jim wanted it. The fact that to leave London can be replaced by it entails that this string is a constituent. Taking stock at this point, we have found that, so far, there is only semantic evidence, and one piece of syntactic evidence (namely substitution) in favour of the analysis in (52) in which to leave London is a constituent. We turn now to the tests introduced in Chapter 13.

EXERCISE Construct one or more sentences in which to leave London is coordinated with to travel to Sicily. Sicilyy.

295

English Syntax and Argumentation

Here are some possible results. Coordination Test (70) Jim wanted [to leave London] and [to travel to Sicily]. (71) [To leave London] and [to travel to Sicily] is Jim’s dream. Next we try to apply the Cleft and Pseudocleft Tests.

EXERCISE Try to construct cleft and pseudocleft sentences in which to leave London is in the focus position. Turn back to Section 13.2 if you’ve forgotten what cleft and pseudocleft sentences look like.

Here are some (im)possibilities. Cleft and Pseudocleft Test (72) *It was [to leave London] that Jim wanted. (73) What Jim wanted was [to leave London]. The pseudocleft sentence in (73) again establishes the constituent status of to leave London, but you will have found that this string cannot be positioned in the focus position of a cleft sentence, as in (72). However, we mentioned in Sections 11.2.1 and 13.2 that there are general restrictions on which elements can appear in the focus position of cleft sentences, and strings containing verbs generally cannot be focused on, so (72) should not be taken as evidence against the constituency of to leave London. There are two remaining tests, the Somewhere Else Test and the Constituent Response Test.

EXERCISE To apply the Somewhere Else Test, construct one or more sentences in which to leave London is in a position other than after the lexical verb.

Here are some possibilities.

296

Case Studies

The Somewhere Else Test (74) [To leave London] was Jim’s goal. (75) It was Jim’s goal [to leave London].

EXERCISE To apply the Constituent Response Test, make up a dialogue between two people in which one person asks a question to which the other person replies to leave London.

Here’s an example. The Constituent Response Test (76) A: What did Jim want? B: To leave London. All these tests, with the exception of the cleft construction, show that to leave London functions as a constituent. We have already seen that the Meaning Test also suggests that the bracketed string in (52) is a unit. (Notice that the Insertion Test does not apply, because it refers to S-constituent boundaries.) Concluding this discussion, we have seen that most of the constituency tests show that to leave London in (52) functions as a unit. The only tests that do not confirm this result are the Movement Test and the Cleft Test. On balance, the accumulated evidence suggests that the analysis in (52) is correct, and maybe the reason why to leave London cannot be moved is due to some as yet unclear factor which will have to be investigated in future research. 17.3.2 Pattern 2: V + NP + to-infinitive constructions involving allow You will remember that in Sections 14.1 and 14.2 we discussed V + NP + to-infinitive constructions involving the verbs believe, persuade and want, illustrated in (53)–(56) above. The main issue with regard to these constructions was the functional status of the postverbal NP: is it a Direct Object argument, or the Subject argument of a subordinate clause? In order to find an answer to this question, we looked at ways in which argumenthood can be established. We concluded that although sentences involving these verbs superficially all conform to the pattern V + NP + to-infinitive, their analysis turns out to be different. Recall that the VPs of sentences involving believe or want are bracketed, as in (77): (77) [VP V [NP + to-infinitive]] The chief motivation for this analysis was the lack of a thematic relationship between the lexical verb and the NP that follows it. Rather, this NP is the Subject of a subordinate 297

English Syntax and Argumentation

clause. The only difference between believe and want is that sentences with believe can be passivised, while sentences with want cannot (cf. Jim was believed to be a loner by my sister./*Jim was wanted to stay by my friends.). By contrast, the bracketing of VPs headed by persuade was argued to be as in (78): (78) [VP V [NP] [to-infinitive]] Here, the NP is an argument of the verb that precedes it because when we persuade someone they are directly ‘acted upon’. If you don’t remember the reasoning behind these analyses, review Section 14.2. Consider now the verb allow. As the following sentence shows, this verb too occurs in the V + NP + to-infinitive pattern: (79) The prime minister allowed the finance minister to increase taxes. = (56) Our discussion of the pattern in which allow occurs will follow the same procedure as the one we followed in Section 17.3.1. First we consider the semantics of this construction, then its constituency. If we consider the meaning of (79), in an effort to find out which are the arguments of allow, we might be led to think that apart from a Subject argument (the prime minister), this verb takes two further arguments, namely the finance minister (an NP) and to increase taxes (a nonfinite clause without a Subject of its own). The rationale for this analysis would be that there seems to be a direct thematic relationship between allow and the finance minister because the latter is the person who is being given permission. The to-infinitive clause would then be an additional argument. With regard to its argumenttaking properties, allow would thus appear to be like persuade (see Section 14.2). However, there is evidence which suggests that this is not correct. This evidence relates to sentences of the following type: (80) The prime minister allowed it to become too hot in the room. (81) The prime minister allowed there to be a tax-raising round. These data undermine the view that NPs following allow are arguments of that verb: as we have seen several times now, nonreferential it and existential there cannot be analysed as Direct Objects when they occur in a postverbal position because they cannot enter into a thematic relationship with a verb. We can draw the same conclusion from the data below: (82) The prime minister allowed the coast to be clear for his finance minister to raise taxes. (83) The prime minister deliberately allowed the fat to be in the fire for his finance minister, by leaking the story to the press. Here, the Subject idiom chunks the coast and the fat occur after allow, again suggesting that the postverbal position is not a DO slot for this verb. (Review Section 14.1.2 if you’ve forgotten about dummy elements and idiom chunks.)

298

Case Studies

EXERCISE Consider sentences (84) and (85). With what kind of evidence do they provide us? (84) The prime minister allowed the finance minister to increase taxes. = (79) (85) The prime minister allowed taxes to be increased by the finance minister.

This passivisation evidence again suggests that there does not after all appear to be a thematic relationship between allow and the NP that follows it. The reason is that (84) and (85) mean the same, and this tells us that the NP following the lexical verb in these sentences is not one of its arguments. This view is supported by the fact that in (85), ‘taxes’ are not something one normally gives permission to. It seems, then, that sentences (80)–(85) show that allow is not like persuade, but like believe. However, if we consider further data, it turns out that we’re still not home and dry. In the following set of sentences, we have again passivised the postverbal string, deriving (87) from (86): (86) Tim allowed the police to interrogate his son. (87) Tim allowed his son to be interrogated by the police. This time we cannot be quite so confident in saying that these sentences mean the same: in both cases, the postverbal NP refers to an individual or individuals to whom permission can be granted or denied, and as such this NP can be regarded as an argument of allow in (86) and (87). We have ended up in a situation in which there is conflicting evidence: on the one hand, we have evidence for regarding NPs following allow as Subjects of subordinate clauses, as in (80)–(85), but on the other hand, we have evidence for regarding these same NPs as arguments of this verb, as in (86) and (87). How do we resolve this matter? There are two possible courses of action. One is to say that there are two verbs allow, let’s call them allow1 and allow2, which are homophonous (i.e. they sound the same), but differ in meaning. Allow1 could then be said to pattern with persuade and mean ‘give permission (to someone to do something)’, while allow2 would pattern with believe and mean ‘tolerate (a situation)’. The meaning difference between allow1 and allow2, if real, is slight. Bearing in mind Occam’s Razor (see Section 11.2.2), positing the existence of two allow verbs seems unattractive. The other possibility is to argue that the postverbal NP in allow + NP + to-infinitive constructions is, in fact, never an argument of this verb, but that we construe it as an argument because in certain cases, e.g. (79), (86) and (87), it refers to an individual (or entity) to whom permission could in principle be given. Put differently, when we process sentences containing the string allow + NP + to-infinitive, we are inclined to take certain NPs to be arguments of allow only by virtue of the fact that they are juxtaposed to this verb. It is not unlikely that NPs in allow + NP + to-infinitive strings are initially processed 299

English Syntax and Argumentation

by analogy with sentences like (88), where allow clearly takes two internal NP arguments, one an Indirect Object, the other a Direct Object: (88) They allowed her two books. On further processing sentence (79), however, it turns out that what is allowed is a situation, described by a proposition (e.g. a non-finite to-infinitive clause). Thus, what is being allowed in (79) is ‘that the finance minister increases taxes’, rather than permission being granted to an individual. Because it has more evidence to support it, we will assume that the second approach is correct, and that allow patterns with believe. Semantic evidence pertaining to argumenthood has led us to the conclusion that either allow takes two NPs, as in (88), or an [NP + to-infinitive] Complement clause, so that (79) is analysed as in (89): (89) The prime minister allowed [the finance minister to increase taxes]. Let’s now see if there is syntactic evidence for this analysis as well. If we try to apply the Movement Test, then we soon realise that displacing the bracketed string in (89) is impossible. For example, we cannot topicalise it, as (90) shows. Movement Test (90) *[The finance minister to increase taxes] the prime minister allowed –. Other movement tests like VP-Preposing and Though-Movement are useful only in establishing whether a particular string of words constitutes a VP or not, so they are of no use in a discussion about the bracketed string in (89). The Substitution Test looks more promising.

EXERCISE Check to see if we can replace the string the finance minister to increase taxes by a proform.

Notice that what the prime minister allowed in (89) was a situation, and we can substitute the postverbal string by the pronoun it. Substitution Test (91) The prime minister allowed it. This shows that the finance minister to increase taxes in (89) functions as a constituent. What about the tests discussed in Chapter 13?

300

Case Studies

EXERCISE Apply the Coordination Test, Cleft and Pseudocleft Tests, Somewhere Else Test and Constituent Response Test to sentence (79).

If we apply these tests to (79), we obtain the following results. Coordination Test (92) The prime minister allowed [the finance minister to increase taxes] and [the transport minister to increase rail fares]. Cleft and Pseudocleft Test (93) *It was [the finance minister to increase taxes] that the prime minister allowed. (94) *What the prime minister allowed was [the finance minister to increase taxes]. The Somewhere Else Test (95) It was impossible for [the finance minister to increase taxes]. The Constituent Response Test (96) A What did the prime minister allow? B * The finance minister to increase taxes. (Notice that the Insertion Test doesn’t apply, because it refers to S-constituent boundaries, and in (79) we are dealing with VP-internal units.) The syntactic constituency tests yield mixed results: some do, and some do not, identify the postverbal string in (89) as a constituent. What do we do in such a situation? For now, we will provisionally conclude that in (89) the semantic and syntactic evidence taken together fairly convincingly suggests that the finance minister to increase taxes is a constituent. Clearly, however, the matter can only be satisfactorily resolved by doing more research so as to find further evidence that is relevant to the issue at hand. Not all linguists will agree with the provisional conclusion we have just drawn, and you should not be surprised to find different analyses in the literature. Let’s turn now to a further case. 17.3.3 Pattern 3: V + NP + {NP, AP, PP} Consider the sentences below, which involve what we called small clauses in Section 4.1:

301

English Syntax and Argumentation

(97) I considered [Jim a genius]. = (57) (98) I considered [Jim foolish]. = (58) (99) I want [the kids in the car]. = (59) We will again consider both semantic and syntactic evidence to show that the bracketed strings in each case are constituents. We will concentrate here on the V + NP + NP construction exemplified in (97). This section too will be interactive: you will be prompted at various points in the discussion to think of examples that could be used as evidence for or against a particular analysis. Let’s start with a consideration of the meaning of (97).

EXERCISE What does (97) mean? Is it fair to say that in I considered Jim a genius I was considering Jim?

Your answer to this question may well have been ‘yes’, but if you think about it a little more, you will realise that (97) does not mean that I considered Jim, but rather that I considered a proposition, namely the proposition that ‘Jim is a genius’. Indeed, we can paraphrase (97) as in (100) or (101): (100) I considered Jim to be a genius. (101) I considered that Jim is a genius. These considerations suggest a bracketing like that in (97). Consider now (102) and (103): (102) I consider it a fine day. (103) The prime minister considered the coast clear for tax increases.

EXERCISE If you bear in mind the discussion in Section 14.1.2, what do sentences (102) and (103) above show?

In sentences (102) and (103) we have nonreferential it and a Subject-related idiom chunk following the lexical verb. As we saw in Chapter 14, the possibility of this happening indicates that the postverbal NP is not one of the verb’s arguments. Again, we are led to the bracketing in (97) where the postverbal NP is analysed as the Subject of a Complement clause, rather than as the Direct Object of the lexical verb. 302

Case Studies

In short, if we consider a sentence like I considered Jim a genius from a semantic point of view, we are led to the bracketing in (97). Let’s now turn to our syntactic constituency tests, starting with the Movement Test and Substitution Test, as discussed in Sections 12.1 and 12.2. Recall the following general principles: if we can move a string of words, and/or substitute a string of words by a proform, then that string must be a constituent. The question we must ask, then, is whether we can move the string Jim a genius in (97), or replace it with a proform.

EXERCISE Can you think of a sentence where such a movement has taken place, or where Jim a genius has been replaced by a proform?

Movement of Jim a genius is impossible. This string cannot be topicalised, as (104) shows. Movement Test (104) *[Jim a genius] I considered –. VP-Preposing and Though-Movement only prove the constituent status of the VP that contains Jim a genius. As for the Substitution Test, although we cannot interpret it in I considered it to substitute for Jim a genius in (97), we can say (105). Substitution Test (105) I considered this proposition. Here we have substituted the NP this proposition for Jim a genius. Our next test is coordination.

EXERCISE Can we coordinate a string like Jim a genius in (97) with a similar string?

Such coordination seems quite straightforward and unproblematic, as (106) shows. Coordination Test (106) I considered Jim a genius and Pete a dunce. Now let’s try the Cleft and Pseudocleft Tests.

303

English Syntax and Argumentation

EXERCISE Can Jim a genius be in the focus position of a cleft or pseudocleft construction?

It seems not, as (107) and (108) indicate. Cleft and Pseudocleft Test (107) *It was Jim a genius that I considered. (108) *What I considered was Jim a genius.

EXERCISE Next apply the Somewhere Else Test to see if Jim a genius can occur elsewhere as a constituent. You’ll have to think hard!

An [NP NP] string like Jim a genius can occur on its own in an interchange like the one shown in (109). Somewhere Else Test (109) A: I consider Jim a genius. B: Jim a genius? You must be joking. With [NP AP] and [NP PP] strings we can also have the following: (110) My mind free of worries, I went out and had a drink. (111) She was too upset to say anything, her thoughts in utter turmoil. The italicised strings function like Adjuncts here. [NP NP] strings can also occur as the Complement of the preposition with, as in (112): (112) With Jim a vegetarian we’ll have to find another restaurant. The same is true for [NP AP] and [NP PP] strings: (113) With Isaac so unhappy we can’t really go on holiday. (114) With her husband in France Sally had a great night out with her friends. Finally, we turn to the Constituent Response Test. (We’re ignoring the Insertion Test, which does not apply.) 304

Case Studies

EXERCISE Can [NP NP] strings like Jim a genius function as a response to a question?

It would seem that the answer to this question is a negative one. The conclusion we can draw from our deliberations must again be a provisional one: while not all the tests point to the bracketing in (97), the semantic and syntactic evidence taken together does seem to do so. Further research is needed to explain why some of the tests fail.

17.4 Subordinating conjunctions and prepositions Consider the following examples: (115) She will have read the document before. (116) She will have read the document before the holiday. (117) She will have read the document before the holiday began.

EXERCISE To which word class would you assign the word before in examples (115)–(117) above?

Your answer was probably that in (115) before is an adverb heading an adverb phrase. In (116) before looks like a preposition, because it is followed by an NP, whereas in (117) before introduces a subordinate clause functioning as an Adjunct and is therefore arguably a subordinator. However, is this right? After all, the word before has the same shape each time. Given that this is the case, shouldn’t our initial hypothesis be that these words belong to the same category? But how can we possibly maintain such an analysis, given that we have said that words are assigned to categories on the basis of their distribution, and the distribution of each instance of before is different in the examples above? Well, maybe we only arrived at this conclusion because we are holding on to mistaken views regarding the distributional properties of some of the word classes. So, we might ask whether prepositions should always be followed by an NP, as traditional grammar has it. We saw in Section 11.2.2.1 that prepositions can be argued to be transitive (they take an NP as Complement) or intransitive (they take no Complement). If we apply this to examples (115)–(117) above, we can say that in (115) before is an intransitive preposition, heading a PP, while in (116) it is a transitive preposition: 305

English Syntax and Argumentation

(118) She will have read the document [PP [P before]]. (119) She will have read the document [PP [P before [NP the holiday]]]. But then what about (117)? Surely, here we must analyse before as a subordinating conjunction? Well, this is indeed an analysis we find in many grammar books, but it is perhaps better to say that in this sentence too, before is a preposition if we simply allow prepositions to take clauses as Complements: (120) She will have read the document [PP [P before [clause the holiday began]]]. But if we assign before to the class of prepositions, what about words like although, because, while etc., words which I called adjunctisers in Section 3.7, occurring in such sentences as (121)–(123)? (121) I didn’t talk to Sally, although she was at the party. (122) We didn’t go to the Vatican Museum, because it was too expensive. (123) While he was asleep, an intruder stole his iPod. It has been argued recently that all the adjunctisers should be analysed as prepositions. This is a welcome strategy. After all, it was awkward in Section 3.7 that we had to single out that, if, whether and for as being special members of the class of subordinators. Although we haven’t achieved an economy by reassigning the adjunctisers to the class of prepositions, we have attained a more elegant description of the data (see Section 11.3.1).

17.5 Concluding remarks What we have seen in this chapter is that sometimes arguments regarding competing analyses are not very clear-cut, and don’t lead us unambiguously to one account of a particular phenomenon and away from another. We are often faced with a situation in which there are arguments for two or more analyses of the same phenomenon. One way to proceed in such a situation is to be ‘democratic’, and accept as correct the analysis that has the most arguments in support of it. This is a dubious strategy to employ, because it assumes that all arguments have equal weight. That arguments are not valued in the same way became clear when we looked at constituency tests in Chapters 12 and 13. We saw there that the Somewhere Else Test and the Meaning Test are less reliable than the Movement Test and the Substitution Test. When we are faced with conflicting evidence and with evidence of unequal importance, we have to consider our data carefully, make choices, and present our case in the way that seems the most appropriate. No analysis is ever final, and more often than not others will disagree with our conclusions. The challenge is then on us to find further independent evidence to support our claims. It is this search for the ‘best’ analysis that makes syntax and argumentation so exciting.

306

Case Studies

What I aimed to achieve in this book is for you to learn about the basics of English syntax, and how to argue cogently and coherently in favour of (or against) an analysis of a particular syntactic phenomenon, and also, in trickier cases, how to engage in a process of balancing different types of evidence. I hope that you will agree that this is a useful, and indeed transferable skill.

KEY CONCEPTS grammaticalisation negated modal verbs noun phrase structure

prepositions subordinating conjunctions verb complementation

EXERCISES 1. Consider sentence (i): (i) She may write to you, but you never know: she may not – . What has been deleted at the tail end of this sentence? How is (i) a problem for our claim in Section 17.1 that negated modals are positioned in I? Is there a way around this problem? 2. Consider the verb promise in the sentence below: (i) I promised her to take a day off. Assign function labels to the various constituents in this sentence. What is the understood Subject expression of the string to take a day offf? How does promise differ from persuade in this respect? 3. Quirk et al. (1985) classify persuade as a ditransitive verb (i.e. a verb with an Indirect Object and a Direct Object). What do you make of this? *4. Apply the argumentation we used in Section 17.3 to justify the bracketings shown in sentences (60)–(62) (patterns 4–6). *5. The following appeared as a headline in a newspaper:

Royal wedding pizza attack victim slams court for letting girls go free (London Standard Evening Standard) d) Analyse the constituent parts of the Subject of this sentence.

FURTHER READING On allow w see Huddleston (1984: 219–20), Schmerling (1978: 307–8) and Palmer (1987, Section 9.2). On small clauses, see Aarts (1992).

307

English Syntax and Argumentation The topics in Section 17.2 on the structure of the noun phrase are discussed in Akmajian and Lehrer (1976), Huddleston (1984: 236–9), Selkirk (1977) and Aarts (1998). The latter is an article that contains a comprehensive list of references on binominal noun phrases (BNPs). The analysis of words like before as always belonging to the class of prepositions was proposed by the Danish grammarian Otto Jespersen. For criticism of this idea, see Croft (2007) and my response in Aarts (2007b). Huddleston and Pullum (2002) have suggested that all the traditional subordinating conjunctions, with the exception of the complementisers, should be analysed as prepositions.

308

GLOSSARY

Cross-references are shown in bold. absolute form The form of an adjective (or adverb) that is not comparative or superlative. For example, in the following sequence, the first form is the absolute form: great–greater–greatest. accusative case This is the form that pronouns occur in when they function as Direct Object or as the Complement of a preposition; e.g. I called him. (Also called objective case.) active A term applied to a sentence or clause in which the Subject is generally presented as the Agent of the action described by the Predicate, and the Direct Object as the Patient; e.g. The captain scored a goal. See also passive. adjective One of the principal word classes; a word that has a modifying function in front of a noun (attributive position, e.g. the beautiful beach), or following a linking verb (predicative position, e.g. the beach is beautiful). adjective phrase (AP) A phrase headed by an adjective. adjoin/adjunction A syntactic process whereby one category is linked to another. Category B is adjoined to category A by making B a sister of A, and by making A and B taken together daughters of a copy of the original node A. Adjunct A grammatical function label that typically indicates the where, why, when etc. in a proposition (e.g. Last week, we finished all the work quickly.). Adjuncts can also act as Modifiers inside phrases. For example, in the NP the very ugly duckling, the AP very ugly functions as Adjunct. Adjuncts are stackable and omissible. adjunctiser A subordinating conjunction that introduces a clause functioning as Adjunct. See also complementiser, conjunction. adverb A word class that usually expresses manner, location, time etc.; e.g. quickly, secretly etc. adverb phrase (AdvP) A phrase headed by an adverb. affix An appendix added to the beginning or end of a word. Thus, -ness is an affix, more specifically a suffix, which can be added to the adjective happy, deriving a noun, namely happiness. And dis- is an affix, more specifically a prefix, which can be added to the verb like, deriving another verb, namely dislike. Agent A thematic role that indicates the ‘doer’ or instigator of an action denoted by a predicate in a proposition. agreement The phenomenon whereby a particular element harmonises with another with respect to a particular feature. Thus, in the sentence John likes warm weather, the third person singular form of the verb like (ending in -s) agrees with the third person singular Subject John. argument A participant (role player) in a proposition. argument structure A schematic representation that shows a predicate together with its arguments, and their categorial status. So, the argument structure for the verb devour is as follows: devour (verb) [1 , 2 ] The underlined argument represents the Subject expression.

309

Glossary aspect A grammatical notion that signifies the way in which a situation expressed by a verb, or a verb and its Complement(s), in a particular sentence or clause is viewed; e.g. as an ongoing process (progressive aspect), or as a situation located in the past, but relevant to the present (present perfect aspect). In English, aspect is syntactically expressed especially by the aspectual auxiliaries be and have, combined with a verb ending in -ing or -ed. aspectual auxiliary An auxiliary verb that expresses the semantic notion of aspect: in English, the verbs be and have are aspectual auxiliaries. attributive position The syntactic position in a noun phrase between the Specifier and Head. Elements occurring here have a modifying function. In the NP the green bike, the adjective phrase green is in attributive position. See also predicative position. auxiliary verb A verb used in combination with at least one other verb, namely a lexical verb, in front of which it is placed. Verb combinations form grammatical constructions, such as the progressive construction and the perfect construction. English allows up to four auxiliary verbs in front of a lexical verb, as in Katia must have been being seen by the doctor. bare existential See existential construction. base form For most verbs: the form of the verb other than the third person singular form. Benefactive A thematic role that indicates the entity that benefits from the action or event denoted by the predicate in a proposition. clause A sentence within a sentence. For example, that he will be OK is a subordinate clause functioning as a Direct Object within the sentence I know that he will be OK. See also main clause, matrix clause. clause type A syntactic typology of clauses into four categories: declarative, interrogative, imperative and exclamative. See also the associated pragmatic notions: statement, question, directive, exclamation. cleft sentence A sentence that conforms to the following pattern: It

+

form of be

+

focus

who/that . . .

For example, It was in Brazil that I was so happy is a cleft version of I was so happy in Brazil. See also pseudocleft. comparative form The form of adjectives (and some adverbs) that ends in -er (e.g. quieter, faster). Sometimes, a periphrastic form is used, e.g. more competent (rather than *competenter). Complement A grammatical function label that denotes a constituent whose presence is determined (sometimes required) by a verb, noun, adjective or preposition. complementiser A word that introduces a clause that functions as a Complement to a verb. For example, that is a complementiser in the following sentence: I believe that the sun will shine. The string that the sun will shine functions as Direct Object. There are four complementisers in English, which together form a subclass of the set of subordinating conjunctions: that, if, whether and for. See also adjunctiser. conjoin One element in a set of two or more items linked by a coordinating conjunction. For example, in the string the sun and the moon, the NPs the sun and the moon are conjoins linked by the coordinating conjunction and. conjunction There are two types of conjunctions: coordinating conjunctions (principally and, or, but) and subordinating conjunctions. Of the latter, there are two subtypes: complementisers (that, if, whether, for), which introduce Complement clauses, and adjunctisers (although, because, in order that, since, when, while etc.), which introduce Adjunct clauses. Schematically, the word class of conjunctions can be represented as follows:

310

Glossary

constituency test A test by means of which a string of words can be shown to behave as a unit. See also movement, substitution. constituent A string of words that syntactically behaves as a unit. Constituent Response Test A constituency test that stipulates that only constituents can be used as responses to open interrogatives. coordinating conjunction A linking word that connects units which are not subordinate to one another. In English, the principal coordinating conjunctions are and, or and but. coordination A syntactic configuration in which elements or strings of elements (conjoins) are juxtaposed by means of a coordinating conjunction; e.g. Bulgaria and Greece. copula Verbs like seem, appear and be, which link a Subject to an expression which is predicated of it; e.g. He seems nice. Also known as linking verb. cross-categorial generalisation A generalisation that holds true for all syntactic categories of a particular type. For example, X-bar syntax embodies the cross-categorial generalisation that all phrases are structured in an identical way. daughters A node Y is the daughter of a node X if X immediately dominates Y. declarative clause A clause type with an unmarked word order, usually, although not exclusively, used to make a statement. deontic modality A type of modality typically concerned with an action that is imposed by some authority, e.g. a speaker imposing an obligation on someone. determinative A class of words that occur before nouns that function as Specifier in a noun phrase structure; e.g. the, this, that, those etc. directive A pragmatic label that denotes the main use of an imperative clause, i.e. getting someone to do something. Direct Object (DO) A grammatical function label that denotes an entity that undergoes whatever it is that the preceding verb expresses. For example, in the sentence Greg hates estate agents, the noun phrase estate agents is the DO of the verb hate. distribution Refers to the arrangement of words, phrases etc. in sentence structure. Thus, in observing that in English sentences noun phrases typically occur in Subject position, Direct Object position, and as Complements of prepositions, we are talking about the distribution of NPs. ditransitive verb A verb that takes an Indirect Object and a Direct Object, as in the following sentence: Simone sent me a letter, where me is the IO, and a letter is the DO. Do so-Substitution A syntactic process whereby a string of words is replaced by do so. For example, in Maria bought a present for her daughter, and Sara did so too, the proform do so replaces the words bought a present for her daughter. do-support Refers to the insertion of the dummy auxiliary do to add emphasis, to form interrogative clauses etc., in sentences which do not already contain an auxiliary. Thus, if we want to change the sentence Denise opened the file into an interrogative clause, we need to add do: Did Denise open the file? dominate A node X dominates a node Y in a tree diagram if we can trace an upward path from Y to X along the branches of the tree. X immediately dominates Y if we go up only one step in

311

Glossary the tree. In the following schematic tree, X dominates all the nodes beneath it, but it only immediately dominates Y and Z:

dummy auxiliary do A meaningless auxiliary verb that is inserted by do-support to effect emphasis, to form interrogative structures etc. dummy pronoun See nonreferential it. dynamic modality A type of modality typically concerned with the dispositions of the Subject of a sentence, e.g. their ability to do something. epistemic modality A type of modality concerned with the knowledge that language users have, and the conclusions they can draw on the basis of that knowledge. exclamation A pragmatic notion that denotes the physical act of producing an utterance that expresses an emotion, e.g. surprise, anger etc. exclamative clause A clause type that is typically used to make an exclamation; e.g. What a great journey he made! existential construction A bare existential sentence has the form There + be + semantic Subject + (Adjunct(s)); e.g. There is a party in the garden. An extended existential sentence has the form There + be + semantic Subject + extension, e.g. There are several flags flying on top of the town hall. The presentational construction is also a kind of existential construction. existential there The word there that we find in propositions that are concerned with the existence of people, things etc.; e.g. There is a cat in the garage. See also existential construction, locative there, nonreferential it, pleonastic elements. Experiencer A thematic role that indicates the entity that experiences the action or event denoted by a predicate in a proposition. expletive element See pleonastic elements. extended existential See existential construction. external argument The argument that functions as Subject in a proposition. Extraposition The movement of a string of words to the right in a sentence. In the following sentence It is wonderful to see you, the Subject clause to see you has been moved to a sentencefinal position, and nonreferential it has been put in its place. The following sentence exemplifies Extraposition from NP (ENP): Most newspapers are recycled that are left on the train every morning. feature See inflectional features, syntactic features. finite A term applied to a verb to indicate that it carries tense. Also applied to a verb phrase, clause or sentence that contains a finite verb. See also nonfinite. form See grammatical form. function See grammatical function. genitive case This is the form that (pro)nouns occur in when, for example, they indicate possession, as in His relatives live in Russia, Kate’s book. Given Before New Principle The tendency for given information to be placed before new information in sentences. Goal A thematic role that indicates the location or entity in the direction of which something moves. gradability This refers to the property of adjectives (and some adverbs) to express degrees of application of some notion. Thus, the property of being warm can be graded, because we can have warmer and warmest (these are comparative and superlative forms, respectively) and also very warm, where the adjective is preceded by an intensifier.

312

Glossary gradience The phenomenon whereby we have more or less typical members of grammatical categories (subsective gradience), or whereby elements display distributional properties of two word classes (intersective gradience). grammar The set of rules pertaining to word and sentence structure in (a) language. grammatical form A grammatical notion that refers to the syntactic categories that we can assign an element or group of elements to. For example, those cats is a noun phrase, and within this noun phrase we distinguish a determinative and a noun. Each of these elements van also be assigned a grammatical function label. See also inflectional form. grammatical function A syntactic notion that refers to the grammatical role played by a linguistic unit inside a larger unit such as a clause or phrase, e.g. Subject, Direct Object, Indirect Object and Adjunct inside clauses, and Head, Modifier, Specifier inside phrases. See also grammatical form. grammatical indeterminacy The phenomenon whereby grammatical classification is uncertain due to gradience. grammaticalisation A process in grammar that takes place over time, whereby elements that formerly behaved like separate individual lexical items are regrouped and attain a particular grammatical function; e.g. Specifier. Head A grammatical function label that refers to the principal element in a phrase whose category determines the category of that phrase. Heavy NP Shift (HNPS) Movement to the right of a noun phrase that is heavy by virtue of containing a postmodifying prepositional phrase or clause. For example, in the following sentence the NP three bibles that were bound in leather has been moved across the PP to Rome under HNPS: I sent – to Rome [NP three bibles that were bound in leather]. idiom An expression that is unique to a particular language. The meaning of an idiom cannot be derived from its constituent parts. For example, the phrase paint the town red means ‘to have a good time while going out’ only in English. idiom chunk A portion of an idiom. immediately dominate See dominate. imperative clause A clause type that usually lacks a Subject and is generally used to issue a directive; e.g. Go home; Leave your belongings in the cloakroom. Indirect Object (IO) A grammatical function label that denotes an entity that expresses the Benefactive or Goal of whatever it is that the preceding verb expresses. For example, in the sentence Greg sent the estate agent the document, the noun phrase estate agent is the IO of the verb send. inflectional features The following features are positioned in the Inflection node: [+Tense], [–Tense], [+Present], [–Present], [+Agr], [–Agr]. See also syntactic features. Inflection node (I-node) The node in a tree diagram that contains inflectional features carrying information about agreement and tense. inflectional form The form of a word as determined by a particular grammatical context. Thus, sings is an inflectional form of the verb sing, which occurs after a third person singular Subject in the present tense, and bicycles is the plural inflectional form of the noun bicycle, which can be placed in the empty slot in the following sentence: I bought two –. inflection phrase (IP) A phrase headed by ‘I’. information packaging The way in which information can be presented in sentences and clauses using different grammatical structures. Insertion Test A constituency test that stipulates that inserted parenthetical elements can only occur at S-constituent boundaries. Instrument A thematic role that denotes the medium by which the action or event denoted by the predicate in a proposition is carried out. For example, in The knife cut the bread the Subject carries the role of Instrument. interjection A minor word class consisting of such words as oh, ah, ouch, yuck etc. 313

Glossary internal argument An argument that is positioned to the right of the verb in English, e.g. a Direct Object or an Indirect Object. interrogative clause A clause type characterised by Subject–Auxiliary Inversion, usually, although not exclusively, used to ask questions; e.g. Have you looked at this article? interrogative tag (sometimes called tag question) An interrogative string attached to a sentence; e.g. You live in Berlin, don’t you? intersective gradience See gradience. intonation The melodic pitch pattern of an utterance. intransitive preposition A preposition that does not take an NP Complement, as in He came in. intransitive verb A verb that does not take any internal arguments. Left Dislocation The displacement of a constituent to the leftmost position in a sentence, with a ‘copy’ of it remaining in situ in pronoun form; e.g. That horror movie, I loved it. lexeme The dictionary entry of a word. For example, the nouns cat and cats belong to the lexeme cat, and the verbs sing and sings belong to the lexeme sing. lexical verb A verb that can stand on its own in a sentence without the need for an accompanying auxiliary verb. Sometimes called a main verb. licensing This term is used in some grammars to refer to the property of verbs etc. selecting particular types of Complements. For example, the verb devour licenses a Direct Object in the shape of a noun phrase. Linguistically Significant Generalisation (LSG) A generalisation that expresses a regular patterning observed in a particular language or across several languages. linguistics The field of language studies. linking verb See copula. Locative A thematic role that obligatorily specifies the place where the action or event denoted by a predicate in a proposition is situated. locative there The word there indicating a location; e.g. I live there. lumping This occurs when lexical items, phrases etc. that behave in a distributionally similar way are assigned to the same category. See also splitting. main clause A clause that is coextensive with the sentence as a whole. It may contain one or more subordinate clauses, but is itself is not subordinate to any other clause. In They felt that the result was disappointing, the main clause is the whole sentence which contains that the result was disappointing as a subordinate clause. main verb See lexical verb. matrix clause A clause that contains a subordinate clause within it. Some matrix clauses are also main clauses. Thus, in Larry investigated whether Mary thought that the butler did it, the entire sentence is a main clause, but it is also the matrix clause for the subordinate clause whether Mary thought that the butler did it. In turn, this clause is the matrix clause for that the butler did it. Meaning Test A constituency test that gives an indication as to how sentences can be carved up into units on the basis of meaning. Thus, in the sentence Jake wants Drew to stay, we can argue that Drew to stay is a constituent which functions as the Direct Object of want, and furthermore that Drew is not the DO, on the basis of the fact that Jake didn’t want ‘Drew’, but what he wanted was for ‘Drew to stay’. modal auxiliary An auxiliary verb that expresses modality; e.g. can, could, may, might, must, will etc. modality A semantic notion concerned with concepts such as ‘necessity’, ‘doubt’, ‘permission’, ‘intention’ etc., typically, but not exclusively, expressed by modal verbs. Modifier A grammatical function label which is sometimes used to refer to Adjuncts inside phrases, e.g. the adjective phrase very hot functions as a Modifier inside the larger noun phrase a very hot day: [NP a [AP very hot] day].

314

Glossary mood A grammatical notion which refers to the way in which the grammar of a language encodes the semantic notion of modality. morphology As part of grammar, the study of the internal structure of words. mother A node X is the mother of a node Y if X immediately dominates Y. movement The displacement of linguistic material in a sentence to the left or to the right. Only constituents can be moved, so movement can be used as a constituency test. See also Extraposition, Heavy NP Shift, NP-Movement, Subject-to-Subject Raising, ThoughMovement, Topicalisation, Verb Movement, VP-Preposing, Wh-Movement. negated modal verb A modal verb with a negative element tagged onto it; e.g. can’t, won’t, mustn’t etc. NICE properties NICE is an acronym for the four properties that identify auxiliary verbs: negation, inversion, code and emphasis. node A position in a tree diagram from which one or more branches emanate. nominative case The form that pronouns occur in when they function as Subject; e.g. He called me. (Also called subjective case.) nonfinite A term applied to a verb to indicate that it does not carry tense. Also applied to a verb phrase, clause or sentence that contains a nonfinite verb. See also finite. nonreferential it The it that we find in expressions pertaining to the weather (e.g. It is raining) or in constructions which exhibit Extraposition (e.g. It is wonderful to see you.). See also referential it. noun One of the major word classes that is usually said to denote a person, place or thing, but which is more adequately defined by reference to distributional criteria. For example, the fact that members of this class can be preceded by a determinative, or can take certain types of suffixes, such as the plural ending -s etc. noun phrase (NP) A phrase headed by a noun. NP-Movement The displacement of NPs in raising and passive constructions. Occam’s Razor The principle that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. For example, we should not set up more word classes than we need. one-place (monadic) predicate A predicate that takes only one argument, namely an external argument; e.g. sleep in the sentence I was sleeping. One-Substitution A substitution process whereby an N-bar constituent is replaced by the proform one. particle This word class label is given in some frameworks to the preposition-like elements in phrasal verbs; e.g. up in look up. In this book we have argued that we can dispense with this word class. passive A term applied to a sentence or clause in which the Subject is presented as the Patient of the action described by the predicate, and the Agent is positioned in an optional prepositional phrase introduced by by, as in This book was written by a politician. See also active. past participle A verb form ending in -ed or -en, other than the past tense form; e.g. I was fired. past tense See tense. Patient A thematic role that is carried by the ‘undergoer’ of an action or event denoted by the predicate in a proposition. perfect aspect A grammatical notion which, in its present tense form, signifies that a situation expressed by the aspectual auxiliary have combined with a lexical verb ending in -ed or -en (the past participle) in a particular sentence or clause is viewed as being located in the past, but as having relevance at the current moment. Thus, the sentence I have lived in London since 1987 signifies that I began living in London in 1987, and am still doing so at the moment of speaking. See also aspect, progressive aspect. person A three-level grammatical system, applied to pronouns and referring expressions, both in the singular and plural:

315

Glossary

1st person 2nd person 3rd person

singular I you he/she/it

plural we you they

Singular or plural referring expressions are also taken to be third person. phrasal verb A complex intransitive or transitive verb that consists of two parts: a verb and a particle; e.g. look up (transitive; e.g. He looked up the word/He looked the word up), give up (intransitive; e.g. She gave up.). In this book we have argued that we can do away with phrasal verbs. See also phrasal-prepositional verb, prepositional verb, verb-preposition construction. phrasal-prepositional verb A complex intransitive or transitive verb that consists of three or four parts: an intransitive verb and two particles; e.g. put up with, or a transitive verb, an NP and two particles; e.g. fob NP off with. See also phrasal verb, prepositional verb, verbpreposition construction. phrase A string of words that behaves as a constituent and has a Head as its principal element. We distinguish noun phrases, verb phrases, adjective phrases, prepositional phrases and adverb phrases. phrase marker See tree diagram. pleonastic elements Words that have no semantic content and often act as Subject slot fillers. In English, nonreferential it and existential there are pleonastic elements. pragmatics The study of language use, especially the effects of context on interpretation. precede A relationship between two nodes in a tree diagram: a node X precedes a node Y if X occurs to the left of Y. Predicate A grammatical function label applied to the verb phrase in a sentence or clause. The Predicate of a sentence is syntactically defined as comprising all the linguistic material to the right of the Subject. In this sense of the term, Predicate is on a par with notions such as Subject, Predicator, Direct Object, Adjunct etc. See also predicate (with a lower case ‘p’). predicate A semantic label that denotes an element that requires the specification of the participants (arguments) in the proposition expressed. Thus, in the sentence We like parties, the predicate is the verb like which requires a Subject argument and a Direct Object argument. See also Predicate. predicative position The syntactic position that immediately follows a linking verb. For example, in the sentence He is in love, the prepositional phrase in love is in predicative position. See also attributive position. Predicator A grammatical function label applied to the verb in a sentence or clause. prefix See affix. preposition One of the major word classes; a word which usually expresses a spatial relationship of some sort, either literally or metaphorically; e.g. by, in, at, through, with etc. They can be transitive or intransitive. prepositional phrase (PP) A phrase headed by a preposition. prepositional verb A verb that takes a prepositional phrase as its Complement; e.g. rely on NP, look at NP etc. See also phrasal verb, phrasal-prepositional verb, verb-preposition construction. presentational construction An existential construction in which verbs such as appear, arise, arrive, begin, come, develop, emerge, enter, escape, exist, live, loom, occur, remain, rise and stand appear; e.g. There emerged a monster from the sea. present participle A verb form ending in -ing; e.g. I was singing. present tense See tense. Principle of End Weight The tendency for heavy information to be placed at the end of sentences. proform A word that can substitute for another word or string of words. The pronouns are examples of proforms, as is do so in Do so-Substitution.

316

Glossary progressive aspect A grammatical notion which signifies that the situation expressed by the verb or the verb and its Complement(s) in a particular sentence or clause is viewed as ongoing. In English, progressive aspect is syntactically expressed by the aspectual auxiliary be combined with a lexical verb ending in -ing (the present participle), as in He is jogging. See also aspect, perfect aspect. projection A term in X-bar syntax to indicate the phrase level (Xʺ/XP), bar level (Xʹ) or lexical level (X). pronoun A subclass of noun that typically denotes people (personal pronouns; e.g. he, she, they, we etc.), possession (possessive pronouns; e.g. mine, hers, his, etc.), and a number of further concepts. proposition A semantic notion that denotes a situation or action expressed by means of a sentence or clause. Proposition The thematic role assigned to propositions. pseudocleft sentence A sentence that conforms to the following pattern: wh-item + . . . + form of be + focus ; e.g. What Janice did was laugh out loud. question A pragmatic label that denotes the main use of an interrogative clause. Thus, Will you dance with me? is an interrogative structure which can be used as a question to elicit either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. Other clause types can also be questions. So, the declarative clause You will dance with me? would normally be used to make a statement, but can be used as a question if it is pronounced with a rising intonation. Raising See Subject-to-Subject Raising. raising verb A verb that can appear in a Subject-to-Subject Raising construction, e.g. appear, become, look, seem, as in:

rank scale The different levels (word, phrase etc.) that can be used to analyse sentences and clauses. referential it The pronoun it that has referential content, as in Where is my coat? It is over there. See also nonreferential it, pleonastic elements. referring expression A linguistic expression that denotes a person or entity in the real world. For example, in a particular context of utterance, the referring expression Nick denotes an individual with the name Nick. relative clause A clause beginning in which, who or that (and a few other elements) that supplies additional information about the element it accompanies. For example, in the book that I bought, the relative clause modifies the noun book. Relative clauses can be restrictive or nonrestrictive. Right Dislocation The displacement of a constituent to the rightmost position in a sentence, with a ‘copy’ of it remaining in situ in pronoun form; e.g. I really liked it, that horror movie. Right Node Raising (RNR) A displacement process exemplified by the following sentence: Pete bought –, but Hans read –, today’s newspaper. Here, the noun phrase today’s newspaper, which acts as the Direct Object of both buy and read, has been moved to the right and is raised from a right node position. scope A semantic notion that is to do with the range or extent of application of a particular element. selectional restrictions A semantic/pragmatic term that refers to the restrictions that are placed on lexical items (and their associated phrases) occurring in particular argument positions. Thus, the meaning of the verb sleep dictates that it cannot normally take an inanimate entity as its Subject expression (cf. *The CD slept). semantic role See thematic role. semantics The study of meaning. See also pragmatics. 317

Glossary sentence The largest unit in syntax. It is usually, although not entirely satisfactorily, defined as a string of words that expresses a proposition, and that begins in a capital letter and ends in a full stop. sister Two nodes X and Y are sisters if they share the same mother node in a tree diagram. small clause (SC) A string of words without a verb that embodies a Subject-Predicate relationship. Thus, in I consider him a difficult person the underlined sequence is a small clause. Somewhere Else Test A constituency test that stipulates that a string of words is plausibly a constituent in a particular context, if it can occur as a constituent in a context other than the one under investigation. Source A thematic role that denotes the location or entity from which something moves. Specifier A grammatical function label applied to elements positioned immediately under XP in a tree diagram and as a sister to X-bar (where X stands for N, V, A, P or Adv). splitting This occurs when lexical items, phrases etc. that distributionally behave differently are assigned to different categories. See also lumping. statement A pragmatic label that denotes the main use of declarative clauses. For example, We danced all night is a declarative clause which is used as a statement. structure A grammatical combination of morphological and/or syntactic building blocks (affixes, nouns, noun phrases, adjectives, verbs etc.) that conforms to the rules of grammar. subcategorisation The requirement of a predicate to take a category (or categories) of a particular type as its Complement(s). Thus, the verb devour subcategorises a noun phrase, because we cannot leave out the NP in a sentence that contains this verb: *The kids devoured. The syntactic ‘needs’ of predicates are specified in subcategorisation frames. subcategorisation frame A graphic way of representing the subcategorisation requirements of a particular predicate. Thus, the subcategorisation frame for the verb devour is as follows: devour (verb) [− , NP] Here ‘–’ indicates the position of the verb, followed by the category it requires. Subject Often defined as the entity that carries out the action expressed by the verb in a sentence; e.g. Carrie in Carrie baked a cake. However, because not all Subjects denote Agents (cf. e.g. Carrie felt ill), they are better defined by making reference to their distribution. Thus, Subjects are entities that invert with auxiliary verbs in interrogative clauses (e.g. Will she phone me?), and they are repeated in interrogative tags (e.g. She will phone me, won’t she?), etc. Subject–Auxiliary Inversion A process whereby a Subject and an auxiliary verb exchange places when an interrogative clause is formed; e.g. Otto can play the piano. > Can Otto play the piano? Subject-to-Subject Raising A process that involves the displacement of a noun phrase from the Subject position of a subordinate nonfinite clause to the main clause Subject position. See also raising verb. subordinate clause A clause that is dependent on (an element in) another clause. Thus, in the sentence I believe that we will have a hot summer, the clause that we will have a hot summer is dependent on an element in the main clause: it is the Direct Object of the verb believe. subordinating conjunction (or subordinator) A word that links a subordinate clause with the clause it is dependent on. There are two subtypes: complementisers (that, if, whether, for), which introduce Complement clauses, and adjunctisers (although, because, in order that, since, when, while etc.), which introduce Adjunct clauses. See also conjunction. subsective gradience See gradience. substitution The replacement of a word or string of words by a proform. See also constituency test. suffix See affix.

318

Glossary superlative form The form of adjectives (and some adverbs) that ends in -est (e.g. quietest, fastest). Sometimes, a periphrastic form is used; e.g. most competent (rather than *competentest). syntactic argumentation The process of establishing the motivating reasons for adopting certain grammatical analyses and rejecting others. syntactic features The features [± N] and [± V] that are used to characterise the major word classes as follows: noun = [+ N, − V]; verb = [−N, + V]; adjective = [+ N, + V]; preposition = [− N, − V]. See also inflectional features. syntax As part of grammar, the study of sentence structure. tense The grammatical encoding of the semantic notion of time. thematic role Also known as semantic role, theta role and θ-role; the particular role that the arguments in a sentence play; e.g. Agent, Patient etc. thematic structure A graphic way of showing the thematic roles associated with a particular predicate. Thus, the thematic structure for the verb devour is as follows: devour (verb) [1 , 2 ] This shows that devour requires two noun phrase arguments, one of which (the underlined external argument, i.e. the Subject) carries the role of Agent, whereas the other (the internal argument, i.e. the Direct Object) carries the role of Patient. Theme A thematic role that is carried by an entity that is moved by the action or event denoted by the predicate in a proposition. Though-Movement A syntactic process that can be used as a constituency test. It is exemplified by the following sentence pair: He said that he would leave them alone. > Leave them alone though he said he would . . . This shows that the string leave them alone is a constituent (a VP). three-place (triadic) predicate A predicate that takes three arguments; e.g. send in We sent her a birthday card. Topicalisation The displacement of a phrase to a clause-initial position for emphasis or prominence, as in Films, I enjoy –. transitive preposition A preposition that takes an NP, PP or clause as its Complement, as in since the war (began), from under the table. transitive verb A verb that takes a Direct Object as its internal argument. tree diagram A graphic representation of the structure of a (subpart of a) sentence, clause, phrase etc. Also known as a phrase marker. two-place (dyadic) predicate A predicate that takes two arguments, namely an external argument and an internal argument. Thus, in She wrote a letter, the verb write is a two-place predicate, she is the external argument, and a letter is the internal argument. utterance A pragmatic term that refers to a sentence (phrase or word) used in a particular context. Vʹ-Deletion The deletion of a V'-constituent, as in the following example: Henry will read the instructions attentively, but Anna will – carelessly. where the V' read the instructions has been deleted. verb One of the major word classes. Verbs typically denote an activity of some sort (shout, work, travel etc.), but can also denote states (be, sit, exist etc.) verb complementation A notion that refers to the kinds of Complement(s) that a verb can take. See also subcategorisation. Verb Movement The displacement of a verb from inside the verb phrase to the I-node. verb phrase (VP) A phrase headed by a verb. verb-preposition construction A construction that involves a verb and a closely related preposition; e.g. look up, see through, throw out. See also phrasal verb, phrasal-prepositional verb, prepositional verb.

319

Glossary VP-Preposing The movement of a verb phrase to a sentence-initial or clause-initial position, as in:

Here the VP go to Rio has been fronted under VP-Preposing. wh-element See wh-word. Wh-Movement The displacement of a phrase that contains a word that begins with the letters ‘wh’. Thus, in Which film did you see?, the wh-phrase which film has been moved from a position immediately following the verb to the beginning of the sentence. wh-word A word that begins with the letters ‘wh’; e.g. what, which, who, including how. word The smallest unit in syntax. word class A group of words, the members of which can be shown to behave syntactically in the same way. For example, nouns occur as the Head of noun phrases, they can be preceded by determinatives etc. X-bar syntax A theory of syntax that treats all phrases as being structured in the same way, as follows:

X stands for N, V, A, P or Adv. Notice that optional Adjuncts are sisters of X-bar (here adjoined to the left, but they can also be adjoined to the right), while Complements, if present, are sisters of the Head X. yes/no interrogative A syntactic term that refers to an interrogative clause that elicits either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response, as in Are you cold? yes/no question A pragmatic term that refers to an utterance that can be interpreted as eliciting a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. As a rule, such an utterance would syntactically be a yes/no interrogative, but it need not be, as in the following example: She never went to San Francisco? Syntactically, this is a declarative clause, but pragmatically it has the force of a yes/no question.

320

REFERENCE WORKS: DICTIONARIES, ENCYCLOPEDIAS, GRAMMARS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS ON THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

All linguists make use of a great number of technical terms, many of which you have become familiar with in this book. Unfortunately, they do not always use the terminology in the same way. Thus, very often a particular term is used in different senses by different linguists and, to make things worse, different terms are often used to mean the same thing. There are many dictionaries and encyclopedias to help you clear up such terminological confusions. Below I have listed some reference works which you may find useful. I have also listed a number of English grammars and other books on the English language that you might find helpful when studying syntax. Be aware of the fact that their approach may differ quite considerably from the one adopted here.

Dictionaries Aarts, B., S. Chalker and E. Weiner (2014) Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn). Deals primarily with grammatical concepts from traditional and descriptive grammar, but also briefly discusses some of the terminology used in theoretical approaches. Available on Oxford Reference Online to which your university or public library may subscribe. See: www. oxfordreference.com Brown, K. and J. Miller (2013) The Cambridge Dictionary of Linguistics. Covers the main terminology of linguistics in concise entries. Crystal, D. (2006) Words, Words, Words (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Not a dictionary, but an informative and entertaining book on words. Crystal, D. (2008) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (Oxford: Blackwell, 6th edn). Most comprehensive of the books listed in this section. Contains terminology from all fields of linguistics, ranging from syntax, morphology, semantics, pragmatics, phonetics and phonology to discourse studies and functional linguistics. Contains both traditional and theoretical terminology. An absolute must. Leech, G. (2006) A Glossary of English Grammar (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Excellent compact glossary of all the important terms in English grammar.

321

Reference Works Leech, G., B. Cruickshank and R. Ivanic (2001) An A–Z of English Grammar and Usage (London: Longman, 2nd edn). Very useful and clearly written dictionary of descriptive grammatical terminology. Contains explanatory tables, diagrams and many examples. Matthews, P.H. (2007) Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn). Wide-ranging dictionary of key terms in linguistics, schools of linguistics, language theory, language families etc. Available on Oxford Reference Online to which your university or public library may subscribe. See: www.oxfordreference.com Merriam Webster Online A free online dictionary. See: www.merriam-webster.com Oxford English Dictionary Largest and most comprehensive dictionary of the English language in 20 volumes; also contains guidance on linguistic terminology. Your university or public library may subscribe to the online version. See: www.oed.com Peters, P. (2013) The Cambridge Dictionary of English Grammar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). A comprehensive dictionary of grammatical terms. Swan, M. (2017) Practical English Usage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4th edn). Classic reference work dealing with a wide spectrum of topics to do with English grammar and usage. Mostly intended for those who teach English as a foreign language. Trask, R.L. (1993) A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics (Abingdon: Routledge). Deals only with grammar in the narrow sense, i.e. syntax and morphology. Written in a very clear style. Trask, R.L. (1999) Language: The Basics (Abingdon: Routledge, 2nd edn). An accessible introduction to linguistics. Trask, R.L. (2000) The Penguin Dictionary of English Grammar (London: Penguin). A concise and introductory-level glossary of terms. Trask, R.L. (2007) Language and Linguistics: The Key Concepts (ed. P. Stockwell) (Abingdon: Routledge, 2nd edn). Contains entries on many terms that anyone interested in the field might want to know more about.

Encyclopedias Bright, W. (ed.) (1992) International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Sizeable one-volume work with shortish entries written by specialists.

322

Reference Works Brown, K. (ed.) (2006) The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (Oxford: Elsevier, 2nd edn). Mammoth 14-volume work of reference containing articles written by specialists on just about everything that pertains to language and linguistics. Collinge, N.E. (ed.) (1989) An Encyclopedia of Language (Abingdon: Routledge). A one-volume encyclopedia that deals with linguistic topics in fairly lengthy articles written by specialists. Not really useful for quick reference. Crystal, D. (2003) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn). Like its sister volume on general language studies, this is a wonderful, comprehensive and quite indispensable book for anyone interested in the English language. Crystal, D. (2010) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edn). Magnificent and delightful reference work dealing with all aspects of language. Frawley, W.J. (ed.) (2003) International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn). Has 850 entries on all areas of linguistics. Available on Oxford Reference Online, which your university or public library may subscribe to. See: www.oxfordreference.com Hogan, P. C. (ed.) (2011) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Languages Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Another one-volume encyclopedia with detailed and sometimes technical entries on a wide range of topics. Not really useful as a quick reference work. McArthur, T., J. Lam-McArthur and L. Fontaine (eds.) (2018) The Oxford Companion to the English Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn). This text covers the entire field of English language studies, including usage, style, varieties, the language of literature etc. It is available on Oxford Reference Online, which your university or public library may subscribe to. See: www.oxfordreference.com Malmkjær, K. (ed.) (2013) The Linguistics Encyclopedia (Abingdon: Routledge, 3rd edn). A one-volume work with article-length entries on all areas of linguistics.

Grammars and other (text)books on the English language Aarts, B. (2011) Oxford Modern English Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Aarts, B., A. McMahon and L. Hinrichs (eds) (2021) The Handbook of English Linguistics (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2nd edn). Aarts, B., J. Bowie and G. Popova (eds) (2020) The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Aarts, F. and J. Aarts (1982) English Syntactic Structures: Functions and Categories in Sentence Analysis (Oxford: Pergamon Press). Berk, L. (1999) English Syntax: from Word to Discourse (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Biber, D., S. Johanssson, G. Leech et al. (2021) Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Amsterdam: Benjamins).

323

Reference Works Brinton, L. and D.M. Brinton (2010) The Linguistic Structure of Modern English (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). Burton-Roberts, N. (2016) Analysing Sentences (London: Longman, 4th edn). Crystal, D. (2006) The Fight for English: How Language Pundits Ate, Shot, and Left (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Crystal, D. (2017) Making Sense: The Glamorous Story of English Grammar (London: Profile Books). Culpeper, J., F. Katamba, P. Kerswill, R. Wodak and T. McEnery (eds) (2017) English Language: Description, Variation and Context (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2nd edn). Culpeper, J., B. Malory, C. Nance, D. van Olmen, D. Atanasova, S. Kirkham and A. Casaponsa. (2023) (eds) Introducing Linguistics. (Abingdon: Routledge). Depraetere, I. and C. Langford (2019) Advanced English Grammar: A Linguistic Approach. (London: Bloomsbury, 2nd edn). Dixon, R.M.W. (2005) A Semantic Approach to English Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn). Gramley, S., V. Gramley and K.-M. Pätzold (2020) A Survey of Modern English (Abingdon: Routledge, 3rd edn). Greenbaum, S. and R. Quirk (1990) A Student’s Grammar of the English Language (London: Longman). (This is a condensed version of Quirk et al. 1985.) Huddleston, R. (1984) Introduction to the Grammar of English (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Huddleston, R. and G.K. Pullum (eds) (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Huddleston, R., G.K. Pullum and B. Reynolds (2022) A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn). (Based on Huddleston and Pullum 2002.) Kuiper, K. and W. Scott Allan (2010) An Introduction to English Language (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 3rd edn). Leech, G. and J. Svartvik (2003) A Communicative Grammar of English (London: Longman, 3rd edn). McCawley, J. (1998) The Syntactic Phenomena of English (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn). Morenberg, M. (2014) Doing Grammar (New York: Oxford University Press, 5th edn). Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (London: Longman). Svartvik, J. and G. Leech (2006) English: One Tongue, Many Voices (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Wierzbicka, A. (2006) English: Meaning and Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

On your smartphone or tablet Grammar: the interactive Grammar of English (iGE) The interactive Grammar of English (iGE) is a comprehensive and authoritative course in English grammar specifically designed for mobile devices such as phones and tablets. It is written for everyone with an interest in the grammar of English and takes you from basic elements to complex constructions: ●

324

It contains many interactive exercises and quizzes, as well as a complete and searchable glossary of grammatical terms.

Reference Works ●

It is accessible, with clear explanations and colourful notation.

●

It uses lots of examples of real language taken from the 1 million word ICE-GB Corpus, compiled and analysed at the Survey of English Usage, University College London (UCL) (www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage).

●

Based on recent research and best practice in the field, iGE is written by Bas Aarts and Sean Wallis at UCL with input from Gerald Nelson.

For more information see: www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/apps/index.htm Spelling: English Spelling and Punctuation (ESP) An app to help you improve your spelling. For more information see: www.ucl.ac.uk/ english-usage/apps/index.htm Academic writing: Academic Writing in English (AWE) An app to help you with your academic writing skills. For more information see: www. ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/apps/index.htm Englicious Englicious is an online library of original English language teaching resources, especially grammar. It can be found at www.englicious.org Bas Aarts’ Grammarianism Blog https://grammarianism.wordpress.com/ Bas Aarts’ FutureLearn course English Grammar: All You Need to Know https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/english-grammar-all-you-need-to-know

325

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aarts, B. (1989) ‘Verb-Preposition Constructions and Small Clauses in English’. Journal of Linguistics, 25(2): 277–90. Aarts, B. (1992) Small Clauses in English: The Nonverbal Types (New York: Mouton de Gruyter). Aarts, B. (1995) ‘Secondary Predicates in English’, in B. Aarts and C.F. Meyer (eds) The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 75–101. Aarts, B. (1998) ‘Binominal Noun Phrases in English’. Transactions of the Philological Society, 96(1): 117–58. Aarts, B. (2007a) Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Aarts, B. (2007b) ‘In Defence of Distributional Analysis, pace Croft’. Studies in Language, 31(2): 431–43. Aarts, B. (2011) Oxford Modern English Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Aarts, B. (2020) ‘Syntactic argumentation’, in B. Aarts, J. Bowie and G. Popova (eds) (2020) The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 21–39. Aarts, B., A. McMahon and L. Hinrichs (eds) (2021) The Handbook of English Linguistics (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2nd edn). Aarts, B., S. Chalker and E. Weiner (2014) Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn). Aarts, B., D. Denison, E. Keizer and G. Popova (eds) (2004) Fuzzy Grammar: A Reader (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Aarts, F. and J. Aarts (1982) English Syntactic Structures: Functions and Categories in Sentence Analysis (Oxford: Pergamon Press). Adams, V. (1973) An Introduction to English Word-Formation (London: Longman). Adams, V. (2001) Complex Words in English (Harlow : Pearson Education/Longman). Aitchison, J. (2012) Words in the Mind (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 4th edn). Akmajian, A. and A. Lehrer (1976) ‘NP-like Quantifiers and the Problem of Determining the Head of an NP’. Linguistic Analysis, 2(4): 395–413. Allwood, J., L.-G. Andersson and O. Dahl (1977) Logic in Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Altmann, G. (1999) The Ascent of Babel: An Exploration of Language, Mind, and Understanding (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Bauer, L. (2003) Introducing Linguistic Morphology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2nd edn). Biber, D., S. Johanssson, G. Leech, S. Conrad and E. Finegan (2021) Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). Binnick, R. (2021) ‘Aspect and Aspectuality’, in B. Aarts. A. McMahon and L. Hinrichs (eds) The Handbook of English Linguistics (Chichester: Joh Wiley & Sons), pp. 183–205. Birner, B.J. and G. Ward (1998) Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). Bolinger, D. (1977) Meaning and Form (London: Longman). Burton-Roberts, N. (1991) ‘Prepositions, Adverbs, and Adverbials’, in I. Tieken Boon van Ostade and J. Frankis (eds) Language: Usage and Description (Amsterdam: Rodopi), pp. 159–72.

326

Bibliography Burton-Roberts, N. (2016) Analysing Sentences (London: Longman, 4th edn). Chalmers, A.F. (2013) What Is This Thing Called Science? (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 4th edn). Chomsky, N. ([1955]1975) The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (New York: Plenum Press). Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures (The Hague: Mouton). Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Chomsky (1970) ‘Remarks on Nominalisation’, in R.A. Jacobs and P.S. Rosenbaum (eds) Readings in English Transformational Grammar (Waltham, MA: Ginn), pp. 184–221. Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding (Dordrecht: Foris). Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origins and Use (New York: Praeger). Coates, J. (1983) The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries (London: Croom Helm). Collins, P.C. (1991) Cleft and Pseudo-cleft Constructions in English (Abingdon: Routledge). Collins, P.C. (2009) Modals and Quasi-Modals in English. Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 67 (Amsterdam: Rodopi). Comrie, B. (1985) Tense (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Croft, W. (2007) ‘Beyond Aristotle and Gradience: A Reply to Aarts’. Studies in Language, 31(2): 409–30. Crystal, D. (1967) ‘Word Classes in English’. Lingua, 17: 24–56. Reprinted in B. Aarts, D. Denison, E. Keizer and G. Popova (eds) (2004) Fuzzy Grammar: A Reader (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 191–211. Curme, G.O. (1935) A Grammar of the English Language, vol. II: Parts of Speech and Accidence (Boston, MA: Heath). De Costa, P. D. Crowther and J. Maloney (2019) (eds) Investigating World Englishes: Research Methodology and Practical Applications. (Abingdon: Routledge). Depraetere, I. and C. Langford (2019) Advanced English Grammar: A Linguistic Approach. (London: Bloomsbury, 2nd edn). Depraetere, I. and S. Reed (2021) ‘Mood and Modality in English’, in B. Aarts. A. McMahon and L. Hinrichs (eds) The Handbook of English Linguistics (Chichester: Wiley), pp. 207–28. Emonds, J. (1976) A Transformational Approach to English Syntax (New York: Academic Press). Fillmore, C.J. (1968) ‘The Case for Case’, in E. Bach and R.T. Harms (eds) Universals in Linguistic Theory (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston), pp. 1–88. Frawley, W. (1992) Linguistic Semantics (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum). Giegerich, H. (2012) The Morphology of -ly and the Categorial Status of ‘Adverbs’ in English. English Language and Linguistics, 16.1: 341–59. Givón, T. (1993) English Grammar, 2 vols (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). Gruber, J. (1976) Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics (1965 MIT dissertation) (New York: North Holland). Haegeman, L. (1994) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2nd edn). Haegeman, L. (2006) Thinking Syntactically: A Guide to Argumentation and Analysis (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers). Herbst, T. and S. Schüller (2008) Introduction to Syntactic Analysis: A Valency Approach (Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag). Huddleston, R. (1984) An Introduction to the Grammar of English (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Huddleston, R. and G.K. Pullum (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Jackendoff, R. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Jackendoff, R. (1977) X-Bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). 327

Bibliography Jackendoff, R. (1987) ‘The Status of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory’. Linguistic Inquiry, 18: 369–411. Kaltenböck, G. (2021) ‘Information Structure’, in B. Aarts. A. McMahon and L. Hinrichs (eds) The Handbook of English Linguistics (Chichester: Joh Wiley & Sons), pp. 461–82. Katamba, F. (2005) English Words (Abingdon: Routledge, 2nd edn). Katamba, F. and J. Stonham (2006) Morphology (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2nd edn). Kortmann, B. (2006) ‘Global Variation in the Anglophone World’ in B. Aarts. A. McMahon and L. Hinrichs (eds) The Handbook of English Linguistics (Chichester: Joh Wiley & Sons), pp. 631–53. Lange, C. and S. Leukert (2019). Corpus Linguistics and World Englishes. (Abingdon: Routledge). Leech, G. (2004) Meaning and the English Verb (London: Longman, 3rd edn). Lieber, R. Introducing Morphology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 3rd edn). Lightfoot, D. (1982) The Language Lottery: Towards a Biology of Grammars (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Ling Low, E. and A. Pakir (2017) (eds) World Englishes: Rethinking Paradigms. (Abingdon: Routledge). Matthews, P. (1993) Grammatical Theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). McCawley, J. (1998) The Syntactic Phenomena of English (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn). Michaelis, L. (2021) ‘Tense in English’, in B. Aarts. A. McMahon and L. Hinrichs (eds) The Handbook of English Linguistics (Chichester: Joh Wiley & Sons), pp. 163–81. Morenberg, M. (1991) Doing Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press; 5th edn, 2013). Newmeyer, F. (1983) Grammatical Theory: Its Limits and Its Possibilities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Palmer, F. (1987) The English Verb (London: Longman, 2nd edn). Palmer, F. (1990) Modality and the English Modals (London: Longman, 2nd edn). Patten, A. (2012) The English IT-cleft: A Constructional Account and a Diachronic Investigation (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter). Payne, J., R. Huddleston and G.K. Pullum (2010) ‘The distribution and category status of adjectives and adverbs’. Word Structure, 3(1): 31–81. Plag, I. (2018) Word Formation in English (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn). Postal, P. and G.K. Pullum (1988) ‘Expletive Noun Phrases in Subcategorised Positions’. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(4): 635–70. Prince, E.F. (1997) ‘On the Functions of Left-Dislocation in English Discourse’, in A. Kamio (ed.) Directions in Functional Linguistics (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 117–43. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (London: Longman). Radford, A. (1988) Transformational Grammar: A First Course (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Radford, A. (2009) Analysing English Sentences: A Minimalist Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Riemer, N. (2010) Introducing Semantics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Rochemont, M. and P. Culicover (1990) English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Salkie, R. (2010) ‘Will: Tense or Modal or Both?’ English Language and Linguistics, 14(2): 187–221. Schlesinger, I.M. (1995) ‘On the Semantics of the Direct Object’, in B. Aarts and C.F. Meyer (eds) The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 54–74. Schmerling, S. (1978) ‘Synonymy Judgments as Syntactic Evidence’, in P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9 (London: Academic Press), pp. 299–313. 328

Bibliography Schneider, E. (2021) English Around the World. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn). Selkirk, E. (1977) ‘Some Remarks on Noun Phrase Structure’, in P.W. Culicover, T. Wasow and A. Akmajian (eds) Formal Syntax (Orlando: Academic Press), pp. 285–316. Spencer, A. (1991) Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar (Oxford: Blackwell). Tallerman, M. (2019) Understanding Syntax (London: Edward Arnold, 5th edn). Taylor, J.R. (2003) Linguistic Categorization (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn). Valenzuela, J. (2017) Meaning in English. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Ward, G.L. (1988) The Semantics Bibliography gives year as and Pragmatics of Preposing (London: Garland). Ward, G.L. and B.J. Birner (2001) ‘Discourse and Information Structure’, in D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H.E. Hamilton (eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 119–37. Warner, A.R. (1993) English Auxiliaries: Structure and History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

329

ANSWER KEY FOR THE EXERCISES

Chapter 2 1. (i) [dummy auxiliary verb Did] [personal pronoun he] [lexical verb answer] [personal pronoun you] [adverb directly]? (ii) [proper noun James] [lexical verb flew] [preposition to] [proper noun Greece] [adjective last] [proper noun Wednesday]. (iii) [general personal pronoun It] [linking verb was] [determinative – indefinite article a] [adjective sunny] [common noun day] [preposition in] [proper noun Balamory]. (iv) [adverb Sadly] [general personal pronoun we] [lexical verb had] [common noun problems] [subordinating conjunction when] [general personal pronoun we] [lexical verb arrived]. – adjunctiser (v) [adverb Why] [dummy auxiliary verb did] [general personal pronoun you] [lexical verb say] [demonstrative pronoun that]? 2. (i) This is a noun which functions as the Head of the noun phrase your book. The word your is a possessive pronoun. The NP functions as the Subject of the sentence which is in the interrogative form. (ii) This is verb because it is followed by a Direct Object. Notice also the Adjunct yesterday (an NP) that has been added. 3. (i) True. (ii) False: it is a preposition which functions as the Head of the prepositional phrase in the world. (iii) False: it is a determinative. (iv) False: it is an adverb which modifies the adjective alike. (v) True. (vi) False: the Subject of the sentence is all shopping centres in the world. 4. darksome: This is an adjective modifying the noun burn. coop, comb: These are nouns: they are preceded by the preposition in, forming the PPs in coop and in comb. flutes: This is a verb because it has the third person singular present tense inflection -s. twindles: This is a verb because it has the third person singular present tense inflection -s. féll-frówning: like the preceding word, pitchblack, this is an adjective. Both modify the noun pool. degged: This is an adjective, as is the following dappled. These words can be modified by an adverb: completely degged/completely dappled. braes: This is a noun functioning as the Head of the noun phrase the braes inside the prepositional phrase of the braes. It is preceded by a determinative. flitches: This is a noun because it is followed by a prepositional phrase forming a longer noun phrase flitches of fern. Also notice the plural inflection. 330

Answer Key for the Exercises beadbonny: This is an adjective that modifies the Head noun ash inside the noun phrase the beadbonny ash. 5. [common noun taxi], [indefinite pronoun nobody], [indefinite pronoun some], [common noun page], [indefinite pronoun everybody], [proper noun New York], [general personal pronoun he], [possessive personal pronoun mine], [reciprocal personal pronoun each other] 6. In (i) and (ii) the words thousands, twos and threes have plural endings which would suggest that they are nouns. In (iii) the word three is preceded by a determinative, which would also suggest that it is a noun. In (iv) five is preceded by the preposition of in the prepositional phrase of five, which must again mean that five is a noun. So we have evidence that cardinal numerals are nouns. 7. In (i) the word second modifies a noun, which would be a reason for saying that it is an adjective. However, notice that we cannot say *The very second train. In (ii) the word first is preceded by very which would suggest that it is an adjective. So we have evidence that ordinal numerals are adjectives, but also some evidence against this analysis. 8. No, it isn’t possible, as the longest sentence in English does not exist. English sentences, clauses and phrases can be lengthened indefinitely through a mechanism called recursion. This involves units occurring within other units, as in the following phrase: the dog that chased the cat that ate the mouse that nibbled the cheese . . . Sentences can also be lengthened indefinitely through coordination: I saw the dog and the cat and the mouse and the bird . . . 9.

(i) We will assign a new tutor to this student. This is a modal auxiliary verb. (ii) Seamus is playing in the garden. This is a progressive auxiliary verb. (iii) She can’t have been being interrogated again. Here we have a sequence of auxiliary verbs: modal auxiliary + perfect auxiliary + progressive auxiliary + passive auxiliary. (iv) She mustn’t wait any longer. This is a negated modal auxiliary verb. (v) She may have been abroad. Here we again have a sequence of auxiliary verbs: modal auxiliary + perfect auxiliary. (vi) Janet hasn’t done her homework. This is a negated perfect auxiliary verb.

10.

(i) The present progressive auxiliary is is used here in combination with a lexical verb ending in -ing to indicate an ongoing situation at the present time. (ii) The past progressive auxiliary was is used here in combination with a lexical verb ending in -ing to indicate an ongoing situation at some point in the past. (iii) The present perfect auxiliary has is used here in combination with the past participle form of the lexical verb eat to indicate a situation that took place in the past, but has relevance at the present time. (iv) The past perfect auxiliary had is used here in combination with the past participle form of the lexical verb eat to indicate a situation that took place in the past prior to the reference point indicated by ‘the time his mum arrived’.

11.

(i) In this example we conceptualise sugar as individuated portions, perhaps in the shape of a sugar cube or a teaspoon, and this explains why it is used as a countable noun.

*12. In this example wooden is used metaphorically to indicate a ‘stiff’ performance, whereas in the first example it is used literally. *13. In all these examples it might seem that the italicised words are adjectives, because they are positioned before nouns, but if we apply the adjective criteria discussed in 331

Answer Key for the Exercises Section 3.3 we find that for (i)–(iii), apart from being able to occur in attributive position, none of the other criteria apply: *a very done deal, *a very then president, *a very moving target; *a more done deal, *a more then president, *a more moving target. We also cannot say *The president was then. We can, however, say The deal was done and The target was moving, but these do not count because they are a passive construction (cf. The deal was done by the government leaders) and a progressive construction, respectively. So, if done, then and moving in (i)–(iii) are not adjectives, which word class do they belong to? For (i) and (iii) the only option is ‘verb’, so in (i) done is a past participle modifying a noun, whereas in (iii) moving is a present participle modifying a noun. In (ii) we would have to say that an adverb modifies a noun. What about (iv)? Is moving also a verb in this example? No. Notice that we can say a very moving film and the film was (very) moving. In this case we would want to say that moving is an adjective, which indicates that the noun in front of which it is placed affects you emotionally. *14. In (i)–(iv) it would be reasonable to say that blue and yellow are nouns, given the way they behave: these words occur in noun phrase positions, can be preceded by an adjective, and can be pluralised. In (v) blue behaves like an adjective because it occurs before a noun and it takes a superlative ending. The data in (vi) and (vii) are problematic because here blue and green also seem to behave like adjectives by virtue of their position in front of nouns. However, if they are adjectives, why can they be modified by adjectives such as deep and light, but not by adverbs such as deeply and lightly? One way to solve the problem might be to regard deep blue and light green as compound adjectives, which would be listed as such in a dictionary.

Chapter 3 1.

(i) Subject, Direct Object (ii) Subject, Adjunct (iii) Direct Object (iv) Predicator (v) Adjunct (vi) Subject (vii) Subject

2.

(i) Jamie sent the company a letter. (ii) I read my newspaper on the train. (iii) We slept all night. (iv) Abdul yawned.

3. No, this is not an exception. Imperative clauses in English typically lack a Subject. They are normally used to command or instruct someone to do something. A Subject is not excluded in imperatives, as in You lot take your shoes off the seats! 4.

(i) False: it is an Adjunct. (ii) True. (iii) False: it is a Direct Object. (iv) False: the Subject is all the students.

332

Answer Key for the Exercises (v) True. (Notice that this phrase can be an Adjunct at sentence-level, but it can also be seen as part of a larger noun phrase vacation jobs in their home towns. For an account of the structure of this NP, see Chapter 7.) (vi) True: but see the note above. 5. (i) gradually (AdvP) (ii) finally (AdvP), through the landscape (PP), at great speed (PP) (iii) then (AdvP), suddenly (AdvP), at the back of the train (PP) (iv) No Adjuncts (v) on the tracks (PP) (vi) why (AdvP), each time I travel (NP) *6. You may have been tempted to answer ‘Adjunct’ here, since the PP to France tells you where we always go in August, and specifying a location is a function that is typically performed by Adjuncts. However, notice that leaving out the PP here makes the remaining clause sound odd, if not ungrammatical: *In August we always go. This indicates that the PP cannot be an Adjunct. The PP is also not a Direct Object, because we cannot, for example, passivise sentence (i). So what function label do we use? In Chapter 7 we will use the general label Complement for units that are obligatory, but cannot be given the label Direct Object. *7. This could be a line of reasoning if Harold actively set out to move himself. However, in most situations the meaning of (ii) would be that the movement simply happened to Harold, perhaps because one of his muscles twitched. Hence the gloss ‘stir’ in the exercise. *8. In none of these cases is it possible to form a passive sentence: *Twenty kilograms are weighed by this computer; *Ten pence is cost by each of these oranges; *Four pages are contained by the information booklet; *You are suited by that jacket. Another possible function label would be Adjunct, since in (i), for example, the NP twenty kilograms specifies ‘how much’ the computer weighs. However, notice that in each of the sentences above the italicised phrases cannot be left out, which means that they cannot be Adjuncts. As we saw in Exercise 6, we will use the label Complement for units that are obligatory, but for which we cannot use the label Direct Object. For further discussion, see Chapter 7. *9. The following criteria for subjecthood apply to (i): 1. The word there is a noun (more specifically, a pronoun). 2. It is the first NP in the sentence. 3. It is obligatory. We cannot say *is a rat in the kitchen. 4. We can apply inversion: Is there a rat in the kitchen? 5. If we add a tag, there is part of it: There is a rat in the kitchen, isn’t there? However, notice that agreement is with the phrase a rat. This becomes obvious when we pluralise this phrase: There are rats in the kitchen. Also, as noted in the exercise, in (i) it is the rat that ‘is’ in the kitchen. How do we get round this? We can do so by saying that there is the grammatical Subject of the sentence, but that a rat is the semantic Subject. The sentence in (i) is an existential construction, which will be discussed in detail in Chapter 15. *10. Indirect Objects are realised as noun phrases. Syntactically they are followed by Direct Objects, which are typically also noun phrases. In the sentences in the assignment the prepositional phrases carry the function of Complement.

333

Answer Key for the Exercises

Chapter 4 1. (i) False: there is a main clause, which is the entire sentence, and a subordinate clause that we have some lunch now which functions as the Direct Object of the verb suggest. (ii) True: because we have two clauses, we also have two VPs. (iii) False: see above. (iv) False: recall that a matrix clause is a clause that has a subordinate clause inside it. In the example sentence the main clause is also a matrix clause. This clause is finite because the verb suggest is a present tense verb form. 2.

[NP [NP [Det the] [N cats]] [cc and] [NP [Det the] [N dogs]]] [S [NP [Det this] [N poison]] [VP [V kills] [NP [N rats]]]] 3. (i) She believes [that he is devious]. Finite subordinate clause. (ii) I made [her laugh]. Nonfinite subordinate clause. (iii) Sara concluded [that Jamie heard [that the story was untrue]]. Both subordinate clauses are finite. (iv) She wanted [me to sell my bike]. Nonfinite subordinate clause. 4. [S [NP [Det the] [N giraffe]] [VP [V ducked]]] [S [NP [N Television]] [VP [V destroys] [NP [N relationships]]]] [S [NP [N Freddy]] [VP [V sent] [NP [Det the] [N doctor]] [NP [Det a] [N postcard]]]] [S [NP [N I ]] [VP [V believe] [SubC [Comp that] [NP [N Geri]] [VP [V adores] [NP [N gherkins]]]]]] [S [NP [N I]] [VP [V know] [SubC [Comp that] [NP [N Krum]] [VP [V likes] [NP [N New York]]]]]]

334

Answer Key for the Exercises

335

Answer Key for the Exercises

5. (i) This is a declarative clause. It can be used to make a statement or to give an order. Queen Victoria allegedly said this to her subjects when she wanted them to leave the room. (ii) This is an interrogative clause. It can be used to ask a question or to issue a directive or request. (iii) This is an imperative clause. It is not likely to be used to issue a directive. It is best seen as expressing a wish. (iv) This is a declarative clause. In the situation specified it is likely to be interpreted as an order. (A more direct order would be Get off the pavement.) (v) This is an interrogative clause. No answer is expected, so we call this a rhetorical question. It could be used to make the statement Nobody likes right-wing dictators. (vi) This is a declarative clause. It can be used to make a statement or to give an order, for example to get someone to open a window. 6. We used the label interrogative for syntactic structures, specifically a particular kind of clause, and we used question as a usage label. When we talk about interrogative tags, we are talking about structures, and for this reason the label tag question is not appropriate. *7.

336

Answer Key for the Exercises

The correct tree diagram is b. Diagram a is incorrect because there are no phraselevel categories. This is also the case for the Subject noun phrase in c. In d the Direct Object is not part of the VP, but it should be. *8. Recall that the clause types are distinguished by their different syntactic structures. Because open interrogatives and closed interrogatives have very different structures, we should perhaps recognise them as separate clause types.

Chapter 5 1.

(i) Subject/NP and Direct Object/NP. (ii) Subject/clause. (iii) Indirect Object/NP. (iv) Direct Object/small clause. (v) Adjunct/AdvP and Predicator/verb. (vi) Subject/NP and Adjunct/clause. (vii) Predicator/verb and Adjunct/PP. (viii) Subject/NP and Direct Object/clause. (ix) Direct Object/clause. (x) Subject/NP and Direct Object/clause. 337

Answer Key for the Exercises 2. [That we would not give in to his demands] was clear from the start. [What I want] is a nice cup of coffee. I thought [that he was living in Hong Kong]. I intended [him to be there]. We sent [whoever wanted one] a new phone. Katie left the meeting [as soon as Pete arrived]. [While you were away] we ate all the pancakes. 3. (i) True: regularly and on their premises are Adjuncts. (ii) True. (iii) False: the Subject is the monks. (iv) False: the Direct Object is beer. 4. (i) False: the VP is had a meal in a restaurant. The Direct Object and any Adjuncts present are also part of the VP. (ii) False: this is a subordinate clause functioning as Adjunct. (iii) True. (iv) False: the NP a meal functions as the DO of the main clause. The PP in a restaurant functions as Adjunct. (v) True: it functions as the DO of the subordinate clause. 5. (i) [main clause We all think [DO/finite that-clause that Dan is a bore]]. (ii) [main clause She hates [DO/nonfinite to-infinitive clause to go to the beach]]. (iii) [main clause [Adjunct/nonfinite –ing participle clause Having dressed herself], Rachel thought that she would be late for work]. (iv) [main clause [Adjunct/finite clause When he was young], Pete liked to go to the movies]. (v) [main clause I consider [DO/small clause him dim]]. *6.

338

Answer Key for the Exercises

*7. We regard the PP in this sentence as an Adjunct, not as an Indirect Object because the criteria for IOs that we identified in this chapter do not apply here. *8. In none of these examples can we invert the Subject with the first verb: *Is restless what you would call him? *Is cautiously how I would suggest you do it? *Is party the night away a nice thing to do?

Chapter 6 1. Weather verbs take a Subject, because Subjects are obligatory in English, but the Subject it here isn’t really an argument of the verb, because it is meaningless. So, we should perhaps refer to weather verbs as zero-place predicates. 2. The grammatical Subjects of these sentences carry the thematic role of Patient/ Undergoer: they can be interpreted as the Direct Objects of the verbs. After all, we read books and steer cars. In this respect these constructions look like passive constructions. However, they only resemble passive constructions, because there is no passive auxiliary be followed by a past participle. The label activo-passive reflects the apparent dual nature of this construction. We use this kind of construction when we want to suggest that the referent of the Subject of the sentence can in some way be said to be responsible for what the sentence expresses. So, for example, the book can be said to read well due to its inherent properties, e.g. being well written. Other verbs that can occur in this construction include digest, peel, sell, wash. 3. The prepositional phrase in the sea functions as Adjunct in this sentence, and hence would not be assigned a thematic role. Compare the PP in I put the mug on the table. In this example we cannot leave out the PP, which means that it is a Complement of the verb, and hence an argument that needs a thematic role.

339

Answer Key for the Exercises 4. (i) Jane

saw

a UFO

last night

function level

Subject

Predicator

Direct Object

Adjunct

form level

[S [NP N]

[VP V

[NP Det N]

[NP AP N ]]]

thematic level

Experiencer

predicate

Patient

–

Bill

used

a penknife

when he cut the bread

function level

Subject

Predicator

Direct Object

Adjunct

form level

[S [NP N]

[VP V

[NP Det N]

[Clause NP VP ]]]

predicate

Instrument

syntax

semantics

(ii)

syntax

semantics

thematic level Agent

(iii) The footballer

stumbled

function level

Subject

Predicator

form level

[S [NP N]

[VP V ]]

thematic level

Experiencer

predicate

syntax

semantics

(iv) Penny

put

the bread

on the table

function level

Subject

Predicator

Direct Object

Locative Complement

form level

[S [NP N]

[VP V

[NP Det N]

[PP P NP ]]]

predicate

Patient

Locative

syntax

semantics

340

thematic level Agent

Answer Key for the Exercises (v) I

believed

him

function level

Subject

Predicator

Direct Object

form level

[S [NP N]

[VP V

[NP N ]]]

thematic level

Experiencer

predicate

Patient

I

thought

that he was wrong

function level

Subject

Predicator

Direct Object

form level

[S [NP N]

[VP V

[Clause NP VP ]]]

thematic level

Experiencer

predicate

Proposition

syntax

semantics

(vi)

syntax

semantics

5. see (verb) [1 , Experiencer, 2 ] use (verb) [1 , Agent, 2 ] stumble (verb) [1 , Experiencer] put (verb) [1 , Agent, 2 , 3 ] believe (verb) [1 , Experiencer, 2 ] think (verb) [1 , Experiencer, 2 ] *6. It is not easy to detect a difference in thematic roles between the Subjects in these sentences. One might say that to stay afloat Bill had to do something, perhaps move his arms and legs, and to that extent he is an Agent. By contrast, a canoe, as an inanimate entity, just gets moved along by the current in the river and can’t actively ‘do’ anything. *7. In (i) the noun phrase the government is the Subject and the noun phrase a difficult debate is the Direct Object. In (ii) this is reversed. As these sentences mean the same, it becomes hard to assign thematic roles to the two noun phrases in each case. Logically, they would have to have the same thematic role. Which role that would be is unclear. *8. The quotations in this exercise should give you a good idea of the extent of the disagreement between linguists about the assignment of thematic roles. The disagreement is considerable, and even the last facetious comment is telling, in that

341

Answer Key for the Exercises it indicates that some linguists (syntacticians!) simply don’t worry much about thematic roles. *9. This sentence contains the verb check which has the complex noun phrase police knife purchases as its Subject. Normally, this verb takes a Subject that refers to a human being who is capable of checking something. In other words, the Subject typically carries the thematic role of Agent, e.g. He checked if the gas was switched off; She checked if she had her passport with her. However, abstract inanimate entities such as police knife purchases are hard to imagine as Agents, and this makes the sentence hard to process. Reading the first line of the article helps to make clear which meaning is intended.

Chapter 7 1. In the first example we have a verb that takes a noun phrase as Complement. In (ii) and (iii) the adjective appreciative and the noun appreciation, respectively, take a prepositional phrase as Complement. In each case X-bar theory takes the Complement to be a sister of the Head, as follows:

2. (i) True: it is a sister of ‘V’. (ii) False: it is adjoined to an Nʹ. (iii) True. (iv) True.

342

Answer Key for the Exercises

3. The problem here is that it may at first sight seem that the adverb phrase badly functions as an Adjunct here. After all, it specifies the manner in which Jimmy treated his cat. However, this cannot be right, because we cannot leave out badly. If we do so we get Jimmy treated his cat. Although this is a possible sentence in English, notice that the meaning has now changed. In fact, the meaning is exactly the opposite of the original sentence! Some grammarians have tried to get round this problem by referring to badly as an obligatory Adjunct. However, that would be a contradiction in terms, since Adjuncts are, by definition, optional. The only way we can resolve this issue is by saying that the verb treat, in the sense used here, takes an AdvP as Complement. 4. The verb remember does not normally take an adjective phrase as its Complement. It only seems to be doing so in this exchange. One way of explaining how it can do so is to say that cheerful is merely mentioned here, so that we could represent Jane’s last contribution as follows: Yes, do you remember ‘cheerful’? This would then mean ‘Do you remember the concept “cheerful”?’ 5. The joke relies on two different understandings of the verb miss. In Schwartz’s sense (miss1) it means ‘painfully feel the absence of a person, especially a loved one’, whereas in Lorraine’s sense (miss2) it mean ‘not hitting a target’. The subcategorisation frames for these verbs would be as follows: miss1 (verb) [– , NP] miss2 (verb) [– , (NP)] In the case of miss2 the Direct Object is omissible. 6. Yes, we need to revise the subcategorisation frame to reflect the possibility that behind can be used as an intransitive preposition. The frame should look like this: [– , (NP)] 343

Answer Key for the Exercises For further discussion of intransitive prepositions, see Section 11.2.2.1. *7. The subcategorisation frame for the verb locate in (i) is as follows: [ – , NP] It is debatable whether the verb locate in (ii) is different from that in (i). On balance, it would seem that the two verbs are the same and that the prepositional phrase in the high street is not an argument of the verb, but an Adjunct, and hence does not need to appear in its subcategorisation frame. *8. (v) I was assisted by [NP a man in a dark suit]. Here the prepositional phrase in a dark suit can be seen as supplying circumstantial information. This would mean it’s an Adjunct. However, if the PP in question helps to identify who assisted me, then it could be argued that it is a Complement. (vi) They are [NP a family of four]. We can leave out the prepositional phrase of four here, and it does not seem to be required in any way, so perhaps this PP is best analysed as an Adjunct. (vii) I am [AP glad that you are well]. The clause that you are well is best regarded as a Complement of the adjective glad, despite the fact that it can be left out. This is because it is a fact of life that we are usually glad about something, and in (vii) the clause expresses what the people referred to as ‘they’ are glad about. (viii) He is [AP extremely delighted about that]. As with (vii) we are always delighted about something, so that the PP about that is best analysed as a Complement. It’s important to be aware of the fact that this exercise does not necessarily have right or wrong answers. The nature of language is such that areas of indeterminacy exist, as will become clear in Chapter 16, where we will discuss grammatical indeterminacy. *9.

344

Answer Key for the Exercises

*10. It’s not at all clear how X-bar theory would deal with such constructions. One way of dealing with them might be to adjoin (see Section 7.2) the words all and his to the noun phrases of which they form a part, as follows: [NP all [NP my problems]] [NP his [NP many virtues]] *11.

345

Answer Key for the Exercises

*12. (i)

The tree in (i) represents the meaning expressed in (ii). The meaning of (iii) is shown in the tree below:

346

Answer Key for the Exercises

Chapter 8 1. (i) True. (ii) False: modal verbs are always placed in the I-node. (iii) True: modal verbs are finite by definition. (iv) False: it is a modal auxiliary verb.

2. (i)

(ii)

347

Answer Key for the Exercises (iii)

(iv)

(v)

348

Answer Key for the Exercises (vi)

(vii)

349

Answer Key for the Exercises (viii)

(ix)

(x)

350

Answer Key for the Exercises (xi)

(xii)

3. This sentence shows that the position immediately after the modal verb is a natural place where something can be inserted, much like the sentence adverbs discussed in Section 8.1. 4. Under one reading, after Easter modifies move (first tree diagram below), whereas under the second reading, after Easter modifies decide (second tree diagram below).

351

Answer Key for the Exercises

*5. Sentence (i) involves a relative clause (Section 8.2.3) which is adjoined to Nʹ, whereas (ii) involves a to-infinitive clause that functions as a Complement of the adjective happy, and is hence its sister in the tree diagram. (i)

(ii)

*6. We analyse this sentence as involving a Subject (I), an Indirect Object (you) and a Direct Object in the shape of a nonfinite subordinate clause (not to do it). This clause does not have an overt Subject of its own, but we interpret its Subject as being you. The problem with drawing the tree for this sentence is the negative word not which appears before the word to. We have said that to is positioned in the I-node. If this is so, then we have no way of accommodating not in the tree. 352

Answer Key for the Exercises

Chapter 9 1. (31)

(32)

353

Answer Key for the Exercises (33)

(34)

354

Answer Key for the Exercises (36)

(37)

355

Answer Key for the Exercises (38)

(39)

356

Answer Key for the Exercises (40)

(41)

357

Answer Key for the Exercises 2. (i) True: movement of the phrase which file and movement of the modal auxiliary can. (ii) False. (iii) True. (iv) False: this verb takes a Direct Object, but in this sentence the DO does not appear immediately after the verb. It has been moved to the front of the sentence.

3.

4. (i) True: it is a sister of that verb. (ii) True: it is a sister of lowest V-bar. (iii) False: it contains four auxiliary verbs: will, have, been and being. (iv) False: it is the progressive auxiliary be, witness the fact that it is followed by a verb ending in -ing. 5. If both modal verbs and aspectual auxiliaries are positioned in ‘I’, then (i) is a problem because it contains the modal auxiliary must , the perfect auxiliary have and the

358

Answer Key for the Exercises progressive auxiliary been. They cannot all occur in the same position. Sentence (ii) is a problem for Haegeman’s account because if both will and have are indeed positioned in ‘I’, how can they be separated by the word not? The same question arises for (iii). In addition, notice that (iii) contains a modal verb, the perfect aspectual auxiliary have and the progressive auxiliary be (in the form been). These three verbs cannot all be positioned in ‘I’. *6.

*7. Sentence (i) is perfectly grammatical and preferred, but it is problematic for the analysis presented in this chapter because we would expect the perfect auxiliary have to be positioned in ‘I’, so to the left of never, as in (ii). *8. The data in (i) and (ii) suggest that is is positioned ‘I’, as the word not appears to its right in the grammatical version in (i). The sentence in (iii) also shows that is is positioned in ‘I’. This is because perhaps is a sentence adverb positioned directly 359

Answer Key for the Exercises under the ‘S’-node, and in (iii) it appears after ‘I’ and before the VP. The sentence in (iv) does not contradict this, if we assume that perhaps is positioned before ‘I’ here. *9. In (i) intentionally appears to the right of not and have which are both positioned inside VP, so intentionally must also be inside VP.

360

Answer Key for the Exercises

*10. (i)

361

Answer Key for the Exercises (ii)

*11.

362

Answer Key for the Exercises *12. (i)

(ii)

*13. In these varieties of English it is possible to have more than one modal auxiliary verb, which is not possible in standard British or American English. In the model developed in this book there is no way to accommodate more than one modal verb in a tree diagram. *14. Given that the word not appears to the right of seems and appears in these sentences, we should assume that they have moved to ‘I’.

363

Answer Key for the Exercises

Chapter 10 1. (i) ride: present tense. (ii) agree: present tense; to prepare: to-infinitive, nonfinite, so no tense. (iii) must: present tense; meet (up): bare infinitive, nonfinite, so no tense. (iv) drove: past tense. 2. (i) True. (ii) False: in this sentence the present tense is used to express a habit. (iii) False: the verb carries tense, so it cannot be nonfinite. (iv) False: its past tense form is ate. 3. What is interesting about the use of the progressive construction in this example is that it is not used to express an ongoing situation, as is normally the case. Here, the progressive explains what Vinnie said. We can paraphrase (i) as It’s a joke that Vinnie says that he didn’t eat the food on the table. 4. In (i) the modal verb will is combined with the lexical verb take to express a neutral statement about taking exams in the future. In (ii) the taking of the exams is also in the future, but it is seen as a scheduled course of events. 5. (i) must: ‘obligation’. (ii) will: ‘conclusion’/’necessity’ (epistemic meaning). (iii) could: ‘possibility’. (iv) may: ‘permission’. *6. The subjunctive is far more common in American English than in British English, so where you are from will affect the use of the subjunctive in your speech. Words that trigger the subjunctive are adjectives such as essential, imperative, important, necessary and crucial, and verbs such as command, demand, recommend, request and urge. English does not really have a special inflected verb form for the subjunctive, so modern grammars prefer to speak of subjunctive clauses, e.g. that he leave in (i). See my blog post on this: http://bit.ly/1OX0Czn

Chapter 11 1. (i)

364

Answer Key for the Exercises (ii)

(iii)

(iv)

365

Answer Key for the Exercises (v)

2. The subcategorisation frame for invent is as follows: invent (verb) [ – , NP] The advertising slogan is acceptable because of our world knowledge of big brands. We know that Philips is a major electronics company, and we therefore do not need a Direct Object to be specified. 3. The function of these phrases would be Predicate. 4. In (i) under-threat is a prepositional phrase modifying the noun facilities. This shows that PPs can modify nouns. You may have thought that then is an adverb. However, (ii) shows that adverbs cannot modify nouns. Sentence (iii) suggests that along with words like there and now, we may wish to assign then to the class of prepositions. 5. This label is a contradiction in terms: ‘Adjunct’ suggests that the constituent to which the label is applied is optional, whereas ‘obligatory’ suggests the opposite. *6. Determinatives like the and these make a very limited semantic contribution to the words with which they are combined. Thus, the indicates (specifies) that the referent of the noun is identifiable, and if someone refers to a person as the artist, you know who they are talking about. Similarly, these applied to a noun has a ‘pointing meaning’, so that, for example, these apples refers to two or more apples being pointed at by a speaker. By contrast, adjectives such as warm and tall are used to ascribe properties to nouns, as in a warm house and a tall man. *7. Insert a [–N, –V] category (preposition) when a [+ N] category (noun or adjective) is followed by a [+ N, –V] category (noun). *8. We classified before and since as subordinating conjunctions, more specifically as adjunctisers. The data above suggest that words that are classed as adjunctisers should be regarded as intransitive or transitive prepositions that either take no Complement, or a noun phrase or clause as their Complement. We find this analysis in Huddleston and Pullum (2002), and in Aarts (2011).

366

Answer Key for the Exercises *9. In A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language we have two sets of grammatical function terms: one set for the clause level and one set for the phrase level. However, there is redundancy here because in this grammar essentially Modifiers (both Premodifiers and Postmodifiers) do the same job as Adjuncts, so by Occam’s Razor we can do away with those labels and use ‘Adjunct’ at both clause and phrase level. *10. The adverbs are well and fast, whereas when, here and home can be regarded as prepositions. It looks like the items that behave as prepositions express locative and temporal meanings. *11. The phrase a literature teacher is a noun phrase with teacher as its Head. It is preceded by another noun phrase which functions as Complement of the Head. In the tree below the NP literature is the sister of the head teacher.

We regard literature as a Complement of teacher because we can establish an analogy with the verb teach, as in He teaches literature.

Chapter 12 1. (i)

367

Answer Key for the Exercises (ii)

(iii)

(iv)

368

Answer Key for the Exercises (v)

2. (i)

369

Answer Key for the Exercises (ii)

The meaning ‘hats on their heads which are yellow’ corresponds to (i), whereas the meaning ‘yellow hats which are on their heads’ corresponds to (ii). Notice that the difference between (i) and (ii) is that in (i) yellow hats is not a constituent, whereas in (ii) it is. Conversely, hats on their heads is a constituent in (i), but not in (ii). 3. Here is the tree diagram for He may have been killing flies. The structure is in accordance with the structures that were proposed in Section 9.6.

370

Answer Key for the Exercises 4. (i)

(ii)

In both trees the modal auxiliary verb will and the lexical verb burn are analysed as constituents; a VP in (i) and a VG in (ii). However, if you apply the constituency tests, you will see that will burn does not behave like a constituent at all: it cannot be moved or replaced by a proform. If we were forced to choose between these analyses, then we would have to say that the analysis in (ii) is better than the one in (i) because at least it reflects the strong bond that holds between a verb and its Direct Object. From the point of view of meaning, the case for regarding will burn as a unit is perhaps a little bit stronger since, as the tradition puts it, the modal verb can be said to ‘colour’ the meaning of the lexical verb. 5. (i)

This analysis recognises the strong bond between the verb and its Direct Object, as they are both sisters inside the VP. The modal auxiliary verb will is seen here as a lexical verb that takes the VP burn the toast as its Complement. This analysis is close to the one we posited in this chapter, except that there is no I-node here and there are no bar-level categories. The advantage of having an I-node is that it can account for the fact that we can have sentence adverbs intervening between the modal verb and the lexical verb, as in Nicholas will probably burn the toast. See Section 8.1.

371

Answer Key for the Exercises *6. One way to approach this question is to ask: What is the Subject of this sentence? The answer is for him to kill that poor fly. How do we know? Well, you can invert this string of words with the verb was, resulting in Was for him to kill that poor fly wrong? This not only shows that for him to kill that poor fly is the Subject, but also that it is a constituent. Is there any evidence that for him is a constituent? We can test this by trying to move it to the end of the sentence. If we do so we get To kill that poor fly was wrong for him. Although this is a possible sentence in English, it does not mean the same as (i). Another test we can apply is passivisation. If we passivise the string after for we get For that poor fly to be killed by him was wrong. This means the same as (i), and it shows that the pronoun him is not directly in construction with for. Put differently, him is not the Complement of for, but rather the entire clause him to kill that poor fly. We conclude that the best analysis is to regard the string for him to kill that poor fly as a constituent. Within that constituent for is a complementiser (Section 3.7), which takes a to-infinitive clause with its own Subject as its Complement (Section 5.2). *7. If we apply NP-Movement to (i) and (ii) we get The book on the table was seen by Charlie and The book was put on the table by Charlie, respectively. Did you spot the fact that (i) is ambiguous? Under one interpretation he saw the book that was on the table. Under the other (much less likely) interpretation he was standing on the table when he saw the book. The trees look like this (the third tree is for the last interpretation mentioned above):

372

Answer Key for the Exercises

*8. If we replace the NP the book in sentence (i) we derive Charlie saw it. If we do the same for (ii) we get Charlie put it on the table. *9. Sentence (ii) is ungrammatical, and the reason is that if you apply inversion to (i) no part of the noun phrase can be left behind. We can use the sentences in (iii) to show that whatever constituent is placed inside the I-node, in this case a modal auxiliary verb, behaves as an independent unit, because it can invert with the Subject. *10. The function of the extraposed that-clause in (i) is Direct Object. The pronoun it is inserted as a place holder after the displacement. Extraposition is obligatory here, perhaps because the that-clause is long, and hence ‘heavy’. Without Extraposition (ii) is very hard to process. See Section 15.2.3 for a discussion of Extraposition. *11. (i) Ben drafted a new proposal effortlessly, and Henry did the same. (ii) Elly vainly admired herself, and Samirah did the same. *12. One way of getting around this is to argue that the Head of phrases like the French, the Dutch etc. is an unexpressed noun (also called a zero noun), so that the analysis of these phrases would look like this (‘Ø’ is the symbol for zero):

373

Answer Key for the Exercises

Chapter 13 1. The two meanings are: ‘I saw the policeman who carried binoculars’ and ‘I saw the policeman using binoculars’. Here are the trees:

2. The following tests all show that the AP is part of the verb phrase: Jeff said that he rubbed the plates dry, and rub the plates dry he did. (VP-Preposing Test) Rub the plates dry though Jeff did, there were still streaks on them. (ThoughMovement Test) Jeff said that he would rub the plates dry, and he did – . (VP-Deletion Test) Jeff said he would [VP rub the plates dry] and [VP wipe the table clean] (VP Coordination Test) What Jeff did was rub the plates dry. (Pseudocleft Test) Q: What did Jeff do? A: Rub the plates dry. (Constituent Response Test)

374

Answer Key for the Exercises 3. You will have found that not many of the tests work, which might suggest that the train is the Direct Object of want. However, that conclusion is not satisfactory, given that we cannot passivise (i): *The train was wanted to depart by Ivan. 4. There appears to be a coordination of you paying this bill and the issue of this notice which would suggest that both these strings of words are constituents. *5. In (i)b Frank and washed and Dick and ironed do not share the same mother node (as the tree in (3) shows), and hence cannot form constituents with which constituents can be coordinated. Similarly, in (ii)b and (iii)b Frank will and Dick won’t cannot be constituents, because in a tree Frank/Dick would come under NP, whereas will/ won’t would be positioned under the I-node. We might get round this problem by assuming that what is being coordinated in (i)–(iii) are constituents involving implicit material, namely an NP in (i) and a VP in (ii) and (iii), as follows: [Frank washed Ø] and [Dick ironed Ø] where ‘Ø’ = the shirts [Frank will Ø] but [Dick won’t Ø] where ‘Ø’ = wash the shirts/iron the shirts tomorrow. *6. (i)

(ii)

If (i) is correct, we should be able to replace the Vʹ by do so, whereas if (ii) is correct we should be able to replace both the higher and the lower Vʹ by do so. The sentence in (iii) shows that do so can replace the higher Vʹ in both (i) and (ii). Sentence (iv) additionally shows that do so can replace another Vʹ, namely the lower Vʹ in (ii). Because there is no lower Vʹ in (i), this means that (ii) is the correct representation for eat the pizza naked. *7. (ii)

375

Answer Key for the Exercises (iii)

Huddleston is invoking the Somewhere Else Test. A sentence that would disprove Huddleston’s claim that Liz to repair it cannot occur elsewhere as a constituent is the following: [S [Comp For [SubC Liz to repair it]] would not be a problem] Here the to-infinitive clause functions as the Complement of the complementiser for. *8. In (i) the inserted clause as you can see occurs between the verb look and the prepositional phrase in every possible place. The resulting sentence is grammatical, which suggests that the bond between the verb and the PP is not very strong, and that we should therefore perhaps analyse this PP as an Adjunct of the verb. In (ii) the insertion is not possible. The data suggest that there is a close bond between the verb look and the intransitive PP up in (ii) which cannot be broken. This is what the analysis we adopted in this book predicts, since the intransitive PP up is a Complement of the verb look, along with the NP the records.

Chapter 14 1. believe class I consider her to be an excellent colleague. The government expects them to obey the law. They intended the new regulations to solve the issue. We know him to be a crook. Sal supposed her neighbour to be a spy. persuade class I would advise you not to watch that movie. Atheer convinced me to adopt the plan. want class I would hate her to give up now. Sian would love him to cook her favourite dish. I would prefer you to take your shoes off in the house. The teacher wished the children to write a story. 2. In this example it looks like Charlie to cook and Nick to do the washing up are constituents, because they are coordinated, but in the model we presented in this book Charlie and to cook are separate Complements of the verb. One way to get round this problem is to say that what is coordinated in the sentence above are the

376

Answer Key for the Exercises constituents [persuaded Charlie to cook] and [Ø Nick to do the washing up] with a zero verb persuade in the second conjoin. 3. The two criteria give us contradictory results: although we have accusative case on the pronoun him, we cannot passivise the sentence in (iii): *He was wanted to be more considerate by her. 4. From these data we conclude that the postverbal NP in (i) is not a Direct Object. One reason is that (ii) means the same as (i), despite there being a different NP directly after the verb prevent. Sentences (iii)–(v) also show that the postverbal NP is not a DO because existential there, dummy it and idiom chunks can occur after prevent. 5. The problem with (i)–(iv) is that they seem to violate the rule that dummy it cannot occur as Direct Object. One way to get round this is to say that (i)–(iv) are in fact idioms. *6. The sentences in (i)–(v) are different in terms of the thematic roles assigned to the postverbal constituents. In (i), (ii) and (iv) the noun phrases him, her and him, respectively, are clearly assigned a thematic role, as the individuals who these pronouns refer to ‘undergo’ the action of the verb, namely electing, appointing and judging. In (iii) and (v), however, this is not the case: ‘we’ are not considering them, and ‘she’ was not deeming her marriage. Instead, what ‘we’ are considering is the proposition that ‘they are members’ in (iii), and what ‘she’ was deeming was the proposition that ‘their marriage was a fiasco’ in (v). In terms of the terminology used in this book, consider and deem take small clauses as Complements (see Section 4.1). But what would be the function of president, judge and a good man in (i), (ii) and (iv)? These are best regarded as additional Complements of the verb, but not Direct Objects, as in our framework a verb can have only one DO. See also Section 11.2.2.2. *7. In (i) and (ii) it is not the case that the referent of the Subject does something to the postverbal NPs. When Morenberg says: “In the example sentences above, ‘American analysts’ don’t simply ‘consider Kaddafi’, but they ‘consider him a terrorist’; nor do Soviet music critics ‘consider the Rolling Stones’, but they consider ‘the Rolling Stones decadent’ ”, he is contradicting himself with regard to what he wrote in the same passage about Direct Objects.

Chapter 15 1.

A hot shower many people like – in the morning before work. In the morning many people like a hot shower – before work. Before work many people like a hot shower in the morning –. It is also possible to regard both a hot shower in the morning before work and a hot shower in the morning as noun phrases in their own right. This means that the following are also possible: A hot shower in the morning before work many people like – . A hot shower in the morning many people like – before work.

2. The word that is a complementiser which introduces the subordinate clause that he liked Thailand which functions as the Subject of the overall clause. The extraposed version of (i) would be It was obvious to everyone that he liked Thailand. This version

377

Answer Key for the Exercises is in harmony with the Principle of End Weight and is easier to process than the non-extraposed version. 3. If we didn’t have inversion in the second sentence, it would read: The survival of one of two parties: the Workers’ Party or the Socialist Party will depend on its resolution. Notice first that the Subject of this sentence is very long, and as a hearer or reader you have to wait a long time for the verb to appear. This makes processing the sentence quite hard. Notice also that in the uninverted sentence we have the prepositional phrase on its resolution at the end. This PP represents given information. Why is that? The reason is that in the preceding sentence there is a mention of a ‘disagreement’. There’s a whole host of concepts that we can associate with disagreements, and the notion of ‘resolution’ is one of them. This makes it ‘given information’, i.e. part of the kind of discourse we associate with disagreements. It’s precisely because it represents given information that the PP is more naturally placed at the start of the sentence in accordance with the Given Before New Principle. 4. It was the team that left the building through a back door that afternoon. It was the building that the team left through a back door that afternoon. It was through a back door that the team left the building that afternoon. It was that afternoon that the team left the building through a back door. What the team left through a back door that afternoon was the building. What the team did that afternoon was leave the building through a back door. *5. Chomsky writes that we can have a situation in which (i) may be true, but (ii) false ‘under the normal interpretation of these sentences – e.g. if one person in the room knows only French and German, and another only Spanish and Italian’.

Chapter 16 1. In (i) disappointing is an adjective. We can say: a very/more/most disappointing result and The result is (very/more/most) disappointing. In (ii) waiting is a verb, not an adjective. We can say a patiently waiting taxi, but not *a very/more/most waiting taxi. We can also say The taxi is waiting, but in that case waiting is a present participle in a progressive construction. In (iii) moving is an adjective. We can say: a very/more/most moving film and The film is (very/more/most) moving. It is true that we can also say The film is moving (in the projector), but here moving is a present participle in a progressive construction. In (iv) moving is a verb. We can say: a quickly moving target, but not *a very/more/ most moving target. 2. In (i), despite its verbal -ing ending, we will say that freeing is a noun (derived from a verb), and this is because it is preceded by a determinative and because it takes a prepositional phrase as its Complement. In (ii) computer is a noun. It’s not an adjective because we cannot say *this very/more/most computer virus or *This virus is computer. 3. It could be either. Under one reading, sentence (i) is a passive construction with the by-phrase left out. If we add a by-phrase (e.g. The window was broken by Jedd), the sentence becomes unambiguous. Under a second reading of (i), broken is an adjective expressing a state, namely the state of being broken. Again, by adding

378

Answer Key for the Exercises elements we can disambiguate this sentence, for example: The window was completely broken. 4. Your first hunch will probably have been to say that fun is a noun. This would be confirmed by example (i) in which fun is clearly a noun because it is preceded by a determinative. Things are less clear in example (ii) where fun occurs after the linking verb be and could be either a noun or an adjective because both word classes can occur after linking verbs. In (iii) fun again occurs after the linking verb be, but this time it has a Complement, namely to be with. Only adjectives take this kind of complement. In (iv) fun is preceded by the adverb so which makes it an adjective (though see the next exercise). Finally, in (v) funnest must be an adjective because it has a superlative ending. These kinds of examples show that the English language changes all the time, and some words get to be used differently over time. *5. The speaker meant to say that the sofa was in a style that the couple both like. The sentence is indeed problematic because us is a pronoun which cannot normally be modified by adverbs. However, as we already saw in Exercise 4, examples like this show that the English language is used creatively by its speakers, who do not necessarily follow the ‘rules’. *6. In this book words like this, that, these and those are regarded as determinatives when they occur before nouns, but when they occur on their own, i.e. without a following noun, they are regarded as pronouns. In some ways this is unsatisfactory because in both (i) and (ii) we have the same orthographical word those. Herbst and Schüller’s solution avoids this drawback. However, their solution has a problem of its own, namely that we are assigning one word to two word classes (or to what you might call a compound word class) at the same time. This violates the Aristotelian principles we discussed in Section 16.1. *7. At first sight many would seem to be a determinative. However, the data shown above suggest that many can be analysed as an adjective. First, adjectives can typically be preceded by an intensifier like very, and what we see in (i) is that many is modified by very. Determinatives cannot be modified in this way. Secondly, adjectives can also occur predicatively (after a linking verb), and we have this situation in (ii). Thirdly, adjectives have comparative and superlative forms and in (iii) we have more which is the comparative form of many (its superlative form is most). Finally, many can occur before the determinative a, as in (iv), in the same way that adjectives can, cf. so wonderful a day. *8. The data show that such seems to mimic adjective behaviour more than determinative behaviour. Thus in (i) such occurs before a determinative, which in turn occurs before a noun. Adjectives can also occur here, as we saw in Exercise 7 (e.g. so wonderful a day). In (ii) and (iii) such also occurs in adjective positions, namely before a noun and after a linking verb. Sentence (iv) is a bit mysterious, since the Subject position is normally occupied by noun phrases. In what sense is such ‘determiner-like’? Biber et al. note that semi-determiners ‘differ from central adjectives . . . in that they have no descriptive meaning and primarily serve to specify the reference of the noun. Moreover, they are characterized by special co-occurrence patterns with the determiners; in particular most semi-determiners co-occur only with the definite article or with the indefinite article, but not both.’ *9. The word near is interesting as in different contexts it can belong to several word classes: near the house (preposition), the near corner (adjective), he neared the roundabout (verb). A phrase like nearer the city in which near is preposition-like in taking an NP Complement, but adjective-like in taking the comparative -er inflection,

379

Answer Key for the Exercises leads Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 609) to say that this word is ‘highly exceptional in its syntax’.

Chapter 17 1. We posited a structure of verb phrases in which the negative word not is placed in the Specifier position, so what has been deleted is a Vʹ-constituent. In Section 17.1 we claimed that negated modals are positioned in I, but, as we have seen, may is an exception to this as there is no negated modal mayn’t. 2. In this sentence the noun phrase I functions as the Subject; the verb phrase promised her to take a day off functions as the Predicate; the verb promised functions as the Predicator; the NP her functions as Direct Object, and the clause to take a day off functions as Complement of the verb. Within the subordinate clause there is no overt Subject, but we interpret its Subject to be the same as the Subject of the main clause, namely I. The verb take has the noun phrase a day off as DO. The verb promise differs from persuade because with the latter we interpret the Subject of the subordinate clause to be the same as the Direct Object of the main clause, so that in I persuaded her to take a day off the implied Subject of take is her. 3. If we take the sentence I persuaded him to bake a cake as an example, then there is a sense in which him can be seen as an Indirect Object, the reason being that this noun phrase can be said to carry the thematic role of Goal, which is typical of IOs. However, we could equally argue that him carries the role of Patient. If we apply passivisation, we obtain He was persuaded to bake a cake by me, but that piece of evidence is compatible both with him functioning as IO or DO because both IOs and DOs can be passivised. So, taken together, the evidence is somewhat inconclusive, and ultimately perhaps depends on the thematic role we assign to the NP him. *4. The sentences in (60)–(62) for pattern 4–6 are: (60) Antoinet heard/made [Jim leave the flat]. (61) Abdul saw [Jim leaving the flat]. (62) Pavel had [the TV repaired]. Let’s apply the tests to each pattern in turn. The analysis implied in (60) is that Jim leave the flat is the Direct Object of hear/make. As before, let’s look first at the semantic reasons for our analysis. So, let’s ask ‘What did Antoinet hear/make?’ The answer is that what she heard or brought about was Jim’s leaving the flat. This confirms the analysis shown in (60). Next, we apply the Movement Test. Can we move the string Jim leave the flat in (60)? The following is not possible. (i) *Antoinet says that she will hear/make Jim leave the flat, and [Jim leave the flat] she will hear/make –. What about Though-Movement? If we apply this test the result is ungrammatical. (ii) *[Jim leave the flat] though she made/heard –, she still wants him to visit occasionally. Next we look at passivisation. Can we apply this to Jim leave the flat? The answer is ‘no’, as (iii) shows. (iii) *[Jim leave the flat] was made/heard by Antoinet.

380

Answer Key for the Exercises Next, let’s try the Substitution Test. Can we replace Jim leave the flat in (60) by a proform? The answer is again ‘no’. (iv) *Antoinet heard/made it. (Ungrammatical in the intended sense.) So far, we have only semantic evidence that Jim leave the flat is a constituent. Let’s try the tests introduced in Chapter 13. Here are some results. (v) Antoinet made/heard [Jim leave the flat] and [Pat leave the room]. This is fine. Next we apply the Cleft and Pseudocleft Tests. This results in ungrammaticality. (vii) *It was [Jim leave the flat] that Antoinet heard/made. (vii) *What Antoinet heard/made was [Jim leave the flat]. Finally, we turn to the Somewhere Else Test and the Constituent Response Test. Again the results are bad. (viii) *[Jim leave the flat] was Antoinet’s goal. (ix) *It was Antoinet’s goal [Jim leave the flat]. (x) A: What did Antoinet hear/make? B: *Jim leave the flat. On balance, we see that the evidence for the analysis shown in (60) is rather slim: we only have some semantic evidence and some coordination evidence. The analysis implied in (61) is that Jim leaving the flat is the Direct Object of see. The semantic test confirms that this string of words is a constituent because the answer to the question ‘What did Abdul see?’ is Jim leaving the flat. Let’s now apply all the other tests. (i) Abdul says that he saw Jim leaving the flat, and [Jim leaving the flat] he did see –. (ii) *[Jim leaving the flat] though Abdul saw –, it could have been someone else. (iii) *[Jim leaving the flat] was seen by Abdul. (iv) Abdul saw it. (v) Abdul saw [Jim leaving the flat] and [Pat leaving the room]. (vi) It was [Jim leaving the flat] that Abdul saw. (vii) What Abdul saw was [Jim leaving the flat]. (viii) [Jim leaving the flat] was Abdul’s goal. (ix) *It was Abdul’s goal [Jim leaving the flat]. (x) A: What did Abdul see? B: Jim leaving the flat. These results make a relatively strong case for regarding Jim leaving the flat as a constituent. The analysis implied in (62) is that the TV repaired is the Direct Object of had. The semantic test is not so easy to apply, given the nature of the verb have in this construction. It is a causative verb (like make in (60)). If we ask the question ‘What did Pavel have (done)?’, the answer cannot really be the TV repaired. So the meaning test fails. Let’s now apply the other tests. (i) *Pavel says that he had the TV repaired, and [the TV repaired] he did have –. (ii) ?[The TV repaired] though he had –, he could have done it sooner. 381

Answer Key for the Exercises (iii) *[The TV repaired] was had by Pavel. (iv) *Pavel had it. (Ungrammatical in the intended sense.) (v) Pavel had [the TV repaired] and [the wall painted]. (vi) *It was [the TV repaired] that Pavel had. (vii) *What Pavel had was [the TV repaired]. (viii) *[The TV repaired] was Pavel’s goal. (ix) *It was Pavel’s goal [the TV repaired]. (x) A: What did Pavel have? B: *The TV repaired. As with (60), the evidence shown above does not show very strong support for the analysis in (62), Of all the patterns discussed, 1–3 have stronger support than 4–6. *5. The Subject of this sentence is a very complex noun phrase, namely royal wedding pizza attack victim. Its Head is the noun victim. It has the noun phrase royal wedding pizza attack as an Adjunct. Within that NP the noun phrase royal wedding pizza is an Adjunct to the Head attack, and then in turn within the NP royal wedding pizza the Head pizza has the NP royal wedding as an Adjunct. This is truly a noun phrase that works like Russian dolls! Here is what the tree diagram would look like:

382

INDEX

Note: Numbers in bold refer to tables and figures. ‘ability’ 19, 166, 167, 168, 269 absolute forms of adjectives 15–16 accusative case 239–40, 248, 276 active sentences 22, 44–7, 140, 265 ad hoc proposals 191 adjective phrases (APs) 16–17, 274–5. See also X-bar syntax Adjuncts in 113 as Complements 105–6, 185, 236, 258–9 Complements in 105–6, 208, 236 intersective gradience 274–5 and noun phrases 16–17, 26, 31 Specifiers in 104 adjectives 11, 15–17, 169, 269–70, 272–5 absolute forms 15–16 attributive position 16, 269–70, 273–4 comparative forms 15–16 distributional characteristics 16 gradability 15 intersective gradience 272–3 modality 169 as predicates 16, 89 predicative position 16, 269 subsective gradience 269–70 superlative forms 15–16, 27, 269 adjunction 107 adjunctisers 30, 306 Adjuncts 47, 76–80, 106–13 clauses as 14, 30, 76, 77–80, 82, 92, 126–8, 130–1 Obligatory Predication 185–6, 192, 194 and past tense 160 preposing 199, 254 and present perfect 164, 165 realisations of 72, 76–80 stackable property 112 in VP-Preposing 199–200 adverb phrases (AdvPs) 28, 76, 132, 186, 203. See also X-bar syntax adverbs 27–8, 121, 125–6, 137, 272–3 circumstantial 27–8 comparative forms 272 degree 28, 28, 105 elegance of description 186–9 interrogative 27 intersective gradience 272–3 modality 169 sentence 28, 28, 125–6, 133, 135, 137, 139, 226

as Specifiers 99 superlative forms 27 affixes 10, 15 Agent role 93, 140, 146 agreement, Subject-verb 38, 123, 290 agreement phrases (AgrPs), 132 alternative interrogatives 57 alternative questions 60 ambiguity, structural 3 analytical forms of adjectives 16 argumentation. See syntactic argumentation argumenthood tests 238–49 believe class verbs 239–46 case studies 279, 294, 297, 300 dummy elements 240–2, 243 idiom chunks 240–2, 243–5, 247 meaning 238–40 passivisation 240, 242–3, 244, 245, 246 persuade class verbs 246–7 want class verb 247 arguments 87–97, 117–18, 238–49. See also argumenthood tests external 88, 89, 118 implicit 89, 190 internal 88, 89, 118 selectional restrictions 93–4, 180 thematic roles 89–92, 93 argument structures 89, 91, 147 Aristotle 268 aspect 20, 159–71 perfect 20, 142, 163, 164–5 progressive 20, 163–4 aspect phrases (AspPs) 132 aspectual auxiliaries 19–20, 125, 133–9, 142, 149 aspectuality 162–5 asyndetic coordination 29 attested data 177 attributive position of adjectives 16, 269, 273–4 auxiliary verbs 18–19, 22–6, 139–42, 145, 199, 201. See also modal auxiliaries aspectual 22, 132, 139–40, 142, 157 code 18, 24 combinations of 20, 25, 139, 141–2 and current relevance 20, 164 dummy 19, 22, 23–4, 125, 149 emphatic stress 25 future time 162

383

Index I-node 125, 133, 134 in interrogative sentences 25, 147 movement 133–5, 139–43, 147–50 in negative sentences 23 NICE properties 25, 167 passive 19, 22, 25, 33, 44, 125, 140–3, 154 perfect 20, 25, 33, 141, 142, 154–5, 164 progressive 25, 33, 141–2, 154–5, 162–4 structure of sentences containing 154–6 Subject-Auxiliary Inversion 23, 58–9, 147–50, 221 subsective gradience 268–72 in VP-Preposing 199, 201–2 backshifting 161 bare existentials 262–4 bare infinitive clauses 70, 73–5, 78–9 bare infinitives 25, 53, 79, 82 believe class verbs 246 Beneficiary/Benefactive role 45, 76 binary features 179 binominal noun phrases (BNPs) 287 by-phrases 46, 265 case accusative 239–40 genitive 34 nominative 240 case studies 230–3, 279–308 binominal noun phrases 287 negated modal auxiliaries 279–83 noun phrase structure 283–92 subordinating conjunctions and prepositions 305–6 verb complementation 292–305 categorisation. See gradience clauses as Adjuncts 14, 30, 76, 77–80, 82, 113, 113, 126–31, 254, 305 bare infinitive 53, 70, 74–5, 78, 79, 82 as Complements 129–30, 244, 306 declarative 56–7, 59, 60 as Direct Objects 30, 73–5, 126–8, 245 -ed participle 53, 70, 73, 75, 78, 80, 82, 293 exclamative 58–9 finite 52, 70, 73, 77–8 if-clauses 52 imperative 38, 58, 161 as Indirect Objects 14, 56, 76 to-infinitive 53, 70–5, 78–9, 81, 242–4 -ing participle 53, 70, 71–2, 75, 79, 293 I-node 122–6 interrogative 28, 39, 57–8, 262 main 51–2, 56, 74–5, 79, 242–6, 268, 276 matrix 52, 68, 83, 124–5, 146, 294 nonfinite 52–3, 70–3, 74, 76, 78–80, 229 pragmatics 59–60

384

relative 84, 130, 204, 256 small 53, 70, 72–3, 75, 80–1, 185, 192, 301 as Subjects 70–2 subordinate 30, 51–6, 68, 74–5, 95, 124–5, 126–31, 146, 234, 240, 276, 305 superordinate 51–2 that-clauses 52, 73 tree diagrams of 54, 56, 122, 124–6, 128 types 56–60, 70 verbless 53, 81 wh-clauses 70, 73, 76 cleft sentences 179–80, 224–5, 234, 259–60, 296 Cleft Test 289, 297 closed word classes 8, 9, 11 code 18, 24, 25, 167 common nouns 12, 13 comparative forms of adjectives 15 adverbs 27 complementiser phrases (CPs) 132 complementisers 30, 51–4, 127, 132, 194, 240 Complements clauses as 306 Direct Objects as 30, 43, 45 and Heads 17, 98–106, 108, 111–16, 120, 129–30, 185, 208, 209–10, 213, 284, 287–8 Indirect Objects as 45, 115, 214, 269 Object Complements 50, 185–6, 194, 249 Subject Complements 50, 185–6, 192, 194 verb complementation 80, 247, 292–305 ‘conclusion’ 26, 49, 133, 166, 168, 176, 209, 242, 245, 275, 279, 283, 285, 295, 298, 300, 301, 305–6 conjoins 29 conjunctions 28–30, 39 adjunctisers 30 case study 305–6 complementisers 30, 127, 194, 308 coordinating 28–30, 63, 222 subordinating 28, 30, 127, 194 305–6, 308 constituency tests 196, 206, 233, 301. See also Substitution Test case studies 284, 295, 297, 301, 303, 306 Cleft Test 224–6, 232–3, 296, 301, 304 Constituent Response Test 227–8, 233, 297, 301 Coordination Test 222–4, 296, 301, 303–4, 2332 Extraposition 204–5, 257–8 Heavy NP Shift 203–4 Insertion Test 226–7, 233 Meaning Test 230, 233–4, 306 Movement Test 196–206, 229, 285 Pseudocleft Test 224–6, 232–3 Right Node Raising Test 223–4, 232 Somewhere Else Test 228–30, 233–4, 297 Though-Movement 197, 202–3, 231 Topicalisation 197–8, 202, 254 VP-Preposing 198–202

Index Constituent Response Test 227–8, 233, 297, 301 constituents. See also Adjuncts; Direct Objects (DOs); Indirect Objects (IOs); Predicates; Predicators; Subjects defined 35, 42 immediate 61 constructional gradience 275–6 continuative perfect 165 coordinating conjunctions 28–30, 33, 222 coordination asyndetic 29 ordinary 223 Right Node Raising 223–4, 232 syndetic 29 Coordination Test 222–4 copular verbs 185, 188, 225 countable nouns 33 cross-categorial generalisations 98–121, 178–9 current relevance 20–1, 164 daughter nodes 61, 107 declarative clauses 56–7 degree adverbs 28, 28,105 demonstrative pronouns 13 deontic modality 166 description economy of 177–86 elegance of 186–9 determinatives 9–15, 34, 54, 102–4, 114–15, 152, 175, 177, 194, 287 directives declarative clauses as 56–7 imperative clauses 53 interrogative clauses as 57–8 Direct Objects (DOs) clauses as 74 as Complements 45 implicit 44, 295 Indirect Objects and 14, 48, 115 in passive sentences 22, 44, 46–7, 265 Patient role 42 preposing 203, 215 realisations of 72 distributional criteria of nouns 10–11 distributional tests 39 ditransitive verbs 45, 88, 115, 141, 224 doers. See Agent role dominance relationships, tree diagrams 61 do so-Substitution 214–17, 232 do-support 23–4, 40, 148 double-bar projections 103 dummy auxiliary 19, 22–4, 125, 149 dummy elements 25, 228, 238, 240–3, 245, 247 dummy it 37, 242 dyadic predicates 87 dynamic modality 166

economy of description 175, 177–86, 191 -ed participle clauses 70, 73, 75, 78, 80 -ed participles 53, 70, 73, 75, 78, 80, 293 elegance of description 175, 186–9, 191 emphatic stress 25 endings. See word endings epistemic modality 166 evaluating analyses 191 exclamative clauses 58–9 exercises active and passive sentences 267 Adjunct clauses 78 argumenthood tests 248–9 arguments 6–7, 32, 93, 95, 158, 220, 235, 237, 249, 307 aspect 20, 33, 132, 135–6, 148, 157 auxiliary verbs 22, 24, 26, 33, 132, 157, 219, 221 binominal noun phrases 308 case studies 279, 287, 289, 291, 294–7, 299–306 clauses 48, 64–6, 78, 83–4, 95, 132, 215, 220–1, 248, 257, 259 cleft and pseudocleft sentences 296 constituency tests 235, 237 constituents 6, 62, 83, 120, 207, 211, 220–1, 229, 235–7, 266, 297, 301, 304, 307 dummy auxiliary 22 function–form relationships 292 gradience 270 grammatical functions 49, 83 information packaging 254, 255, 257, 258, 260–1 modality 170–1 movement 96, 135–7, 148, 156–8, 220–1, 303 negated modal auxiliaries 307 negative sentences 24 postposing 257 Predicate 36, 95–6, 193 predicates 36, 95–6, 193 presentational construction 264 pronouns 14 sentences 6, 17–121, 132, 135–7, 139, 141, 143, 153, 156–8, 170, 192–3, 202, 207, 210–11, 214–16, 218–21, 226, 235–7, 248–9, 265–7, 277, 289, 294–6, 299, 301–3 subcategorisation 117, 119, 192 Subjects 36 subordinating conjunctions 305 substitution 221 syntactic argumentation 6–7 tense 132, 148 thematic roles 90, 93, 95–6, 248–9 Topicalisation 255 tree diagrams 62–3, 65–6, 121, 132, 135, 158, 218, 229, 236 verb complementation 294 verb phrases 84, 157, 219 VP-Preposing 200

385

Index word classes 14, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26 X-bar syntax 118–19 existential clauses 262–4 bare existentials 262–3 extended existentials 263–4 presentational construction 264 existential there 37, 92, 240–1, 275 Experiencer role 90, 239 experiential present perfect 165 expletive elements 241 extended existentials 262, 263–4 external arguments 88, 89, 118 Extraposition 197, 204, 231, 256–8 falsification 175, 194 finite clauses 52, 70, 73, 77–8 as Adjuncts 77–8 as Direct Objects 52, 73 I-node 123, 126 as Subjects 70 finite verbs 18, 25, 52 ‘flat’ structures 102, 114 form. See word classes function. See grammatical functions further reading argumenthood tests 249 arguments 97, 249 aspect 132, 171 case studies 307–8 clauses 67, 84, 307 constituency tests 221 function–form relationships 292 gradience 278 grammatical functions 34, 50, 84, 97 information packaging 267 modality 171 movement 158 predicates 97 selectional restrictions 97 Specifiers 34, 121 syntactic argumentation 194 tense 132, 171 thematic roles 97 tree diagrams 67, 121 word classes 34, 278 X-bar syntax 121 future time 162 ‘futurity’ 20 generalisations. See also word classes cross-categorial 98–121 Linguistically Significant 178–80 genitive case 34 Given Before New Principle 255, 259, 263, 264, 266 Goal role 45, 90, 91

386

gradability of adjectives 15 gradience 268 constructional 275–6 intersective 272–6 subsective 268–72 grammar 17, 94, 125, 165, 175, 177, 180–1, 185–6 defined 4 grammatical form–grammatical function relationships realisations of Adjuncts 76–80 realisations of Direct Objects 72–5 realisations of Indirect Objects 76 realisations of Predicates 72 realisations of Predicators 72 realisations of Subjects 69–72 grammatical functions (GFs) 14, 31, 35–50, 63, 68–84. See also Adjuncts; Direct Objects (DOs); grammatical form–grammatical function relationships; Indirect Objects (IOs); Predicates; Predicators; Subjects economy of description 177–86 and thematic roles 92 tree diagrams of 63 grammatical indeterminacy. See gradience grammaticalisation 287 Heads 98–106 adjective phrases 16 adverb phrases 28, 186 and Complements 17, 98–106, 112, 115, 129 noun phrases 16–17 projections of 103, 132, 158 Heavy NP Shift (HNPS) 203–4 historic present 160 hot news perfect 165 hypotaxis 30 hypothesis-falsification approach 175 idioms modal 169 if-clauses 52 immediate constituents 61, 196 imperative clauses 38, 58 implicit arguments 190 indefinite pronouns 13 independent justification 175, 189–91, 282 indeterminacy. See gradience Indirect Objects (IOs) Beneficiary role 45, 76 as Complements 45–7, 115, 214 implicit 89 in passive sentences 46–7 realisations of 76 infinitival markers 125–6, 212, 295 infinitival particle 25 inflection node. See I-node

Index inflection phrases (IPs) 132 inflections 17, 123 information packaging 253–67 cleft and pseudocleft sentences 259–62 existential clauses 262–3 inversion 258–9 passive construction 265–6 postposing 256–8 preposing 254–5 -ing participle clauses 71, 75, 79 -ing participles 53, 70, 71, 75, 79, 293 I-node. See also movement agreement features 124–6 auxiliary verbs 125 inflection features 125 Insertion Test 226–7, 233, 297, 301 instantaneous use of present tense 160 Instrument role 90, 92 ‘intention’ 20, 162, 167–8 interjections 9, 31 internal arguments 88, 89, 118, 293 interrogative adverbs 27 clauses 28, 39, 57–8 (See also Constituent Response Test) pronouns 13 sentences 147–50 tag 39 intersective gradience 268, 272–6 intonation 57, 59 intransitive 43, 182 prepositions 181–3, 184, 189, 193, 194, 274, 305 verbs 43, 88, 118, 135, 154, 181–3, 184, 293 introspective data 177 inversion 57, 258–9 Subject-auxiliary 23, 58, 59, 147–50, 221, 259 irregular verbs 21, 160 it-cleft sentences 259–60 it-Extraposition 257 justification, independent 175, 189–91, 282 KISS principle 194 labelled bracketings 54–5, 63, 64, 80, 244 Left Dislocation 255 lexemes 123 lexical projections 103 lexical verbs 18–25, 29, 43, 47, 124–5, 133, 140–1, 143, 151, 154–5, 157, 162, 169, 217, 223–8, 231 Linguistically Significant Generalisations (LSGs) 178–80 linguistics 3–4, 8, 14, 29, 42, 59–60, 88, 102, 123, 177–9, 194, 230, 238, 253, 278, 284, 287 LINGUIST List 96–7

linking verbs. See copular verbs Linnaeus, Carl 178 Locative role 90 locative there 37, 92, 241 lumping 271 main clauses 51–2, 56, 74–5, 79, 242–6, 268, 276 verbs (See lexical verbs) marginal modals 169 matrix clauses 52, 68, 83, 124–5, 146, 294 maximal projections 103, 132, 158, 212 Meaning Test 230, 233–4 mental lexicon 91, 122, 132, 238–9 modal idioms 169 past tense 17, 18, 20–1, 25, 160–2 modal auxiliaries case study 279–83 in combinations 126, 139, 141 future time 162 I-node 125–6, 133 marginal modals 169 morphosyntactic characteristics 167 negative sentences 23 past tense forms 271 principal meanings 168 in VP-Preposing 199–200 modality. See also modal auxiliaries deontic 166 dynamic 166 epistemic 166 monadic predicates 87 mood 165–9 morphological criteria of nouns 10–11 morphology 9–10 mother nodes 61, 195 movement 133–58 Extraposition 197, 204, 231, 257–8 Heavy NP Shift 197, 203–4, 231 in interrogative sentences 147–50 Left Dislocation 255 Noun Phrase Movement 14–17, 22, 26–7, 37, 42–3, 69, 72, 87 in passive sentences 22, 44, 46–7, 140, 143, 265, 285 Right Dislocation 256 rightward 156, 203, 231, 289 in sentences containing auxiliaries 22, 133, 145 Subject-Auxiliary Inversion 147–50 Subject-to-Subject Raising 145–7 Though-Movement 197, 202–3, 231, 294–5, 300 Topicalisation 197–8, 202–3, 254 Verb Movement 133–9, 140, 143 VP-Preposing 198–202, 203, 231, 294, 303 Wh-Movement 150–4, 196

387

Index Movement Test 196–7, 228–9, 294, 300 case studies 285 Extraposition 204–6 Heavy NP Shift 203–4 Though-Movement 202–3, 231 Topicalisation 197–8, 254 VP-Preposing 198–202 naked pizza eating construction (NPEC) 230–3 ‘necessity’ 19 negated modal auxiliaries 279–83 negative particle 22 sentences 23 NICE properties 25, 149 nodes, tree diagrams 60–4, 99–100 nominative case 13, 240 noncountable nouns 13 nonfinite clauses as Adjuncts 78–80 as Direct Objects 73–5 I-node 122–6 as Subjects 53, 69 nonfinite verbs 18, 25, 52, 53 nonreferential it 37, 240–1, 275, 298, 302 nonrestrictive relative clauses 130 notional definition of nouns 9 Noun Phrase Movement 14–17, 22, 26–7, 37, 42–3, 69, 72, 87 Heavy NP Shift 203–4 passive sentences 22, 140, 265 Subject-to-Subject Raising 145–7 noun phrases (NPs). See also verb + NP + to-infinitive constructions; X-bar syntax and adjective phrases 16–17, 26, 31, 82, 208, 258 as Adjuncts 30, 77 Adjuncts in 113, 130–1 binominal 287, 308 case studies 283–92 as Complements 98, 105–6, 181–3, 190 defined 14 as Direct Objects 26, 42–3, 72 Extraposition from 197, 204–6, 231 as Indirect Objects 76 Specifiers in 98, 104 as Subjects 69 substitution by pronouns 206–15 transitive and ditransitive verbs 41 nouns common 12, 13 countable 331 and determinatives 9–15 distributional criteria of 10–11 intersective gradience 273–4 modality 169 morphological criteria 10–11

388

noncountable 33 notional definition of 9 as predicates 16, 37, 89 pronouns 11–12, 13, 14 proper 12, 13 subclasses 12, 13 subsective gradience 268–9 suffixes 10 NP-Substitution 206–12 N′-Substitution 206–12 Object Complements 185–6, 249 ‘obligation’ 19–20 Obligatory Predication Adjuncts 194 Occam’s Razor 180–6 one-place predicates 88, 147 one-Substitution 209–10 open interrogatives 57 questions 60 word classes 9 ordinary coordination 223 orthographic words 8 parataxis 29 parenthetical elements 226–7 participles past 20–1 present 162 particles 181–2, 186, 189 parts of speech 9. See word classes passiveauxiliary 19, 22, 25, 44, 140–2 passive auxiliary 25, 44, 142 passive sentences 22, 44, 46–7, 140 passivisation 242–3 past futurate 162 past participle clauses 53 past participles 20–2, 25 past perfect 21, 163–4 past tense 17–21, 25, 159, 160–2, 167 Patient role 42 perfect aspect 20, 163–5 perfect auxiliary 20, 25, 141, 164 ‘permission’ 19, 20, 166, 168, 300 person 11, 16–18, 38, 52, 271 personal pronouns 13, 208 persuade class verbs 243–4, 246–7 phrasal-prepositional verbs 181 phrasal verbs 181–3, 184 phrase level analysis 54–5 phrase markers 54. See tree diagrams phrases. See also adjective phrases (APs); noun phrases (NPs); prepositional phrases (PPs); verb phrases (VPs); X-bar syntax adverb phrases 28 agreement phrases 132

Index aspect phrases 132 complementiser phrases 132 inflection phrases 132 intersective gradience 274–5 by-phrases 46, 265 to-phrases 47 tense phrases 132 pleonastic elements 241, 248 plural endings 10, 12 pluraliatantum 269 politeness use of past tense 161 possessive personal pronouns 13 ‘possibility’ 19, 168, 182 postposing Extraposition 257–8 Heavy NP Shift 256–7 Right Dislocation 256 pragmatics 59–60 precedence relationships, tree diagrams, 60–1 predicate logic 88 predicates. See also argumenthood tests argument structures 88–9, 91, 147 dyadic 87 monadic 87 selectional restrictions 93–4 thematic structures 89–92 triadic 87 Predicates defined 35–6, 88 realisations of 72 predicative position of adjectives 16, 269, 275 Predicators realisations of 72 ‘prediction’ 20, 292 prefixes 10 preposing Left Dislocation 255 Topicalisation 254–5 prepositional phrases (PPs). See also X-bar syntax as Adjuncts 77, 185 Adjuncts in 107 as Complements 189 Complements in 104–5 as Direct Objects 26–7, 73 intersective gradience 274–5 Specifiers in 104–5 as Subjects 69–70 verb-preposition constructions 180–3 prepositional verbs 181, 183, 184 prepositions case study 305–6 elegance of description 186–9 intransitive 182, 189, 194, 274, 305 as predicates 87 subsective gradience 271–2

transitive 181–3, 184, 189 verb-preposition constructions 180–3, 184 presentational construction 264 present futurate 162 present participle clauses 53 present participles 162–3 present perfect 20–1, 163–5 present progressive futurate 162 present tense 17–18, 52, 159–60, 162 Principle of End Weight 256, 258–9 Proform Substitution. See Substitution Test progressive aspect 20, 163–4 progressive auxiliary 25, 141–2 projections of the Head 103 pronouns 11–14, 204, 207–8, 239 proper nouns 12–13 Proposition role 91, 147 prototypes 268 pseudocleft sentences 224–5, 235, 261 Pseudocleft Test 224–6, 232, 296, 301, 304 questions 59. See also Constituent Response Test alternative 60 declarative clauses as 60 exclamative clauses as 59 interrogative clauses 28, 39, 57 open 60 rhetorical 58, 336 yes/no 60 raising verbs 147, 205 rank scale 54–6 realisations of Adjuncts 76–80 of Direct Objects 72–5 of Indirect Objects 76 of Predicates 72 of Predicators 72 of Subjects 69–72 reasoning 175, 177, 214, 242. See syntactic argumentation reciprocal personal pronouns 13 referential it 37, 241 referring expressions 12, 14 reflexive personal pronouns 13 relative clauses 84, 130, 256 relative pronouns 13 reported speech 161 restrictive relative clauses 130 rhetorical questions 58 Right Dislocation 256 Right Node Raising (RNR) Test 223–4, 232 selectional restrictions 93–4, 180 semantic predicates 88. See predicates semantic roles 72, 90. See thematic roles

389

Index sentence adverbs 28, 125, 137, 139 sentence level analysis 54 sentences. See also clauses active 44, 165 cleft 179, 224 defined 8 interrogative 25, 147–50 levels of description 94 negative 23, 122 passive 22, 44, 265 pseudocleft 224–5, 296 rank scale 54–6 tree diagrams of 112 simplicity 178, 191 single-bar projections 103 sister nodes 100 small clauses 53, 70, 72–3, 75, 80 Somewhere Else Test 228–30, 233–4, 297, 301, 304 Source role 91 Specifiers 98–106, 112, 286 splitting 271 stackable property 112 statements 57, 59, 88 state use of present tense 160 state verbs 163 structural ambiguity 3 subcategorisation 26, 99, 115–18, 150, 183 subcategorisation frames 115–18, 150 Subject–Auxiliary Inversion 147–50 Subject Complements 50, 185–6 Subject idiom chunks 275 Subjects clauses as 70–2 defined 13, 35–6 Extraposition of 204 noun phrases as 69 prepositional phrases as 69–70 realisations of 69–72 Subject-to-Subject Raising 145–7 Subject-verb agreement 38, 290 subordinate clauses as Adjuncts 126–8 as Complements 129–30 as Direct Objects 52, 54, 74–5, 126–8 I-node 124–5, 126 relative 130 as Subject 74–5, 126–8 subordinating conjunctions case study 305–6 subsective gradience 268–71, 276 Substitution Test case studies 295–6 do so-Substitution 214–17 NP-Substitution 206–12 N’-Substitution 206–12 one-Substitution 209–12

390

V’-Deletion 212–17 VP-Deletion 212–17 VP-Substitution 212–17 V’-Substitution 212–17 suffixes adjectives 15 adverbs 27 nouns 10, 15 plural 10 verbs 27 superlative forms of adjectives 15–16 of adverbs 27 superordinate clauses 51–2 suppletion 16 syndetic coordination 29 syntactic argumentation 175–94. See also argumenthood tests; case studies; constituency tests economy of description 177–86 elegance of description 186–9 evaluating analyses 191 hypothesis-falsification approach 175 independent justification 189–91 Linguistically Significant Generalisations (LSGs) 178–80 Occam’s Razor 180 syntactic features 93, 179–80 syntax, defined 4, 121 tag questions 39 taxonomies 178 tense and future time 162 past 17, 20–1, 159, 160–2, 167 present 17–18, 52, 159–60, 162 tense phrases (TPs) 132 terminological economy 185 tests, distributional 39 that-clauses 52, 73 thematic roles 89–92, 97, 145 thematic structures 93, 117–18, 147 Theme role 91 theta roles. See thematic roles third person singular 17–18, 20, 124, 149, 159, 271 Though-Movement 197, 202–3, 231, 294, 303 three-place predicates 88, 239, 244 time. See also aspect; tense future 162 timeless use of present tense 160 to-infinitive clauses 53, 70–3, 78–9, 244, 298 to-infinitives 25, 53, 70–4, 78–9, 243–7, 293–4, 297. See also verb + NP + to-infinitive constructions tone of voice 57

Index to-phrases 47 Topicalisation Though-Movement 197, 202–3 VP-Preposing 198 transformational grammar 5 transitive prepositions 181–3, 189 transitive verbs 43, 150 tree diagrams 54, 60–4, 103, 112, 115, 125–6 triadic predicates 87, 94 two-place predicates 88, 239 undergoers. See Patient role V’-Deletion 216–17 verb complementation 80, 247, 292–3 verb-forms 18, 25, 162 verbless clauses 53 Verb Movement 133–9, 143, 197 verb + NP + to-infinitive constructions 243–7 verb phrases (VPs). See also X-bar syntax Adjuncts in 107–9, 111, 113 Complements in 112, 121 Specifiers in 104–6 VP-Preposing 198–201, 203, 231 verb-preposition constructions 274 verbs. See also auxiliary verbs agreement with Subject 38, 123, 290 base forms 18, 20, 38, 58, 122, 124, 140–1, 154–5, 159 believe class 246 copular 188, 225 ditransitive 45, 88, 115, 141, 224 endings 17, 20 finite 18, 25, 52, 132 inflections 17, 89, 122–5, 135, 161–2, 165, 274 intersective gradience 268, 272, 274, 276 intransitive 43, 88, 118, 135, 205, 293 irregular 21, 160 lexical 18–20, 22–5, 29, 31, 124–5, 133, 140–1, 150–1, 154–5, 165, 169, 185, 198–203, 231–2, 234, 240, 242, 265, 270–1, 293, 297, 299 main 18, 70 nonfinite 18, 25, 52, 53 person 17–18, 20, 38–9, 52, 124, 159, 271 persuade class 246 phrasal 181–3, 184, 185–6, 189 phrasal-prepositional 181, 194 as predicates 41, 72, 87–9, 93, 243–7 as Predicators 41 prepositional 181, 183, 184, 185–6, 194 raising 147, 205 state 163

subsective gradience 270–1 tense 17–21, 25, 38–9, 52, 122–6 transitive 43, 118, 141, 150, 183, 205, 293 want class 247 ‘volition’ 166, 168 VP-Deletion 212, 232 VP-Preposing 198–203, 231, 294, 303 VP-Substitution 212–17 V’-Substitution 212–17 want class verbs 247 wh-clauses 70, 73, 76, 82 wh-clefts. See pseudocleft sentences wh-interrogatives 57 Wh-Movement 150–4, 196–7 wh-pronouns 13 wh-words 57–9, 70–1, 74, 130, 150 word classes. See also adjectives; adverbs; conjunctions; nouns; prepositions; verbs determinatives 9–15 interjections 31 intersective gradience 272–5 syntactic features 179 word endings adjectives 15–17 adverbs 27–8 nouns 9–15 plural 8, 10, 12, 17 verbs 17–18, 26 word-forms 8–9, 16 word level analysis 54 word order. See also information packaging; movement Adjuncts 113, 254 auxiliary verb combinations 25, 140–1 Complements 112–13 Indirect Objects 46 marked 56, 135 Subject–auxiliary inversion 23–4, 57, 147–50, 259 unmarked 56, 254, 259, 261 words, notion of 195 X-bar syntax. See also I-node Adjuncts 106–13 cross-categorial generalisations 113–15 Heads, Complements and Specifiers 98–106 yes/no interrogatives 40, 57, 60 yes/no questions 60 zero-bar projections 103

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398