1.
Difference in form
and meaning between the members of the following sentence pairs:
A
-------S--- V
dO
1 The deer enjoys carrots.
-----S---- -----V-------
----dO-----
2 The deer are enjoying the
carrots.
Syntactically,
sentences A1 and A2 are identical, with the syntactic pattern SVdO. The verb
ENJOYV is monotransitive, and requires an object to create a
grammatically correct sentence. It has a valency of two, meaning that it
requires two constituents, specifically a subject and a direct object. The
formal difference between the sentences is found in the respective verbals, and
in the presence of a determiner in the noun phrase realizing the dO in sentence
A2.
In sentence A1 we have two generic
references: to all members of the group we can label “deer,” and to all members
of the group we can label “carrots.” With some exceptions, generic references
are found only with definite and indefinite singular forms, and indefinite
plural form (a horse/the horse/horses is/are (an) intelligent animal(s)).
Interestingly, DEERN is a so-called zero plural, meaning that it
takes no plural ending; it has no marker to distinguish between singular and
plural forms: one deer, two deer. Thus, we can infer that in the
first sentence deer is used in the
definite singular, both because this word could not be used as a generic
reference in its definite plural, and because the finite verb has the third
person singular -s form. The verb is
in the simple present tense.
In sentence A2, the finite verb are is the
third person plural of the lexeme BEV. The definite article the
is used, and thus we know that the form the
deer in this sentence is used in its definite plural meaning. The main verb
is in the progressive -ing form; the whole verb phrase is in the present
tense with the progressive aspect.
The relationship between constituents in a sentence is
called concord, signifying the reciprocity between the syntactic elements of a
sentence. In sentence A1 (assuming that it is grammatically correct) we know
that the subject is third person singular, because we can infer this from the -s form of the verb. Similarly, in
sentence A2, we can infer back from the finite verb are that the subject is plural.
Importantly, in order to understand the difference in
meaning between sentence A1 and A2, we must appreciate that the noun phrases
realizing the S and dO constituents in the respective sentences have different
referents. The meaning of A1 is that deer in general like carrots in general.
The referents of the phrase are equally non-specific and hence unidentifiable.
To understand the meaning of sentence A2, we must assume a setting: The deer in
this case are a concrete and limited herd or congregation of animals of the
sort; they are right now at the moment of speaking in the process of enjoying a
specific amount of carrots, that they may have been given, or might have found
on their own.
A1 could conceivably have a meaning where the referent
of the subject is one specific identifiable deer. Then we must assume a way of
establishing this referent in a context, as in the deer (that we just talked
about/in cage one) enjoys carrots (and not fresh meat, which is the favorite of
the lion in cage two). An example of both an anaphoric and a cataphoric
reference is given in the parenthesis; only a reference that does not interfere
with the integrity of the sentence would be acceptable (most likely an
anaphoric in this particular case).
B
S ----V------- dO -------A-------
1 I am to meet him at the bus
stop.
S ----V----- dO -------A-------
2 I will meet him at the bus
stop.
This sentence pair
has the same syntactic pattern, SVdOA. MEETV
could have different transitivities, but is here a monotransitive verb.
In both sentences the adverbial is optional. However, depending on the context,
it is easily imaginable that the adverbial is the most important element in
both sentences, if they are used as answers to a query about the actual place
of the meeting.
The formal difference is found in the auxiliaries of
the respective verb phrases: am to in
B1 and will in B2. All other forms in
the sentences are identical, and the S, dO and A are not marked for any
difference in referents. Meet is in
both sentences the base form of the verb, and has the same meaning.
The difference in meaning between B1 and B2 is only
evident from a closer scrutiny of the respective use of auxiliaries. In both
cases the combination of the auxiliary and the main verb combines to create a
future reference; the meeting is to take place some time in the future. The
sentences are thus equally non-factive and modal; a form of to be
in this environment is used as an auxiliary equivalent, and its corresponding
modal auxiliary might be must. An
auxiliary equivalent has an advantage over a modal auxiliary, in that it has an
inflectional paradigm (I was to meet him,
but *I musted meet him). That said, I
believe that the precise meaning conveyed in the form used in this sentence
would then be lost: “The be to + base
form of the verb is used to signal decisions,” and when the referent of the
subject is personal, the implication is that somebody other than the referent
has decided on or set up the meeting (Hasselgård, Johansson & Lysvåg
2003:191). This meaning would be lost were one to use must. In sentence B2, the modal auxiliary will is used in its root sense, pointing to the non-factive future
event of the meeting that will take place; it is here probably used as a
neutral future marker; however, a stronger stress on will would enhance its modal or predictive meaning.
Thus, in sentence B1, the decision is beyond the
control of the subject. In sentence B2, it could be a spontaneous decision, an
expression of intent, or just a more neutral expression of a future occurrence.
An interesting grammatical difference between the verb
phrases is that the phrase in B1 is actually marked for present tense through
the first person singular am, whereas
the B2 verb phrase has the tenseless unmarked modal plus the base form of the
verb “only.” The finitude is “spent” on the modal, and there is no way to grammatically
express tense, which can only be done through a finite verb.
C
S -----V------- ---dO--
1 She may borrow my bike.
S -----V----------------- ---dO--
2 She may have borrowed my bike.
The formal difference
between sentence C1 and C2 is found in the verb phrases: may borrow and may have
borrowed respectively. The syntax is the same in both sentences, SVdO. The
main verb BORROWV is monotransitive in both cases. The semantic
difference is created by the difference in form and meaning between the verb
phrases only; the other constituents in the respective sentences are not marked
for any difference in referents.
In sentence C1, may
is a modal auxiliary and borrow is
the base form of the verb. The sentence is ambiguous, in that may here can be used both in its
epistemic and in its root meaning: Epistemically, in that the speaker expresses
uncertainty as to whether it is possible that it might happen some time in the
future that “she” actually borrows “my bike”; or in its root use, in that “she”
is granted permission to borrow “my bike.” It should be noted that the last use
is in this reader’s opinion by far the most likely interpretation of this
sentence. It takes some imagination to envision the first, and maybe also a
very loose definition of the word “borrow”; although this might not be
necessary, as the speaker could be using this form to predict a future
uncertain occurrence or hypothetical event, when the “she” of the text asks
for, and is granted, permission to borrow the speaker's bike.
In C2 may is a modal auxiliary; have is the infinitive or base form of the verb HAVEV;
and borrowed is the past participle
of the verb BORROWV, making the last two forms in this phrase the
perfective infinitive. May is here
used epistemically; the speaker believes that it might be the case that “she”
has borrowed his or her bike. It is thus used to express an hypothesis about
the world, inquiring into the possibility of something. I believe that the use
of the perfective infinitive in conjunction with may almost entirely
rules out the possibility of a root use, as the sentence questions the
factuality or reality of something that has already happened. On the other
hand, the conditionality sometimes expressed with some of the remote modals,
could combine with a perfective infinitive to to create a root use: She
might have borrowed my bike is ambiguous (and depending on stress).
In C1, if we assume a root use
signifying permission, the main verb borrow
would probably be stressed in speaking; in C2, assuming an epistemic use, this
uncertainty would likely be expressed by stressing the modal may of this sentence. A distinction
between the epistemic and root use in C1 could conceivably be expressed with a
difference in stress, where the epistemic meaning of the modal could be signaled by stressing
this word.
Note that we would say she borrowed my bike if we referred to a unique event in the past,
and she may borrow my bike, when
referring to future or conditional events, but never *she may borrowed my bike. This is due to the non-factive, open and
uncertain nature of the modal auxiliaries, either used to refer to future or to
hypothetical events. The simple past of lexical verbs always refers to a
concluded event in the past, and can only be questioned with disjunct
adverbials (I think perhaps she borrowed
my bike yesterday). Further, the past participle can only combine with a
form of HAVEV (in the active voice), and the incompatibility between
modals and the past tense (or any tense, for that matter) rules out the use of had (she
had borrowed, but *she may had
borrowed).
D
v S
V
-------------dO--------------------
1 Have you seen the film Slumdog
Millionaire?
v S
V -------------dO--------------------
2 Did
you see the film Slumdog Millionaire?
Sentence D1 and D2 are interrogative sentences. The
syntax is the same, (v)SVdO. The main verb is monotransitive and has a valency
of two in each case. Typically for interrogative constructions, we find
subject-auxiliary inversions in both sentences, meaning that the subject is
placed between the auxiliary and the main verb—two examples of discontinuous
verbal elements. The visual difference is found in the respective verb phrases,
have seen and did see. In the phrase have
seen, have is in the present
tense and seen is marked with the
perfective aspect, making it the present perfect, whereas in did see the simple past form of DOV
has had to be inserted in order to make it an interrogative sentence. I believe
this should be analyzed as the past tense—or even simple past—with
do-insertion. The phrases realizing the other constituents in the respective
sentences are not marked for any difference in referents.
To
find the difference in meaning, it is instructive to make the sentences
declarative: D1 would be you have seen the film...; D2 you saw the film.... As D1 already has a grammatical
auxiliary, it does not need another in the interrogative form. D2 needs a form
of DOV, and since we can only have one finite verb in a main clause,
it “takes” the simple past from the main verb, leaving it in its base form. The
meaning of the sentences is closely linked to the use of verb forms. The
use of the present perfect in D1 “… combines completed past action and
relevance at the moment of speaking …” (Hasselgård, Johansson & Lysvåg
2003:165). Someone has perhaps just
seen a film, maybe this sentence was uttered in an encounter just outside a
cinema, and the speaker wants to know if this was the film the addressee just
saw; or, it is used pragmatically: the speaker wants to invite the addressee to
a movie, and asks if he or she has already seen this particular film. In D2,
the speaker wants to know if the addressee has ever seen this film, in the
near or distant past, e.g. at the time it was popular or when it played at the
cinemas. The speaker wants to know if this is a concluded event of the
past. One could say that D1 is more flexible and has a whole range of potential
meanings grounded in the establishing (now, at the moment of speaking) of
whether the addressee has seen Slumdog
millionaire; D2 is limited to finding out whether or not the addressee at
any one time in the past saw this film.
There
might be regional differences in meaning between the two sentences, in
particular between American and British English. Speakers in both language
areas would probably agree that sentence D2 is most appropriate when referring
to unique events in the past; however, I believe that Americans have a greater
tolerance for using the same sentence when referring to completed past action
relevant for the present, i.e. with meanings similar to some of the alternative
meanings for D1 mentioned above.
In
both sentences, the noun phrase the film Slumdog Millionaire realizing
the direct object is a nice example of apposition, the proper noun and the
common noun working in tandem to create the head of the phrase, or maybe the
proper noun expanding on the meaning of the common noun; although in this case
the sentences would have very little meaning without the appositional
expansion, and thus maybe the proper noun in this case is clearly the head, and
the entire form the film a sort of a
premodifier.
Does it make sense to distinguish between equative and
ascriptive appositions? Compare the Norwegian Prime Minister Jens
Stoltenberg and the Norwegian minister Jonas Gahr Støre. We have
many ministers, but only one Prime Minister. In equative appositions (if I can
be so bold as to use this newly invented term) both “parts” have the same
referent, whereas in the ascriptive appositions one part (most probably
containing the common noun) is only more information to the other. This is an
argument for treating Slumdog Millionaire as the most “important part” or head of the noun phrase it appears in.
Compare Have you seen the film?,
which is not very versatile and has no meaning unless there is already an
established referent, and Have you seen Slumdog Millionaire?, which is unclear only if there exists e.g.
a theatre production by the same name, or the addressee has not heard about
this film before.
2. Questions from text.
a) Lines 6, 9, 15, 16: Describe the
verb phrases in bold in terms of tense, aspect, voice and modality. In verb
phrases with modality, state what modal meaning is expressed. In verb phrases
with the progressive aspect, state why the progressive has been used.
will be persuaded
Will is a modal auxiliary; be is a grammatical auxiliary; and persuaded is the main verb. Be
is the infinitive form of BEV, persuaded
is here the past participle of PERSUADEV. A form of BEV
plus a past participle form the passive voice, and when the form of BEV
is in the infinitive (as it is here) we get the passive infinitive. Will is the only finite form, and
although we only operate with past and present tense in English, and this
sentence is not marked for either of those, if we could say that this verb
phrase has a marker of tense, this would be it, referring to a future event.
This verb phrase has no
grammatical marker for aspect.
The unmarked modal will is here used in its root sense, the
speaker predicting that the jury by necessity is going to be persuaded if they
accept the arguments of the prosecutor. Although in a more pragmatic sense, he
is trying to create some uncertainty amongst the members of the jury as to the
validity of the arguments from the prosecutor, this is not expressed in the
semantic use of the modal will, which
is here used more as a neutral future marker, expressing the logical cohesion
of an inevitable chain of events. An epistemic use relevant to the discussion
would be I guess the jury will have been
persuaded by the arguments of the prosecutor.
would have to judge
Would is a modal auxiliary; have to is an auxiliary equivalent; and judge is the main verb. Have to is used as the base form
(and thus non-finite) equivalent to the modal must, which can only have
a finite form, whereas HAVE TOV has an inflectional paradigm. Judge
is the base form of the verb JUDGEV.
The finitude is spent
by the remote modal would, so this
sentence is not marked for tense. The sentence has a direct object and could
conceivably have a passive form, but this phrase is in the active voice. The
verb phrase has no marking for aspect.
Would is here used in its root meaning. If the
premises mentioned in the preceding text holds, the jury is obliged to behave
in a certain manner. The speaker does not make a prediction of a future
behavior by the jury that may or may not turn out to be true, as would indicate
an epistemic use of would. It is rather an account of an (hypothetical)
logical chain of events that would necessarily lead to a certain outcome. In
this sense one could argue that would here, although more tentative or
remote than will, is used in a very neutral sense.
Have to, being the auxiliary equivalent to must, is also marked for modality or non-factivity. Have to expresses obligation, and is
used in its root sense.
‘m not complaining
‘m is the remnant of the elided (or is it elipted? I believe elided
is the more correct) am, a grammatical auxiliary; not is an
adverb (or just negator); and complaining is the main verb. Am is
the first person singular present tense of the verb BEV. The main
verb is marked with the progressive or -ing participle. A form of BEV
and an -ing participle combine to form the progressive aspect.
Consequently, this verb phrase is in the present tense, with the progressive
aspect.
This sentence has no
grammatical marker(s) for voice or modality.
The progressive is used in this
sentence to express extended action, or rather, lack of action. The speaker
wants to make clear that what he is in the process of saying must not be
interpreted as a complaint—that he is not
right now in the middle of complaining about the caseloads of files he
mentioned in the previous sentence. He is hedging himself against a possible
misunderstanding, and uses the progressive form to express that the presumed
misperception would be that his speech was a complaint extended in time; this
warrants the use of the –ing form.
have found
Have is a grammatical
auxiliary; found is the main verb.
Have is the present tense of the verb HAVEV, found is the past
participle of the verb FINDV. A form of HAVEV and a past
participle combine to form the perfective aspect. This verb phrase is in the
present tense, with the perfective aspect.
This
phrase is neither marked for voice, nor for modality.
b) Lines 14, 21, 23: Could the
progressive have been used in either of the underlined verb phrases? Why (not)?
Answer 1 (the first correct answer):
Yes, in all of them. All lexical verbs have progressive forms
(notwithstanding hyper-marginal exceptions like BEWAREV); although
in many cases, the meaning of the verb will be changed; or the meaning of the
sentence will be changed; or the entire sentence will be rendered meaningless.
Answer 2 (the second correct answer):
No, in none of them. No verbs can be transformed into the progressive
(or any other aspect, or tense or whatever) without altering to some extent the
meaning of the sentence it appears in.
Answer 3 (the answer I assume you want):
Line 14 Ladies and gentlemen, I have been a public
defender for many years, and as I’m sure you know, all of us in the public
defender’s office have very heavy caseloads; sometimes we barely have
enough time to read all the files, which include the prosecutor’s briefs.
In this sentence, it would be impossible to use the progressive tense.
The verb refers to something that is an habitual or even permanent state for
the subject. The verb HAVEV has different meanings; in this case it
denotes a permanent static relationship between the subject and the direct
object: We have caseloads (now, always and forever). The use of the
progressive could not express this relationship.
Line 21 When a prosecutor takes a breezy or
relaxed attitude towards a fact in the case, glossing or dismissing it lightly,
I prick up my ears.
In this sentence the underlined verb phrase could have been made into
the progressive (is taking), albeit with a slightly different shade of meaning.
It would nicely frame the action in the last main clause of the sentence, which
would be a shorter or relatively more temporary action taking place within the
time-frame specified by the progressive verb (I do this when you are (in the process of) doing that).
As it stands now, the
sentence could imply a chain of events, or even something close to a causal
relationship; or it could even point to a sort of an habitual activity: whenever
she does this, I do this. Either meaning would be lost were the
underlined verb to be given the progressive aspect.
Line 23 They, the prosecutors, don’t realize
that when they trivialize, they’re doing my job for me.
In this case, a shift to the progressive aspect would perhaps not be
entirely impossible, but would create a substantial shift in meaning. A
realization (in the meaning of an understanding or epiphany of sorts) often
does not take a very long time, and the actual process of it happening is hard
to describe or witness by an observer. Making it even more implausible, we have
the negator not, and the sentence in
the progressive would mean that the prosecutors are—at the moment of
speaking—in the process of not giving any visible signs that they are in the
process of understanding …that when they trivialize, they….
As it stands, the
meaning is more flexible; regardless of past, present or future, this
realization will not occur. The prosecutors are in a permanent static state of
non-realization, and the progressive aspect is unsuitable to describe this.
What the prosecutor
does not realize, is expressed in the subordinate clause immediately following
the verb phrase of the sentence. There is nothing in the sentence to indicate
that they are in an actual process of not understanding this. As the sentence stands,
it could mean that they do not realize that every time they trivialize,
they are “doing my job for me”; this would be a regularly occurring event, not
possible to express with the progressive aspect.
c) Line 11-12: Analyze the underlined that-clause in terms
of its functional clause elements.
-------------------S---------------------------------------------------- V
-----------------sP-------------
what you
would have to assume in order to acquit my client is
simply beyond our normal
-------------------------------------------
understanding of what is reasonable.
d) Line 11-12. The underlined clause
is itself the object of another clause which in turn functions as the object of
the complete sentence. Demonstrate the
hierarchical clause structure of the sentence it occurs in. (Not a full
syntactic analysis.)
-S- ----V----
She has
tried
(1)-----------------------------------------------------------------dO-----------------------------------------
(2)--V- --c--
---------------------------------dO----------------------------------------------------------
to show
that what you would have to assume in order to acquit my client is simply
beyond our
(1)-------------------------(dO)--------------------
(2)-----------------------(dO)----------------------
normal
understanding of what is reasonable.
The entire subordinate non-finite
infinitive-clause starting with to show is the direct object in the
complete sentence. The entire clause introduced by the subordinating
conjunction that, starting with what, is the direct object in the
clause starting with to show.
e) Lines 18, 22, 24: Identify the function of the four words in
italics. In each case, state whether the word is part of a prepositional
phrase, a prepositional verb or a phrasal verb and argue for your decision.
I have won a few cases by attending avidly to these summaries.
To is a preposition, part of the prepositional
verb attending to. The preposition in a prepositional verb cannot be
moved (*attending avidly these summaries to). Note the use of the adverb
avidly, which, typical for especially the shorter adverbs, has a lot of
flexibility when choosing a place in a sentence to inject itself, and is here
found between the “main” verb and its prepositional particle. One of the
distinguishing features of a prepositional verb is that it can have an
intervening adverbial (as is the case here). We can ask an adverbial question (to
where? *To these summaries), which rules out the prepositional use of the
prepositional particle.
I prick up my ears
Up is an adverbial particle, part of the phrasal
verb prick up. Unlike particles functioning as adverbs, in this
environment the word up has a non-literal meaning, giving the entire
phrasal verb a more idiomatic sense. Unlike prepositional verbs, a phrasal verb
can have an intervening object and still be meaningful (I prick my ears up).
A phrasal verb can not have an intervening adverbial (*I prick quickly up my ears, but e.g. I quickly prick up my ears). Also in this case we can ask an
adverbial question (where do you prick up to? *To my ears), indicating
that a literal interpretation of the adverbial particle makes no sense.
They, the prosecutors, don’t realize that when
they trivialize, they’re doing my job for
me.
For is here a preposition, part of the
prepositional phrase for me, with me as the complement. The
prepositional phrase is an adverbial in this clause structure. An adverbial
question makes sense in this case: who are they doing my job for? For me.
I’m always grateful when they
lighten up.
Up is an adverbial
particle, part of the phrasal verb lighten up. Again, the adverbial
particle has little independent meaning, but creates an idiomatic expression.
Typically for a phrasal verb, the particle can be separated from the “main”
verb and placed after an object, as in I’m always grateful
when they lighten things up. But note that in this case lighten
up has an intransitive meaning reflecting on “they” only, and that there is
no direct object with which to intervene in the phrasal verb. Again, we can ask
an adverbial question, where do they
lighten up to?, which in this case has absolutely no conceivable meaning,
as there in nothing after the adverbial particle.
Hasselgård, H., Johansson, S. & Lysvåg, L. 2003. English Grammar: Theory and Use.
Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar