Introductory
note
My only source of reference for, and
thus the basis for all discussions and definitions in, this assignment is English
Grammar: Theory and Use, by Hasselgård, Johansson and Lysvåg (2004).
Exercise 1. Difference in form and meaning between the
members of each of the following sentence pairs.
A
Formally, the two sentences
differ only in the order of the last two words. However, syntactically, as well
as semantically, there are several important differences. A syntactic analysis
of the first sentence reveals the clause pattern SVdO. The direct object is
realized by a noun phrase, with the as a determiner, suggestion
as the head, and interesting as a premodifier, realized by an adjective.
In
sentence two, the clause pattern is SVdOoP. The first two words have the same
form and also the same function as in sentence one, SV. However, the noun
phrase the suggestion realizes a direct object, whereas the adjective
phrase interesting is a description of the object, and is thus an object
predicative.
The
meaning in the first sentence is that someone has been presented with an
interesting suggestion, and they have considered it. The meaning in the second
sentence is that the someone who has thought about a given suggestion has
considered it interesting, i.e. they found it to be interesting after
considering it.
Can
we determine the word classes of
interesting and suggestion, and
thus get a hint to the syntax of the sentences, without knowing the meaning of
the words? We are given some clues by the words’ respective formative suffixes.
A word ending in -ing could be a verb
in its progressive aspect, an adjective (as in these sentences), or a so-called
gerund, a noun created from the root of a verb lexeme. Hence, BUILDINGN
has its root from BUILDV. How do we then know the word class of interesting? Words ending in -tion are also often created from the
roots of a verb, SUGGESTIONN in this case from SUGGESTV.
But no adjective in the English language is created using this particular
formative, -tion. Thus we could
envision a sentence like they considered the singing suggestive, with a gerund as the direct object, but
where the object predicative still has been given an “adjective” suffix.
In the sentence they named the building
Jubilation, we have an -ing-formation
as the direct object and an -tion-formation
as the object predicative. Thus, I believe that without knowing the semantic
meanings of the forms in question, a correct syntactic analysis is not
possible. Interestingly however, it is here sufficient to know the meaning
inherent in the verbs name and consider, and the distribution of
formatives, to be able to properly analyze sentence one, and my last
example.
It
is instructive to take a closer look at the valency and transitivity of the
verbs of the two sentences. In the first sentence the verb is monotransitive,
it requires one object; and has a valency of two, meaning that it needs two
constituents to make a complete grammatical sentence. In the second sentence,
the verb is complex transitive, in that it needs an object predicative to
complete the sentence, and is thus a three-place verb. The valency and
transitivity is closely related to the slight but important difference in
meaning between the verbs. In the first sentence consider means to think about or deliberate
upon a proposition in question; in the second consider means to give it
an evaluation.
Formally, the sentences differ
only in one respect, namely the additional s in papers in the
second sentence. The syntactic structure, vSVdOA, is identical. They are both
interrogative. They could both be considered ambiguous, but I am assuming that
the form could you is used as a polite request, and is not a question of
the listeners physical or otherwise (conditional) ability to buy the item or
items in question within the specified time-frame. The only difference is
created by the morphological feature present in the second and not in the first
sentence. In the first sentence, the speaker is asking someone to by an amount
of paper. Paper is here an uncountable noun, and the quantifying
determiner some suggests a limitation to the amount the speaker want. In
the second sentence papers is an inflected form within the paradigm of
the lexeme PAPERN . This is a countable noun, meaning “newspaper”.
The speaker asks for some papers, meaning that he probably wishes the
listener to buy maybe some two or three or four of the sort.
Note
that we have an instance of subject-auxiliary inversion (could you buy...)
due to the word order normal for an interrogative sentence. If the sentence had
been declarative, the auxiliary would return to its place in front of the main
verb, you could buy....
The
adverbials in each case are optional, meaning that they are not required to
make the sentences grammatically correct.
C
The only visual difference
between sentence one and two is the respective use of verbs, is in the first and ate in the second. This creates some differences in the sentences’
syntactic patterns, SVsP in the first and SVdO in the second. The copular is in the first sentence makes
the last constituent a subject predicative realized by a noun phrase. In the
second sentence ate is a monotransitive verb requiring a direct object, realized
by the same noun phrase we find in the first sentence, but here with a
different syntactic function.
As
a result of this the semantics is also markedly different. In the first
sentence we get a description of the subject, in this case an ascriptive use of
the copular connection. In the second sentence the subject is the active part,
and the second noun phrase describes what is being acted upon, hence making it
a direct object.
Exercise 2. Answers to
questions from text.
a) Phrase analysis
my
younger sister, Lucille
This is a noun phrase,
functioning as a direct object in this sentence. It is expanded by apposition,
in this case giving prominence to the relation of the person in question to the
speaker. Is it then reasonable to analyze the phrase with two heads? My is a determiner to sister, younger is its premodifier. In that context sister is a head. But the phrase parts my younger sister and Lucille
could both stand alone in the sentence, both having the exact same referent and
realizing the same syntactic function, and thus Lucille could also be considered a head in its own right.
my
grandmother’s house
This is another noun phrase, here
part of a prepositional phrase realizing an adverbial. House is the head, my
grandmother’s is the (possessive) determiner. Note that the determiner is a
specifying genitive; it can be substituted with her, and denotes the owner of the house, rather than a “class” or
kind of houses (as in the (very imaginative) sentence grandmothers’ houses (?), where the determiner is a classifying
genitive).
had
grown up
This is a verb phrase,
functioning as the verbal in this sentence, with had as a finite verb. Had
is the auxiliary, the past tense of HAVEV. Grown up is the head. This is a multi-word verb, created from the past
participle grown from the paradigm of
the lexeme GROWV, and the preposition up. The preposition is not meaningful in a sense that it should
point to any direction, and is part of the main verb. It cannot be moved to any
other part of the sentence and still make sense, and grown up is thus a prepositional verb.
so
severely
This is a part of an adverbial
phrase, functioning as an adverbial in the sentence. severely is an adverb and the head of the phrase, so is the premodifier. What comes after that (in the text) is the postmodifier.
In
one large painting
This is a prepositional phrase,
syntactically an adverbial in the sentence it occurs. In is the preposition, one
large painting is the complement, realized by a noun phrase.
could be seen
This is a verb phrase, a verbal in the sentence. Could is the finite verb. The head is seen, could and be are auxiliaries. Could is a modal auxiliary, be is a grammatical auxiliary. Seen is past participle of the lexeme SEEV.
Note that in this context could signals conditionality, the something could be seen if the right conditions were in place.
b) Word
classes
Name
As it appears in the text, the
word name is a noun. Syntactically, it stands in the initial position in
a declarative sentence, with the
possessive my as its determiner. Only a noun (or a nominalized adjective
in place of a noun, the old, your poor) could take a determiner and
function as a noun phrase (or part of it). It is used here together with its
determiner to build a noun-phrase, in which it functions as the head. It has
the finite verb is coupling it with its predicative Ruth. Morphologically
it does not reveal much of itself, but semantically, it denotes an abstract
entity, what a person is called. The subject referent is what is characterized
by the subject predicative, and as the subject predicative is realized by a
proper noun, it is almost inconceivable that the head of the noun phrase
realizing the subject could be anything other than a noun.
Name is
part of the paradigm of the lexeme NAMES, a countable noun appearing
here in its singular form.
In
the sentence I name you Ruth, the same form is used as a verb.
That
As it appears in the text, the
word that is a demonstrative determiner. An analyses of the phrase
syntax of the prepositional phrase in that place, where in is the
preposition and that place is the complement, reveals the functional
relationship between the demonstrative determiner that and the head of
the noun phrase place, realizing the complement of that phrase. That
is here a singular demonstrative determiner, and points to something of
relative distance to the speaker. The only other possible uses of that are as subordinating conjunctions
or as relative pronouns. Neither of those usages would be meaningful in this
sentence.
In the sentence it was obvious
that the perfect horizontality of the world in that place foreshortened the
view so severely that the horizon seemed to circumscribe the sod house and
nothing more, the first time the form that appears, it is used as a
subordinating conjunction.
read
As it appears in the text, the
word read is a verb. It is in its infinitive form, with the form to as
the infinitive marker. It is the main verb of the verb phrase began
to read, denoting a prolonged action or process, typically for a verb.
Morphologically, it is indistinguishable from e.g. the past tense of the same
lexeme, but nevertheless marked by a sound modification: infinitive read
/ri:d/, past tense/past participle read /rєd/. It is distinguished from
the present tense (with the same form read except in third person
singular) by the use of the infinitive marker, and by its placement immediately
after the finite verb began. No two finite verbs can constitute a single
verb phrase. Furthermore, the subject in this sentence is the third person
singular noun phrase my grandfather, which would demand the inflected
form reads, had it been the finite
verb in this sentence, which it is not.
In the sentence the book was a
good read, the form read is used as a noun.
Japanese
As it appears in the text, the
word Japanese is an adjective. Syntactically, it functions as a
postmodifier to the noun painting. It is created from the root Japan
and the added morphological formative -ese, meaning “of or relating to
Japan.” Semantically, it denotes in this context a description of a thing,
namely a painting, a typical use for an adjective.
In the sentence the Japanese
are great painters, the form Japanese is used as a proper noun, here
a so-called demonym.
c) Nouns
Proper nouns
Ruth is
a proper noun from the text, Sylvia Foster is another. Typically, a
proper noun is spelled with an initial capital letter; it has no certain sense
or lexical meaning that can be defined in an entry in a dictionary; and it does
not vary for number and definiteness. It rarely needs a determiner, unless a
determiner is a part of the name of something, or it is needed to distinguish
between several unique entities bearing the same name. Examples are given of both
usages in the sentences Which Venice? The Venice in Italy, not the
one in the US. It often refers uniquely to one specific known
referent; in other cases, this must be inferred from the context: Norway is
always Norway, whereas Ruth could be anyone with the name Ruth, unless, as in
this context, the speaker clearly introduces herself as a bearer of this name.
Thus, the unique referent of this particular proper noun is established.
Uncountable nouns
Care is
an uncountable noun from the text, literature is another. Uncountable
nouns typically refer to something that is not made up of one or more single
units of more or less equal size or definable limits (that you can line up and
count), but is thought of as a mass or an abstract entity, like substances, emotional
states, qualities and abstract concepts. Uncountables could have both concrete
and abstract referents. They do not have plural forms, and they do not combine
with determiners that imply countability: The care, but *a care
or *a number of care.
Countable nouns
sister is
a countable noun from the text, grandmother is another. A countable noun
can be counted; it can take both periphrastic and morphological features that
imply this: a sister, these sisters.
Although sisters and grandmothers come in all shapes and sizes, they all still
share some common functional and distinguishing features that set them aside
from both each other (within the class) and from members of other classes, so
that it is possible to line them up and count them as single units.
Both countable nouns and
uncountable nouns (common nouns) are different from proper nouns in that they
have a stronger lexical meaning, a clear and definable sense, but a more
volatile reference. Often the reference of a common noun must be established through
a common understanding between the speaker and the listener in a conversation.
An (in a context commonly known) specific and identifiable referent of a common
noun is often expressed with the use of an article that denotes definiteness,
e.g. the.
d) Any
versus some
The reason for the use of any in
this sentence can only be described semantically, i.e. what the word means in
this environment. The he in the sentence painted a number of mountains,
it was impossible to identify them, and you could not tell whether or not they
were real, even though they had been real (which hypothetically they could have
been, regardless of whether or not they were identifiable). The speaker has no reason to assume that any
of the paintings depict real mountains. Paraphrasing the sentence to clarify
this, it could read It was impossible to tell if any of the many more
unidentifiable mountains he painted were real or not. The speaker knows
nothing of the existence of real mountains among the paintings, and although
doubtful, the speaker uses any to signal that she is open to the
possibility that some paintings could have real mountains in them, without
having any preconceived ideas that this might be so.
To my
understanding, the sentence would not be neither grammatically nor semantically
meaningful if any were to be substituted with some. However, if
the speaker actually knew that some of the paintings had real mountains in them
(albeit unidentifiable), the sentence could (or should) be re-written to
something like … none of them identifiable, even though/even if some of
them were real, or better, and maybe more “poetic” … none of them
identifiable, some of them real. Here some is used to assert
the knowledge of an existence of an unknown but limited number of paintings
within the limits of the sum total of the paintings depicting real
mountains.
e) Syntactic
analysis
This is a compound sentence. It
consists of two main clauses, joined together with the co-ordinating
conjunction and. The clause pattern of both clauses is SVdO, both with
the monotransitive pattern. The subject
is not present in the second clause, but can be inferred from the context,
transferred from the first clause to the second. There is no mention of a
competing subject, and it is not ambiguous who the subject is. Importantly,
both bought and copied are finite verbs in the past tense, a
crucial argument for treating these as separate clauses. Further, copied
(like bought) has a valency of two,
meaning that it needs two constituents, a subject and an object, to be part of
a grammatically correct sentence. The only reasonable way to do this is to
infer the subject from the first clause. Finally, and is used to co-ordinate two equal parts, making the existence of
an inferred zero subject in the second clause even more plausible. I have used
the zero sign Ø to mark the
ellipsis.
The syntactic analysis of the
entire sentence and the syntax of the phrases realizing the clause elements are
visualized in the following tree diagram. As I have decided to understand this
to be a compound sentence, the two main clauses are treated separately:
In conclusion, I wish to comment
on the inventive and multi-various use of constructions with of in this
sentence. The first dO, the noun-phrase a box of colors, uses of
to link a group noun box and the content of said box, an amount of colors.
Is the head of this phrase clear? The person obviously bought colors, which
happened to be collected in a box. However, I would argue that box is
the head, as the determiner a stands to box, and of colors gives
further information to the content or “type” of box. Still, in my opinion one
could reasonably argue that colors should be the head and a box of
a sort of a quantifying determiner. Compare sentences a lot of colors where
a lot of is a quantifying determiner and colors is the head, and a
box of unknown origin, where box
is head and unknown origin is postmodifier. These last two examples are
syntactically quite clear cut, whereas our phrase is somewhere in between.
The last two occurrences of of
initialize prepositional phrases. In the noun phrase a magazine lithograph
of a Japanese painting of Fujiyama, the direct object of the second clause,
it is used a type of recursivity: One could imagine an endless sentence
containing constructions like these, noun phrase within noun phrase within noun
phrase (a something of a something by a someone from a somewhere etc. ad
absurdum). Hence the entire form of a Japanese painting of Fujiyama is
the postmodifier (realized by a prepositional phrase) of lithograph, and
within this a Japanese painting of Fujiyama is a noun phrase in its own
right, with of Fujiyama as its postmodifier, again a
prepositional phrase.
Bibliography
Hasselgård,
H., Johansson, S. & Lysvåg, L. 2003. English
Grammar: Theory and Use. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
