Syntax 2

LEC: English Syntax of the Sentence Structure 2014
ENGLISH SYNTAX
The Syntax of the Sentence Structure
Second Year of Study
Second Semester
Objectives
T h e Fa c u l t y o f S o c i a l , H u m a n i s t i c a n d N a t u r a l Page 1
Sciences
Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

The purpose of this course is to explain the major function of the syntactic rules, which is to
link conceptual structures with the surface structures. The student will easily learn to
distinguish between these two structures: the deep and the surface structures. A sentence
may be segmented into a series of morphemes, but these morphemes are not randomly
arranged but they are combined in a very specific way to form a surface structure. This
course describes three aspects of the configuration of surface structures: the linear
arrangement, their hierarchical arrangement and the types of units/phrases they contain.
It is known that the grammatical sentences of a language form an infinite set because, in
principle, there is no limit to their length. This course is meant to determine the student to
examine those aspects of the syntactic systems which project the linguistic competence of
any English speaker to cover an infinite set of sentences. The student will learn to view the
surface structure in relation to the syntactic system as a whole.
The syntactic rules that are presented in this course serve to show how the conceptual
structures connect to the surface structures. Because this course illustrates the nature of
syntactic rules by taking a number of rules from English as concrete examples and showing
how they combine in the derivation of a complex sentence, the student will also learn how
to use all the linguistic concepts he has studied in a syntactical analysis.
CONTENTS
Unit 1
Sciences

Coordination .. 5
Unit 2
Subordination ... 17
Unit 3
The Sentence 22
Unit 4
The Functions of the Sentence . 25
Unit 5
The Types of the Clauses .. 32
Unit 6
The Uses of the Non-Finite Constructions ...... 41
Unit 7
Government and Biding ... 46
Unit 8
Raising Constructions ... 51
Unit 9
Control Constructions .. 59
Unit 10
Relative Clause . 66
Unit 11
The Complementizer and the Compplement Clause . 69
Sciences

Unit 12
Adverbial Clauses. 72
Answer Key .. 76
Bibliography . 78
UNIT 1
Coordination / Introduction
Sciences

A Generative Grammar must be a system of rules that can iterate to generate an indefinitely large
number of structures. This system of rules can be analyzed into the three major components of a
generative grammar: the syntactic, the phonological and the semantic.
The syntactic component specifies an infinite set of abstract and formal objects, each of which
incorporates all information that is relevant to a single interpretation of a particular sentence.
The base of the syntactic component is a system of rules that generate a highly restricted set of
basic strings each with an associated structural description called a base Phrase-marker. These
base Phrase-markers are the elementary units of which deep structures are constituted. On
addition to its base, the syntactic component of a Generative Grammar contains a
transformational subcomponent. This is concerned with generating a sentence, with its surface
structure from its basis.
This course deals with the syntax of the sentence structures, and with the rules that govern it.
Coordination
In the theory of linguistics, coordination is a frequently occurring complex syntactic structure

that links together two or more elements, known as conjuncts or conjoins. The presence of
coordination is often signaled by the appearance of a coordinator (coordinating conjunction),
e.g. and, or, but (in English). The totality of coordinator(s) and conjuncts forming an instance of
coordination is called a coordinate structure. The unique properties of coordinate structures have
motivated theoretical syntax to draw a broad distinction between coordination
and subordination. Coordination is one of the most studied fields in theoretical syntax, but
despite decades of intensive examination, theoretical accounts differ significantly and there is no
consensus about the best analysis.
Coordination is a very flexible mechanism of syntax. Any given lexical or phrasal can be
coordinated. The examples throughout this article employ the convention whereby the conjuncts
of coordinate structures are marked using square brackets and bold script. The coordinate
Sciences

structure each time includes all the material that follows the left-most square bracket and
precedes the right-most square bracket. The coordinator appears in normal script between the
conjuncts.
[The chicken] and [the rice] go well together. - NP + NP.
The president will [understand] and [agree]. - V + V
The president will [understand the criticism] and [take action] - VP + VP
Insects were [in], [on], and [under] the bed. - P + P + P
[After the announcement] but [before the game], there was a celebration. - PP + PP
Susan works [slowly] and [carefully]. - Adv + Adv
Susan works [too slowly] and [overly carefully]. AdvP + AdvP
We appreciated [that the president understood the criticism] and [that he took action]. - Clause +
Clause
Data of this sort could easily be expanded to include every lexical and phrasal category. An
important aspect of these data is that the conjuncts each time are indisputably constituents. In
other words, the material enclosed in brackets would qualify as a constituent in both phrase
structure grammar and dependency grammars.
Coordinators
A coordinator (= coordinating conjunction) often appears between the conjuncts, usually at least
between the penultimate (second to last) and ultimate (last) conjunct of the coordinate structure.
The words and and or are by far the most frequently occurring coordinators in English. Other
coordinators occur less often and have unique properties, e.g. but, as well as, then, etc. The
coordinator usually serves to link the conjuncts and indicate the presence of a coordinate
structure. Depending on the number of coordinators used, coordinate structures can be classified
as syndetic, asyndetic or polysyndetic.
Sciences

Most coordinate structures are like those just produced above; the coordinated strings are alike in
syntactic category. There are a number of unique traits of coordination, however, that
demonstrate that what can be coordinated is not limited to the standard syntactic categories. Each
of the following subsections briefly draws attention to a perhaps unexpected aspect of
coordination. These aspects are less than fully understood, despite the attention that coordination
has received in theoretical syntax.
Nested Coordinate Structures
One coordinate structure can easily be nested inside another. Ambiguity is sometimes the result,
e.g.
Fred and Bill and Sam came.
a. [Fred] and [Bill] and [Sam] came.
b. [Fred] and [[Bill] and [Sam]] came.
c. [[Fred] and [Bill]] and [Sam] came.
The brackets indicate the three possible readings for the sentence. The (b) - and (c) -readings
show one coordinate structure being embedded inside another. Which of the three readings is
understood depends on intonation and context. The (b)-reading could be preferred in a situation
where Bill and Sam arrived together, but Fred arrived separately. Similarly, the (c)-reading could
be preferred in a situation where Fred and Bill arrived together, but Sam arrived separately. That
the indicated groupings are indeed possible becomes evident when or is employed:
b'. [Fred] or [Bill and Sam] came.
c'. [Fred and Bill] or [Sam] came.
A theory of coordination needs to be in a position to address nesting of this sort.
The examples above illustrate that the conjuncts are often alike in syntactic category. There are,
though, many instances of coordination where the coordinated strings are not alike, e.g.
Sciences

Sarah is [a CEO] and [proud of her job]. - NP + AP
Is Jim [conservative] and [a closet Republican]? - A + NP
Bill is [in trouble] and [trying to come up with an excuse]. - PP + VP
Sam works [evenings] and [on weekends]. - Adv + PP
They are leaving [due to the weather] and [because they want to save money]. - PP + Clause
Data like these have been explored in detail. They illustrate that the theory of coordination
should not rely too heavily on syntactic category to explain the fact that in most instances of
coordination, the coordinated strings are alike. Syntactic function is more important, that is, the
coordinated strings should be alike in syntactic function. In the former three sentences here, the
coordinated strings are, as complements of the copula is, predicative expressions, and in the
latter two sentences, the coordinated strings are adjuncts that are alike in syntactic function
(temporal adjunct + temporal adjunct, causal adjunct + causal adjunct).
The aspect of coordination that is perhaps most vexing for theories of coordination concerns non-
constituent conjuncts. Coordination is, namely, not limited to coordinating just constituents, but
rather it is quite capable of coordinating non-constituent strings:
[When did he] and [why did he] do that?
[She has] but [he has not] understood the task.
Susan [asked you] but [forced me] to read the book on syntax.
[Jill has been promising] but [Fred is actually trying] to solve the problem.
[The old] and [the new] submarines submerged side-by-side.
[Before the first] and [after the second] presentation, there will be coffee.
Fred sent [Uncle Willy chocolates] and [Aunt Samantha ear rings].
We expect [Connor to laugh] and [Jillian to cry].
Sciences

While some of these coordinate structures require a non-standard intonation contour, they can all
be acceptable. This situation is problematic for theories of syntax because most of the
coordinated strings do not qualify as constituents. Hence since the constituent is widely assumed
to be the fundamental unit of syntactic analysis, such data seem to require that the theory of
coordination admit additional theoretical apparatus. Two examples of the sort of apparatus that
has been posited are so-called conjunction reduction and right node raising (RNR). Conjunction
reduction is an ellipsis mechanism that takes non-constituent conjuncts to be complete phrases or
clauses at some deep level of syntax. These complete phrases or clauses are then reduced down
to their surface appearance by the conjunction reduction mechanism. The traditional analysis of
the phenomenon of right node raising assumed that in cases of non-constituent conjuncts, a
shared string to the right of the conjuncts is raised out of VP in such a manner that the material in
the conjuncts ends up as constituents. The plausibility of these mechanisms is NOT widely
accepted, but rather one can argue that they are ad hoc attempts to solve a problem that plagues
theories that take the constituent to be the fundamental unit of syntactic analysis.
Gapping
Gapping (and Stripping) is an ellipsis mechanism that seems to occur in coordinate structures
only. While gapping itself is widely acknowledged to involve ellipsis, just which instances of
coordination do and do not involve gapping is a matter of debate. Most theories of syntax agree
that gapping is involved in the following cases:
[Brent ate the beans], and [Bill ate the rice]. - Gapping
[You should call me more], and [I should call you more]. - Gapping
[Mary always orders wine], and [Sally always orders beer]. Gapping
Accounts of gapping and coordination disagree, however, concerning data like the following:
a. [They saw him first] and [they saw her second]. - Gapping analysis
b. They saw [him first] and [her second]. - Non-gapping analysis
Sciences

a. [Tanya expects the dog to eat cat food] and [she expects the cat to eat dog food]. - Gapping
analysis
b. Tanya expects [the dog to eat cat food] and [the cat to eat dog food]. - Non-gapping analysis
The gapping analysis shown in the a-sentences is motivated above all by the desire to avoid the
non-constituent conjuncts associated with the b-sentences. No consensus has been reached about
which analysis is better.
Forward and Backward Coordination
Coordination is sensitive to the linear order of words, a fact that is evident with differences
between forward and backward sharing. There is a limitation on material that precedes the
conjuncts of a coordinate structure that does restrict the material that follows it.
*After Wallace fed [his dog the postman] and [his sheep the milkman] arrived. - Forward sharing
fails.
*The man [who built the rocket has] and [who studied robots designed] a dog. - Forward sharing
fails.
*After [Sues presentation, I was sad] and [Freds presentation, I was angry]. - Forward sharing
fails.
The star * indicates that the sentence is bad. Each of these coordinate structures is disallowed.
The underline draws attention to a constituent that mostly precedes the coordinate structure but
that the initial conjunct "cuts into". There is apparently a restriction on the constituents that
mostly precede a coordinate structure. The same restriction does not limit similar constituents
that mostly follow the coordinate structure:
[She stated the strengths], and [he mentioned the weaknesses] of the explanation. - Backward
sharing succeeds.
[Larry put a flier on], and [Sue slipped one under] the door. - Backward sharing succeeds.
Sally [arrived just before the speaker initiated], and [left right after he finished] his speech. -
Backward sharing succeeds.
Sciences

The underline now marks a constituent that mostly follows the coordinate structure. Unlike with
the first three examples, the coordinate structure in these three examples CAN cut into the
underlined constituent.
Extraction
In Generative Transformational Grammar, the interaction of coordination and extraction

(e.g. WH-fronting) has generated a lot of interest. The Coordinate Structure Constraint is the
property of coordinate structures that prevents extraction of a single conjunct or from a single
conjunct. Coordinate structures are said to be strong islands for extraction. For example:
*Who did you see [Fred] and [ ]? - Failed extraction of an entire conjunct
*Who did you see [ ] and Susan? - Failed extraction of an entire conjunct
*Which action did the president understand [the criticism] and [take]? - Failed extraction out of a
single conjunct
These attempts at coordination fail because extraction cannot affect just one conjunct of a
coordinate structure. If extraction occurs out of both conjuncts in a like fashion, however, the
coordinate structure is acceptable. This trait of coordination is referred to as the Across-the-
Board Constraint. For example:
What does [Sarah like] and [Kate hate]? - Across-the-board extraction of WHAT
There are other apparent exceptions the Coordinate Structure Constraint and the Across-the-
Board generalization and their integration to existing syntactic theory has been a long-standing
disciplinary desideratum.
Pseudo-Coordination
In pseudo-coordinative constructions, the coordinator generally appears to have a subordinating

function. It occurs in many languages and it is often, but not always, used to convey a pejorative
or idiomatic connotation. Among the Germanic languages, pseudo-coordination occurs in
English, Afrikaans, Norwegian, Danish and Swedish. Pseudo-coordination appears to be absent
Sciences

in Dutch and German. The pseudo-coordinative construction is limited to a few verbs. In

English, these verbs are typically go, try, and sit.
Why don't you go and jump in the lake
I will try and jump in the lake
The pupils sat and read their textbooks
A typical property of pseudo-coordinative constructions is that, unlike ordinary coordination,

they appear to violate the Across-the-Board extraction property. In other words, it is possible to
extract from one of the conjuncts.
What did she go and jump in t?
What did she try and jump in
Which textbooks did the pupils sit and read.
It has been argued that pseudo-coordination is not a unitary phenomenon. Even in a single
language such as English, the predicate try exhibits different pseudo-coordination properties to
other predicates and other predicates such as go and sit can instantiate a number of different
pseudo-coordinative construction types. On the other hand, it has been argued that at least some
different types of pseudo-coordination can be analyzed using ordinary coordination as opposed
to stipulating that pseudo-coordinative and is a subordinator; the differences between the various
constructions derive from the level of structure that is coordinated e.g. coordination of heads,
coordination of VP, etc.
The Structure of Coordination
Theoretical accounts of coordination vary in major respects. For instance, constituency -

and dependency-based approaches to coordination differ significantly, and derivational and
representational systems are also likely to disagree on many aspects of how coordination should
be explained, derivational accounts, for instance, being more likely to assume transformational
Sciences

mechanisms to "rectify" non-constituent conjuncts (e.g. conjunction reduction and RNR, as

mentioned above).
Even concerning the hierarchical structure of coordinated strings, there is much disagreement.
Whether or not coordinate structures should be analyzed in terms of the basic tree conventions
employed for subordination is an issue that divides experts. Broadly speaking, there are two
options: either a flat or a layered analysis. There are two possibilities for the flat option, both of
which are shown here. The a-trees represent the analyses in a constituency-based system and the
b-trees in a dependency-based system:
The first two trees present the traditional exocentric analysis. The coordinate structure is deemed
exocentric insofar as neither conjunct can be taken to be the sole head, but rather both conjuncts
are deemed heads in a sense. The second two trees, where the coordinator is the head, are similar
to the first two insofar as the conjuncts are equivalent-level sisters. These two flat analyses stand
in contrast to the following three layered analyses. The constituency-based a-trees appear again
on the left, and the dependency-based b-trees on the right:
Sciences

The primary aspect of these layered analyses is that an attempt is being made to adapt the
analysis of coordinate structures to the analysis of subordinate structures. The conjuncts in each
case are NOT sister constituents, but rather the first conjunct is in a more prominent (higher)
hierarchical position than the second conjunct. The three analyses differ with respect to the
presumed head of the entire structure. The third option in terms of the X-bar schema cannot be
rendered in terms of dependency because dependency allows a word to project just a single node.
There is no way to capture the hierarchical distinction between specifiers and complements in a
dependency-based system (but there is always a linear distinction, since specifiers precede
complements).
The flat analysis has the benefit that it captures our intuition that coordinate structures are
different from subordinate structures at a basic level. The drawback to the flat analysis, however,
is that the theory of syntax must be augmented beyond what is necessary for standard
subordinate structures. The layered analysis has the advantage that there is no need to augment
Sciences

the syntax with an additional principle of organization, but it has the disadvantage that it does not
sufficiently accommodate our intuition that coordination is fundamentally different from
subordination. Most if not all of the nine analyses just presented have been proposed in the
massive body of literature on coordination.
DO NOT FORGET!
1. Coordination is a frequently occurring complex syntactic structure that links together two
or more elements, known as conjuncts or conjoins. The presence of coordination is often
signaled by the appearance of a coordinator (coordinating conjunction),
Sciences

e.g. and, or, but (in English). The totality of coordinator(s) and conjuncts forming an
instance of coordination is called a coordinate structure. The unique properties of
coordinate structures have motivated theoretical syntax to draw a broad distinction
between coordination and subordination. Coordination is one of the most studied fields in
theoretical syntax.
2. Coordination is a very flexible mechanism of syntax. Any given lexical or phrasal can be
coordinated.
3. The coordinator usually serves to link the conjuncts and indicate the presence of a
coordinate structure.
4. Gapping (and Stripping) is an ellipsis mechanism that occurs in coordinate structures

only.
5. Coordination is sensitive to the linear order of words, a fact that is evident with
differences between forward and backward sharing.
6. In pseudo-coordinative constructions, the coordinator generally appears to have a

subordinating function. It is used to convey a pejorative or idiomatic connotation.
QUESTION
1. Give the classification of the coordinated structures.
UNIT 2
Subordination
Subordination is a principle of the hierarchical organization of linguistic units. While the

principle is applicable in semantics, syntax, morphology, and phonology, most work in
linguistics employs the term "subordination" in the context of syntax, and that is the context in
Sciences

which it is considered here. The syntactic units of sentences are often either subordinate or
coordinate to each other. Hence an understanding of subordination is promoted by an
understanding of coordination, and vice versa.
Subordination as a concept of syntactic organization is associated closely with the distinction

between coordinate and subordinate clauses. One clause is subordinate to another, if it depends
on it. The dependent clause is called a subordinate clause and the independent clause is called
the main clause (= matrix clause). Subordinate clauses are usually introduced by subordinators
(=subordinate conjunctions) such as after, because, before, if, so that, that, when, while, etc. For
example:
Before we play again, we should do our homework.
We are doing our homework now because we want to play again.
The strings in bold are subordinate clauses, and the strings in non-bold are the main clauses.
Sentences must consist of at least one main clause, whereas the number of subordinate clauses is
hypothetically without limitation. Long sentences that contain many subordinate clauses are
characterized in terms of hypo-taxis, the Greek term meaning the grammatical arrangement of
"unequal" constructs (hypo="beneath", taxis="arrangement"). Sentences that contain few or no
subordinate clauses but that may contain coordinated clauses are characterized in terms of
parataxis.
Heads and Dependents
In a broader sense, subordination is a relation existing between two syntactic units, whereby the
one unit is subordinate to the other and the latter is super-ordinate to the former. An adjective that
modifies a noun is subordinate to the noun and the noun is super-ordinate to the adjective; a
noun phrase (NP) that is the complement of a preposition is subordinate to the preposition and
the preposition is super-ordinate to the NP; a prepositional phrase (PP) that modifies a verb
phrase (VP) is subordinate to the VP and the VP is super-ordinate to the PP; etc. The subordinate
unit is called the dependent, and the super-ordinate unit the head. Thus anytime two syntactic
units are in a head-dependent relationship, subordination obtains. For example:
Black dog
Sciences

With patience
Clean the bathroom
The word in bold in each case is dependent on the other word, which is its head. Subordination in
this sense should be compared with coordination. Two units or more are coordinate to each other
if there is no hierarchical relation between them and they have equal functional status, e.g.
[black] and [brown] dog
with [love] and [patience]
clean [the bathroom] and [the kitchen]
The words in brackets are coordinate to each other, and both coordinates are subordinate to the
word that is not enclosed in brackets. Note that while the coordinated units are not organized
hierarchically, they are organized linearly, the one preceding the other.
The Representation of Coordination and Subordination
Most theories of syntax represent subordination (and coordination) in terms of tree structures. A
head is positioned above its dependents in the tree, so that it immediately dominates them. One
of two competing principles is employed to construct the trees: either the constituency relation
of phrase structure grammars or the dependency relation of dependency grammars. Both
principles are illustrated here with the following trees. The a-trees on the left illustrate
constituency, and the b-trees on the right dependency:
Sciences

Constituency shows subordination by way of projections. One of the two words projects its
category status up to the root node of the entire structure and is therefore the head of the
structure. Dependency also shows subordination, but it does so with fewer nodes in the tree. The
head directly dominates its dependent. These trees illustrating subordination can be compared
with trees illustrating coordination. There are various proposals concerning the tree
representations of coordinate structures. The following trees are just suggestive in this regard.
The constituency relation is again shown in the a-trees on the left, and the dependency relation in
the b-trees on the right:
Sciences

The constituency trees show that both parts of the coordinate structure project up to the root node
of the entire tree, and the dependency trees illustrate that each word again projects just a single
node. Both representation formats illustrate the equal status of the coordinated units insofar as
they are placed on the same level; they are equivalent-level. From an organizational point of
view, subordination is grouping words together in such a manner that includes hierarchical and
linear order, whereas coordination is grouping words together just in terms of linear order.
DO NOT FORGET!
Sciences

1. Subordination as a concept of syntactic organization is associated closely with the

distinction between coordinate and subordinate clauses. One clause is subordinate to
another, if it depends on it. The dependent clause is called a subordinate clause and the
independent clause is called the main clause (= matrix clause).
2. Subordinate clauses are usually introduced by subordinators (=subordinate conjunctions)

such as after, because, before, if, so that, that, when, while, etc.
3. In a broader sense, subordination is a relation existing between two syntactic units,

whereby the one unit is subordinate to the other and the latter is super-ordinate to the
former.
4. An adjective that modifies a noun is subordinate to the noun and the noun is super-
ordinate to the adjective; a noun phrase (NP) that is the complement of a preposition is
subordinate to the preposition and the preposition is super-ordinate to the NP; a
prepositional phrase (PP) that modifies a verb phrase (VP) is subordinate to the VP and
the VP is super-ordinate to the PP; etc.
5. The subordinate unit is called the dependent, and the super-ordinate unit the head. Thus
anytime two syntactic units are in a head-dependent relationship, subordination obtains.
QUESTION
1. Which is the syntactic relationship between two subordinated units?
UNIT 3
The Sentence
Sciences

A sentence is a grammatical unit consisting of one or more words that are grammatically linked.
A sentence can include words grouped meaningfully to express a statement, question,
exclamation, request, command or suggestion.
Sentences are generally characterized in most languages by the presence of a finite verb, e.g.
The quick fox jumps over the fence.
The Components of the Sentence
Clauses
A clause typically contains at least a subject noun phrase and a finite verb. While the subject is
usually a noun phrase, other kinds of phrases (such as gerund phrases) work as well, and some
languages allow subjects to be omitted. There are two types of
clauses: independent and subordinate (dependent). An independent clause demonstrates a
complete thought; it is a complete sentence: for example, I am sad. A subordinate clause is not a
complete sentence: for example, because I have no friends. A simple complete sentence consists
of a single clause. Other complete sentences consist of two or more clauses.
The Classification of Clauses
According to Structure
One traditional scheme for classifying English sentences is by the number and types of finite
clauses:
A simple sentence consists of a single independent clause with no dependent clauses.
A compound sentence consists of multiple independent clauses with no dependent clauses. These
clauses are joined together using conjunctions, punctuation or both.
A complex sentence consists of one independent clause and at least one dependent clause.
A complex-compound sentence (or compound-complex sentence) consists of multiple

independent clauses, at least one of which has at least one dependent clause.
According to Purpose
Sciences

Sentences can also be classified based on their purpose:
A declarative sentence or declaration, the most common type, commonly makes a statement: "I
have to go to work."
An interrogative sentence or question is commonly used to request information "Do I have to

go to work?"
An exclamatory sentence or exclamation is generally a more emphatic form of statement

expressing emotion: "I have to go to work!"
An imperative sentence or command tells someone to do something (and if done strongly may be
considered both imperative and exclamatory): "Go to work." or "Go to work!"
Major and Minor Sentences
A major sentence is a regular sentence; it has a subject and a predicate. For example: "I have a
ball." In this sentence one can change the persons: "We have a ball." However, a minor sentence
is an irregular type of sentence. It does not contain a finite verb. Other examples of minor
sentences are headings (e.g. the heading of this entry), stereotyped expressions ("Hello!"),
emotional expressions ("Wow!"), proverbs, etc. This can also include nominal sentences like
"The more, the merrier". These do not contain verbs in order to intensify the meaning around the
nouns and are normally found in poetry and catchphrases.
Sentences that comprise a single word are called word sentences, and the words
themselves sentence words.
DO NOT FORGET!
1. A sentence is a grammatical unit consisting of one or more words that are grammatically
linked. A sentence can include words grouped meaningfully to express a
statement, question, exclamation, request, command or suggestion.
Sciences

2. A clause typically contains at least a subject noun phrase and a finite verb. While the
subject is usually a noun phrase, other kinds of phrases (such as gerund phrases) work as
well, and some languages allow subjects to be omitted.
3. There are two types of clauses: independent and subordinate (dependent).
4. An independent clause demonstrates a complete thought; it is a complete sentence.
5. A subordinate clause is not a complete sentence.
6. A simple complete sentence consists of a single clause. Other complete sentences consist
of two or more clauses.
7. A major sentence is a regular sentence; it has a subject and a predicate. A minor sentence
is an irregular type of sentence. It does not contain a finite verb.
QUESTION
1. In what terms is made the classification of clauses?
UNIT 4
The Functions of the Sentence
The sentence function refers to a speaker's purpose in uttering a specific sentence, phrase, or
clause. Whether a listener is present or not is sometimes irrelevant. It answers the question:
"Why has this been said?" The four basic sentence functions in the world's languages include
Sciences

the declarative, interrogative, exclamatory and the imperative. These correspond to a

statement, question, exclamation, and command respectively. Typically, a sentence goes from
one function to the next through a combination of changes in word order, intonation, the addition
of certain auxiliaries or particles, or other times by providing a special verbal form. The four
main categories can be further specified as being either communicative or informative.
Communicative / Informative
While communication is traditionally defined as the transfer of information, the two terms, under
present context, are differentiated as follows below:
Communicative sentences
These types of sentences are more intended for the speaker's sake than for any potential listener.
They are meant more for the speaker's immediate wants and needs. These sentences tend to be
less intentional (out of frustration for example), in general more literal, more primitive, and are
usually about the here and now. Because of these features, it is generally speculated that this is
pretty much the basis or limitation of any form of animal communication.
Exclamatory
An exclamatory or exclamatory sentence is released because of, and expresses strong emotion.
They many times feel like involuntary reactions to a situation, yet they can technically be stifled
if need be. And while exclamatory most usually manifest themselves as one or two word
interjections, they can also come as major sentences. They are essentially unfiltered vocalizations
of our feelings, and a form of self-talk because they are directed either at the speaker themselves
or at nobody in particular. In punctuation, an exclamatory is ended with an exclamation mark.
Ouch!
I'll never finish this paper in time!
Imperative
An imperative sentence gives anything from a command or order, to a request, direction, or

instruction. Imperative sentences are more intentional than exclamatory sentences and do require
Sciences

an audience; as their aim is to get the person(s) being addressed either to do or to not do
something. And although this function usually deals with the immediate temporal vicinity, its
scope can be extended, i.e. you can order somebody to move out as soon as you find yourself a
job. The negative imperative can also be called the prohibitive and the inclusive plural
imperative, the hortative. It is debatable whether the imperative is only truly possible in the
second person. The vocative case of nouns can be said to indicate the imperative as well since it
does not seek information, but rather a reaction from the one being addressed. An imperative can
end in either a period or an exclamation point depending on delivery.
Look at me!
After separating them from the yolks, beat the whites until they are light and fluffy.
Informative sentences
Informative sentences are more for the mutual benefit of both the listener and the speaker, and, in
fact, require more of an interaction between both parties involved. They are more intentional or
premeditated, less essential, more cooperative, and they aim to either provide or retrieve
information, making them quintessential abstractions. But perhaps the most differentiating
quality that distinguishes informative sentences from the communicative is that the former more
naturally and freely make use of displacement. Displacement refers to information lost in time
and space which allows us to communicate ideas relating to the past or future (not just the now),
and that have taken or can take place at a separate location (from here). To an extent, this is one
of the biggest differences between human communication and that of other animals.
Declarative
The declarative sentence is the most common kind of sentence in language, in most situations,
and in a way can be considered the default function of a sentence. What this means essentially is
that when a language modifies a sentence in order to form a question or give a command, the
base form will always be the declarative. In its most basic sense, a declarative states any idea
(either objectively or subjectively on the part of the speaker; and may be either true or false) for
the sheer purpose of transferring information. In writing, a statement will end with a period.
Sciences

Roses are red and violets are blue.
She must be out of her mind.
Interrogative
An interrogative sentence asks a question and hence ends with a question mark. In speech, it
almost universally ends in a rising inflection. Its effort is to try to gather information that is
presently unknown to the interrogator, or to seek validation for a preconceived notion held.
Beyond seeking confirmation or contradiction, sometimes it is approval or permission that is
sought as well, among other reasons one could have for posing a question. The one exception in
which it isn't information that it is needed is when the question happens to be rhetorical. While
an imperative is a call for action, an interrogative is a call for information.
What do you want?
Are you feeling well?
Declarative / Affirmative / Positive
A declarative statement should not be deemed synonymous with an affirmative one. This is
because although a declarative statement can state facts (given that the speaker is not consciously
lying), it can also express something which is not true. The information he or she is providing,
regardless of whether it be true or not in reality, is in fact true or false to that speaker. Therefore,
a declarative can be either in the affirmative or in the negative, and we can say that, Joanna is
late and Joanna is not late, both technically qualify as declarative sentences. Declarative refers to
a sentence's function or purpose, while affirmative and negative deal with a sentence's veracity,
or grammatical polarity, which is why different terms can overlap simultaneously.
Though not as erroneous as the above misnomer, there is a clouding that can occur between the
slight distinction of the affirmative, and the positive. Although it semantically speaking comes
natural that positive is the opposite of negative, and therefore should be completely synonymous
with affirmative, grammatically speaking, once again they tend to be separate entities; depending
on specificity. Positive in linguistic terms refers to the degree of the quality of an adjective or
Sciences

adverb (along with the comparative and superlative), while affirmative refers to the perceived
validity of the entire sentence.
Thus, all three terms being separate entities, an adjective or adverb can be in the positive degree
but expressed in the negative, so that the sentence, This hummer does not seem to be eco-
friendly, has all negative, positive, and declarative properties.
In fact, an exclamatory, imperative, as well as a question can be in the negative form: I can't do
this! Don't touch me! Don't you want to?
Allo-Functional Implication
There are many instances in which a sentence can be grammatically shaped as one function, yet
in actual execution, may serve a completely different purpose than suggested by the way it was
constructed; hence, allo-functional, to mean 'serving a different purpose than originally intended'.
Or in other words, it is very subtly yet unequivocally implied by process of pragmatics that its
function must be changed to another in order for the sentence to make sense in the present
context of conversation.
A classic example would be the "question": Could you pass the salt?
In the above sentence, although it is grammatically structured as a question, it can quite safely be
inferred that the speaker is not inquiring as to whether the person they are addressing is
physically capable of passing the salt at the dinner table or not. What the speaker really wants is
to get the salt. It is a request, or call for action as opposed to information, thus making the
sentence allo-functional (note that adding a word like 'please' at the end would tend to make this
point clearer, and when posed as a question, this request is perceived as being more polite than if
it were simply in the natural imperative). Therefore, what at first may come off as an
interrogative sentence upon initial delivery, the listener must almost immediately reinterpret as
an imperative and respond accordingly.
Other examples include;
Exclamatory interrogative (interrogative structure with exclamatory function): Why does this
keep happening to me?
Sciences

Upon uttering the above phrase, I just want to vent out my frustration vocally.
Imperative declarative (declarative structure with imperative function): I would feel more
comfortable if you wore your seatbelt.
If I say this to you I'm strongly urging you to buckle up.
The list goes on, and as a matter of fact, all 12 combinations between each of the four functions
and their three other counterparts should be theoretically possible.
Another important point to note is that the allo-functionality of a sentence is completely language
specific as to how it differentiates function. To exemplify this, we can look at English and
generalize that imperative sentences, when affirmative, tend to begin with the verb, while
declarative sentences that are prosaic will almost always start with the subject (this is because in
the imperative, the subject is implied, or obviously unmistakable, since it is the subject itself
which is being spoken to). All that being taken into account, we can more clearly see why a
statement such as You are not going to that bar (I forbid it), would qualify as allo-functional.
DO NOT FORGET!
1. The sentence function refers to a speaker's purpose in uttering a specific sentence, phrase,
or clause. Whether a listener is present or not is sometimes irrelevant.
2. The communicative sentences are more intended for the speaker's sake than for any
potential listener. They are meant more for the speaker's immediate wants and needs.
3. An exclamatory or exclamatory sentence is released because of, and expresses strong

emotion. They many times feel like involuntary reactions to a situation, yet
Sciences

they can technically be stifled if need be. And while exclamatory most usually manifest
themselves as one or two word interjections, they can also come as major sentences.
4. An imperative sentence gives anything from a command or order, to a request, direction,

or instruction. Imperative sentences are more intentional than exclamatory sentences
and do require an audience; as their aim is to get the person(s) being addressed either to
do or to not do something.
5. Informative sentences are more for the mutual benefit of both the listener and the speaker,
and, in fact, require more of an interaction between both parties involved. They are more
intentional or premeditated, less essential, more cooperative, and they aim to either
provide or retrieve information, making them quintessential abstractions.
6. The declarative sentence is the most common kind of sentence in language, in most
situations, and, in a way can be considered the default function of a sentence. What this
means essentially is that when a language modifies a sentence in order to form a question
or give a command, the base form will always be the declarative.
7. An interrogative sentence asks a question and hence ends with a question mark. In
speech, it almost universally ends in a rising inflection.
8. There are many instances in which a sentence can be grammatically shaped as one
function, it may be changed so that it may serve a completely different purpose than
suggested by the way it was constructed. This is allo-functional implication.
QUESTION
1. Which are the four basic functions?
2. To what do the sentence functions correspond?
Sciences

UNIT 5
The Types of Clauses
This unit describes the syntax of clauses as the ways of combining and ordering constituents
such as verbs and noun phrases to form a clause.
Clauses can be classified as independent (main clause) and dependent (subordinate clauses). A
typical sentence consists of one independent clause, possibly augmented by one or more
dependent clauses. An independent clause can be classified according to the sentence type; it
Sciences

may be declarative (making a statement), interrogative (asking a question), or imperative (giving

an order).
In interrogative main clauses, unless the subject is or contains the interrogative word, the verb
precedes the subject: Are you hungry? Where am I? (But: Who did this?, without inversion,
since the interrogative who is itself the subject). However such inversion is only possible with
an auxiliary or copular verb; if no such verb would otherwise be present, do-support is used.
In most imperative clauses the subject is absent: Eat your dinner! However imperative clauses
may include the subject for emphasis: You eat your dinner! The form of the verb is the base form
of the verb, such as eat, write, be. Modal verbs do not have imperative forms. Negation uses do-
support, even if the verb is to be. The imperative here refers to second-person forms;
constructions for other persons may be formed periphrastically, e.g. Let's go; Let them eat cake.
A dependent clause may be finite (based on a finite verb, as independent clauses are), or non-
finite (based on a verb in the form of an infinitive or participle). Particular types of dependent
clause include relative clauses, content clauses and adverbial clauses.
Clauses can be nested within each other, sometimes up to several levels. For example, the
sentence I know the woman who says she saw your son drinking beer contains a non-finite
clause (drinking beer) within a content clause (she saw your son drinking beer) within a relative
clause (who says she saw your son drinking beer) within an independent declarative clause (the
whole sentence).
Non-Finite Clauses
A non-finite clause is one in which the main verb is in a non-finite form, namely an infinitive,
past participle, or ING form (present participle or gerund). The internal syntax of a non-finite
clause is generally similar to that of a finite clause, except that there is usually no subject (and in
some cases a missing complement). The following types exist:
Bare infinitive clause is a clause such as go to the party in the sentence let her go to the
party. TO-infinitive clause is a clause such as to go to the party. Although there is no subject
in such a clause, the performer of the action (in some contexts) is expressed with a preceding
prepositional phrase using for: It would be a good idea for her to go to the party.
Sciences

Past participial clause (active type) is a clause such as made a cake and seen to it. This is used
in forming perfect constructions (see below), as in he has made a cake; I had seen to it.
Present participial clause is a clause such as being in good health. When such a clause is used
as an adjunct to a main clause, its subject is understood to be the same as that of the main clause;
when this is not the case, a subject can be included in the participial clause: The king being in
good health, his physician was able to take a few days' rest.
Gerund clause has the same form as the above, but serves as a noun rather than an adjective or
adverb. The pre-appending of a subject in this case (as in I don't like you drinking, rather than the
arguably more correct ...your drinking) is criticized by some prescriptive grammarians.
To-infinitive clauses this is easy to use (zero object of use); he is the man to talk to (zero
complement of preposition to).
Past participial clauses as used in forming passive voice constructions (the cake was made,
with zero object of made), and in some other uses, such as I want to get it seen to (zero
complement of to). In many such cases the performer of the action can be expressed using a
prepositional phrase with by, as in the cake was made by Alan.
Gerund clauses particularly after want and need, as in your car wants/needs cleaning (zero
object of cleaning), and you want/need your head seeing to (zero complement of to).
The Constituents of a Clause
English is an SVO language, that is, in simple declarative sentences the order of the main
components is subjectverbobject(s) (or subjectverbcomplement). A typical finite clause
consists of a noun phrase functioning as the subject, a finite verb, followed by any number of
dependents of the verb. In some theories of grammar the verb and its dependents are taken to be
a single component called a verb phrase or the predicate of the clause; thus the clause can be said
to consist of subject plus predicate.
Dependents include any number of complements (especially a noun phrase functioning as

the object), and other modifiers of the verb. Noun phrase constituents which are personal
pronouns or (in formal registers) the pronoun who (m) are marked for case, but otherwise it is
Sciences

word order alone that indicates which noun phrase is the subject and which the object. The
presence of complements depends on the pattern followed by the verb (for example, whether it is
a transitive verb, i.e. one taking a direct object). A given verb may allow a number of possible
patterns (for example, the verb write may be either transitive, as in He writes letters, or
intransitive, as in He writes often). Some verbs can take two objects: an indirect object and a
direct object. An indirect object precedes a direct one, as in He gave the dog a bone (where the
dog is the indirect object and a bone the direct object). However the indirect object may also be
replaced with a prepositional phrase, usually with the preposition to or for, as in He gave a bone
to the dog. (The latter method is particularly common when the direct object is a personal
pronoun and the indirect object is a stronger noun phrase: He gave it to the dog would be used
rather than ?He gave the dog it.)
Adverbial adjuncts are often placed after the verb and object, as in I met John yesterday.
However other positions in the sentence are also possible. Objects normally precede other
complements, as in I told him to fetch it (where him is the object, and the infinitive phrase to
fetch it is a further complement). Other possible complements include prepositional phrases,
such as for Jim in the clause They waited for Jim; predicative expressions, such as red in The
ball is red; subordinate clauses, which may be introduced by a subordinate conjunction such
as if, when, because, that, for example the THAT-clause in I suggest that you wait for her; and
non-finite clauses, such as eating jelly in the sentence I like eating jelly.
Many English verbs are used together with a particle (such as in or away) and with preposition
phrases in constructions that are commonly referred to as "phrasal verbs". These complements
often modify the meaning of the verb in an unpredictable way, and a verb-particle combination
such as give up can be considered a single lexical item. English is not a "pro-drop" language
that is, unlike some languages, English requires that the subject of a clause always be expressed
explicitly, even if it can be deduced from the form of the verb and the context, and even if it has
no meaningful referent, as in the sentence It is raining, where the subject it is a dummy pronoun.
Imperative and non-finite clauses are exceptions, in that they usually do not have a subject
expressed.
Sciences

Adjuncts are constituents which are not required by the main verb, and can be removed without
leaving behind something ungrammatical. Adjuncts are usually adverbs or adverbial phrases or
clauses.
Many clauses have as their finite verb an auxiliary, which governs a non-finite form of a lexical
(or other auxiliary) verb.
Variations on SOV Pattern
Variations on the basic SVO pattern occur in certain types of clause. The subject is absent in
most imperative clauses and most non-finite clauses. The verb and subject are inverted in most
interrogative clauses. This requires that the verb be an auxiliary or copula (and do-support is
used to provide an auxiliary if there is otherwise no invertible verb).
The same type of inversion occurs in certain other types of clause, particularly main clauses
beginning with an adjunct having negative force (Never have I witnessed such carnage), and
some dependent clauses expressing a condition (Should you decide to come). A somewhat
different type of inversion may involve a wider set of verbs (as in After the sun comes the
rain).
In certain types of clause an object or other complement becomes zero or is brought to the front
of the clause.
Clauses with Auxiliary Verbs
In many English clauses, the finite verb is an auxiliary verb, whose complement is some type of
non-finite clause. For example, in the clause he is eating his dinner, the finite verb is the
auxiliary is, whose complement is the participial clause eating his dinner. In some cases the non-
finite clause itself has an auxiliary as its main verb, with another embedded non-finite clause as
complement. For example:
He has (been (eating his dinner)).
Sciences

Here eating his dinner is the complement of been, and been eating his dinner is the complement
of has.
The form of each lexical or auxiliary verb (apart from the first) is determined by the auxiliary
preceding it. The first auxiliary is conjugated as a finite verb in present or past tense: the modals
are invariant, but the other auxiliaries may take the
forms have, has, had, am, is, are, be (subjunctive), was, were, do, does, did. (If the clause being
considered is a non-finite clause, then the initial auxiliary form may be having, (to) have, being,
or (to) be.)
The principal auxiliaries and the verb forms they govern are:
Modal verbs (will, can, could, etc.). They govern a bare infinitive (or to-infinitive in the case
of ought and used).
The verb have (and its inflected forms) is meant to express perfect aspect. These govern a past
participle (with an active meaning).
The verb be (and inflected forms) to express progressive aspect. These govern a present
participle.
The verb be (and inflected forms) to express passive voice. These govern a past participle (used
passively, i.e. with a zero object or preposition complement).
The verb do (and inflected forms) to supply an auxiliary in functions where one is required, or to
provide emphasis. This is described in more detail in the article on do-support.
A modal verb, if present, comes first. Any other auxiliaries come in the order listed above,
namely perfect have followed by progressive be followed by passive be. The auxiliary do is not
used in combination with any other auxiliary. Otherwise, the above auxiliaries can be used in any
combination (but with no more than one instance from each group).
A clause containing the maximum number of auxiliaries might therefore be I will have been
being operated on for six hours. Here the modal will is the finite verb; perfect have is in bare
infinitive form (since it follows a modal), progressive be is in the past participle
form been (following perfect have), passive be is in the present participle form being (following
Sciences

progressive be), and the lexical verb is in the past participle form operated (following passive be;
here it is the dependent preposition on that has zero complement).
Constructions of this type serve a variety of functions, including the expression of aspect,
voice and modality. Some of these constructions are described, particularly in teaching contexts,
as tenses for example, is eating is represented as the "present progressive tense" of eat. (This
terminology is rejected by many theoretical grammarians, since the construction does not serve
purely to indicate present time, but also encodes aspectual information.) The series of auxiliaries
and non-finite verb form is treated as a unit. Thus in the examples above, the strings is
eating and has been eating may be presented as forms of the verb eat, with his dinner serving as
their object. Non-finite constructions exist for combinations of auxiliary verbs other than the
modals verbs or do:
Infinitive: (to) take, (to) be taken, (to) be taking, (to) have been taking, etc.
Present participial (or gerund): taking, being taken, having taken, etc. (but not normally in the
progressive cases)
The verbs ought and used differ from other modals in that they require the to-infinitive rather
than the bare infinitive: He ought to go, We used to go (for this reason they are not always
classified as modals). There are certain other auxiliary-like expressions that are variously
classified:
(be) going to
have to
am to, was to, etc.
(be) able to
(be) about to
In interrogative and relative clauses, WH-fronting occurs; that is the interrogative word or
relative pronoun (or in some cases a phrase containing it) is brought to the front of the
clause: What did you see? (The interrogative word what comes first even though it is the object)
Sciences

or the clause: The man to whom you gave the book (The phrase to whom, containing the relative
pronoun, comes to the front of the relative clause.) Fronting of various elements can also occur
for reasons of focus; occasionally even an object or other verbal complement can be fronted
rather than appear in its usual position after the verb, as in I met Tom yesterday, but Jane I
haven't seen for ages. In certain types of non-finite clause and in some relative clauses, an object
or a preposition complement is absent. For example, in I like the cake you made, the words you
made form a reduced relative clause in which the verb made has zero object. This can
produce preposition stranding (as can WH-fronting): I like the song you were listening to or the
clause Which chair did you sit on?
Negation
A clause is negated by the inclusion of the word not:
In a finite indicative clause in which the finite verb is an auxiliary or copula, the word not comes
after that verb, often forming a contraction in NT: He will not (won't) win. In a finite indicative
clause in which there is otherwise no auxiliary or copula, do-support is used to provide one: He
does not (doesn't) want to win.
In the above clause types, if there is inversion (for example, because the sentence is
interrogative), the subject may come after the verb and before not, or after the contraction
in NT: Do you not (Don't you) want to win?
Negative imperatives are formed with do-support, even in the case of the copula: Don't be silly!
The negative of the present subjunctive is made by placing not before the verb: ...that you not
meet us; ...that he not be punished.
A non-finite clause is negated by placing not before the verb form: not to be
outdone (sometimes not is placed after to in such clauses), not knowing what to do.
Elliptical Clauses
Sciences

Certain clauses display ellipsis, where some component is omitted, usually by way of avoidance
of repetition. Examples include:
Omitted verb between subject and complement, as in You love me, and I you (where the same
verb love is understood between I' and you).
Tag Questions, as in He can't speak French, can he?
Similar short sentences or clauses such as I can, there is, we will, etc., where the omitted non-
finite clause or other complement is understood from what has gone before.
DO NOT FORGET!
1. Clauses can be classified as independent (main clause) and dependent (subordinate

clauses). A typical sentence consists of one independent clause, possibly augmented by
one or more dependent clauses.
2. An independent clause can be classified according to the sentence type; it may

be declarative (making a statement), interrogative (asking a question),
or imperative (giving an order).
Sciences

3. A dependent clause may be finite (based on a finite verb, as independent clauses are),
or non-finite (based on a verb in the form of an infinitive or participle). Particular types
of dependent clause include relative clauses, content clauses and adverbial clauses.
4. A non-finite clause is one in which the main verb is in a non-finite form, namely
an infinitive, past participle, or ING form (present participle or gerund). The internal
syntax of a non-finite clause is generally similar to that of a finite clause, except that
there is usually no subject (and in some cases a missing complement).
5. English is a SVO language, that is, in simple declarative sentences the order of the main
components is subjectverbobject(s) (or subjectverbcomplement). A typical finite
clause consists of a noun phrase functioning as the subject, a finite verb, followed by any
number of dependents of the verb.
6. Certain clauses display ellipsis, where some component is omitted, usually by way of
avoidance of repetition.
QUESTION
1. Which are the most common non-finite clauses?
UNIT 6
The Uses of the Non-Finite Constructions
The various types of non-finite clauses have a number of uses besides the constructions with
auxiliaries already described.
Infinitive
An infinitive phrase begins with the base form of the verb. Infinitive phrases can be viewed as
part of finite clauses where they are introduced by an auxiliary verb or by a certain limited class
Sciences

of main verbs. They are also often frequently introduced by a main verb followed by the
particle to. Further, infinitives introduced by to can function as noun phrases, or even as
modifiers of nouns. The following table illustrates these environments:
Introduced by a Introduced by Functioning Functioning as

Introduced by a
Infinitive (modal) auxiliary a main verb as noun the modifier
main verb
verb plus to phrase of a noun
To
That made I tried not laugh would the reason to
laugh Do not laugh!
me laugh. to laugh. have been laugh
unwise.
To leave was
We let They refused the thing to
leave They may leave. not an
them leave. to leave. leave behind
option.
To
You We had We hope expand the
the effort to
expand should expand the them expand the to expand the explanation
expand
explanation. explanation. explanation. would have
been folly.
An infinitive phrase begins with the bare form of the first verb, and it is coordinated by the word
"to":
I need to get my work done
For them to be with us in this time of crisis is evidence of their friendship.
Infinitive phrases are used after particular verbs such as "want" or "need".
The placement of an adverbial modifier directly after the to of an infinitive phrase (to slowly
drift away) is called a split infinitive, and is sometimes regarded as a grammatical or stylistic
error.
Sciences

Present Participle and Gerund
A present participle phrase uses the present participle form of the verb, ending in "-ing".
It may be used in progressive constructions:
Infinitive Progressive active participle
fix The guy is fixing my bike.
open the flower opening up
support the news supporting the point
drive She is driving our car.
The present participle may be used in non-finite constructions such as the following:
Having spoken, he turned and left.
Looking out the window, he saw a car go by.
Having been beaten at poker, he had little money left.
I saw them digging a hole.
The present participle form of a verb may function as a noun, in which case it is referred to as
a gerund. Gerunds typically appear as subject or object noun phrases, or even as the object of a
preposition:
Gerund as object of a
Infinitive Gerund as subject Gerund as object
preposition
Solving problems is No one is better

solve I like solving problems.
satisfying. at solving problems.
jog Jogging is boring. He has started jogging. Before jogging, she stretches.
Sciences

Eating too much She avoids eating too That prevents you
eat
made me sick. much. from eating too much.
We
Investigating the facts After investigating the facts,
investigate tried investigating the
won't hurt. we made a decision.
facts.
Often distinguishing between a gerund and a progressive active participle is not easy; the line
between the two non-finite verb forms is not clear.
A present participle may function as an adjective modifying a noun: "The dancing girls".
Past Participle
The past participles strong verbs in Germanic languages are irregular (e.g. driven); their form is
idiosyncratic. The past participles of weak verbs, in contrast, are regular; their form is formed
with the suffix -ED (e.g. fixed, supported, opened).
Past participles are used in perfect and passive constructions:
Infinitive Perfect active participle Passive participle
fix He has fixed my bike My bike was fixed.
open The flower has opened up. The flower has been opened up.
support The news has supported the point. the point supported by the news
drive She has driven our car. Our car should be driven often.
Sciences

DO NOT FORGET!
1. An infinitive phrase begins with the base form of the verb. Infinitive phrases can be
viewed as part of finite clauses where they are introduced by an auxiliary verb or by a
certain limited class of main verbs. They are also often frequently introduced by a main
verb followed by the particle to.
2. A present participle phrase uses the present participle form of the verb, ending in "-ING".
The present participle form of a verb may function as a noun, in which case it is referred
to as a gerund.
3. Gerunds typically appear as subject or object noun phrases, or even as the object of a
preposition.
4. The past participles of the strong verbs in Germanic languages are irregular (e.g. driven);
their form is idiosyncratic. The past participles of weak verbs, in contrast, are regular.
QUESTION
1. What is a split infinitive?
Sciences

UNIT 7
Government and Binding
Government and binding is a theory of syntax and a phrase structure grammar (as opposed to
a dependency grammar) in the tradition of transformational grammar. The name refers to two
central sub-theories of the theory: government, which is an abstract syntactic relation,
and binding, which deals with the referents of pronouns, anaphors and referential expressions.
Government
The main application of the government relation concerns the assignment of case. Government is
defined as follows:
A governs B if and only if
A is a governor and
A m-commands B and
No barrier intervenes between A and B.
Governors are heads of the lexical categories (V, N, A, P) and tensed (T). A commands B if A
does not dominate B and B does not dominate A and the first maximal projection of A dominates
B. The maximal projection of a head X is XP. This means that for example in a structure like the
following, A m-commands B, but B does not m-commands A:
Sciences

In addition, barrier is defined as follows: A barrier is any node Z such that
Z is a potential governor for B and
Z c-commands B and
Z does not c-commands A
The government relation makes case assignment unambiguous. The tree diagram below
illustrates how DPs are governed and assigned case by their governing heads:
Another important application of the government relation constrains the occurrence and identity
of traces as the Empty Category Principle requires them to be properly governed.
Binding
Binding can be defined as follows:
Sciences

An element binds an element if and only if c-commands , and and co-refer.
Consider the sentence "John saw his mother." which is diagrammed below using simple phrase
structure rules.
The NP "John" c-commands "his" because the first parent of the NP, S, contains "his". "John"
and "his" are also co-referential (they refer to the same person), therefore "John" binds "his".
On the other hand, in the ungrammatical sentence *The mother of John likes himself", "John"
does not c-command "himself", so they have no binding relationship despite the fact that they co-
refer.
The importance of binding is shown in the grammaticality of the following sentences:
*John saw him.
John saw himself.
*Himself saw John.
*John saw John.
Sciences

Binding is used, along with particular binding principles, to explain the ungrammaticality of
those statements. The applicable rules are called Binding Principle A, Binding Principle B, and
Binding Principle C.
Principle A: an anaphor (reflexive or reciprocal, such as "each other") must be bound in its
governing category (roughly, the clause).
Since "himself" is not c-commanded by "John" in sentence [3], Principle A is violated.
Principle B: a pronoun must be free (i.e., not bound) within its governing category (roughly, the
clause).
In sentence [1], "him" is bound by "John", violating Principle B.
Principle C: an R-expression must be free (i.e., not bound). R-expressions (e.g. "the dog" or
"John") are referential expressions: unlike pronouns and anaphora, they independently refer, i.e.,
pick out entities in the world.
In sentence [4], the first instance of "John" binds the second, violating Principle C.
Note that Principles A and B refer to "governing categories"--domains which limit the scope of
binding. In most cases the governing category is essentially the minimal clause or complex NP.
Sciences

DO NOT FORGET!
1. Government and binding is a theory of syntax and a phrase structure grammar (as
opposed to a dependency grammar) in the tradition of transformational grammar.
2. The name refers to two central sub-theories of the theory: government, which is an
abstract syntactic relation, and binding, which deals with the referents of pronouns,
anaphors and referential expressions.
3. The main application of the government relation concerns the assignment of case.
4. Binding can be defined as follows: an element binds an element if and only if c-

commands , and and co-refer.
QUESTION
1. What are the governors?
Sciences

UNIT 8
Raising Constructions
Usually raising is the construction where a given predicate /verb takes a dependent that is not its
semantic argument, but rather it is the semantic argument of an embedded predicate. In other
words, an argument that belongs to an embedded predicate is realized syntactically as a
dependent of a higher predicate/verb. Not all languages have raising predicates, but English is
one that does. The term raising has its origins in the transformational analysis of such
constructions; the one constituent is seen as "raised" from its initial position as the subject of the
embedded predicate to its final position as a dependent of the matrix predicate/verb. Raising
predicates/verbs are related to control predicates, although there are important differences
between the two predicate/verb types.
There are at least two types of raising predicates/verbs: raising-to-subject verbs and raising-to-
object predicates. Raising-to-object predicates overlap to a large extent with so-called ECM-
verbs (=exceptional case-marking). These types of raising predicates/verbs are illustrated with
the following sentences:
a. They seem to be trying. - seem is a raising-to-subject verb.
b. Prices appear to be increasing. - appear is a raising-to-subject verb.
c. You seem to be impatient. - seem is a raising-to-subject verb.
a. Fred wants us to help. - want can be a raising-to-object predicate.
b. That proves him to be hiding something. - prove can be a raising-to-object predicate.
c. She predicts there to be a problem. - predict can be a raising-to-object predicate.
The primary trait of raising predicates/verbs like these is that they are not
semantically selecting one of their dependents. The raising-to-subject verbs are not selecting
their subject dependent, and the raising-to-object predicates are not selecting their object
dependent. These dependents appear to have been raised from the lower predicate.
Sciences

Alternation with IT Extra-position
Raising predicates/verbs can be identified in part by the fact that they alternatively take a full
clause dependent and can take part in it-extra-position, e.g.
a. Tom seems to have won the race.
b. It seems that Tom won the race. - Raising-to-subject verb seem occurs with it-extra-position
a. Larry appears to be doing the work.
b. It appears that Larry is doing the work. - Raising-to-subject predicate verb appear occurs
with it-extra-position.
a. Sam believed someone to know the answer.
b. Sam believed it that someone knew the answer. - Raising-to-object predicate believe occurs
with it-extra-position.
c. Sam believed that someone knew the answer. - Raising-to-object predicate believe occurs with
clausal object argument.
a. That proves Susan to be a jackass.
b. That proves it that Susan is a jackass. - Raising-to-object predicate prove occurs with it-extra-
position.
c. That proves that Susan is a jackass. - Raising-to-object predicate prove occurs with clausal
object argument.
Raising predicates/verbs can appear with it-extra-position and/or a full clausal dependent. They
appear to be subcategorizing for a propositional argument.
Raising to Subject Verbs / Auxiliary Verbs
The raising-to-subject verbs as seem and appear are similar to auxiliary verbs insofar as both
verb types have little to no semantic content. The content that they do have is functional in
nature. In this area, auxiliary verbs cannot be viewed as separate predicates; they are, rather, part
Sciences

of a predicate. The raising-to-subject verbs seem and appear are similar insofar it is difficult to
view them as predicates. They serve, rather, to modify a predicate. That this is so can be seen in
the fact that the following pairs of sentences are essentially synonymous:
a. Fred does not seem to have done it.
b. Fred seems to have not done it. - Position of the negation is flexible.
a. Mary does not appear to like pudding.
b. Mary appears to not like pudding. - Position of the negation is flexible.
The fact that position of the negation can change without influencing the meaning is telling. It
means that the raising-to-subject verbs can hardly be viewed as predicates.
While raising-to-subject verbs are like auxiliary verbs insofar as they lack the content of
predicates, they are unlike auxiliaries in syntactic respects. Auxiliary verbs undergo subject-aux
inversion, raising-to-subject verbs do not. Auxiliary verbs license negation, raising-to-subject
verbs do so only reluctantly:
a. Fred is happy.
b. Is Fred happy? - Auxiliary verb be takes part in subject-auxiliary inversion.
c. Fred is not happy. - Auxiliary verb be licenses negation.
a. Fred seems happy.
b. *Seems Fred happy? - Raising-to-subject verb seem cannot take part in subject-auxiliary
inversion.
c. Fred seems not happy. - Raising-to-subject verb seem can hardly license negation.
a. Susan should stay.
b. Should Susan stay? - Modal auxiliary should takes part in subject-auxiliary inversion.
c. Susan should not stay. - Modal auxiliary should can license negation.
Sciences

a. Susan appears to be staying.
b. *Appears Susan to be staying? - Raising-to-subject verb appear cannot take part in subject-
auxiliary inversion.
c. Susan appears not to be staying. - Raising-to-subject verb appear reluctantly licenses negation.
Raising-to-object verbs are also clearly not auxiliary verbs. Unlike raising-to-subject verbs,
however, raising-to-object verbs have clear semantic content, so they are hence indisputably
predicates.
Representing Raising
The fact that the raised constituent behaves as though it is a dependent of the higher predicate is
generally reflected in the syntax trees that are employed to represent the raising structures. The
following trees are illustrative of the type of structures assumed for raising-to-object
predicates. In contrast, others assume both constituency-based trees of phrase structure
grammar and dependency-based trees of dependency grammar are employed here:
The constituency-based trees are the a-trees on the left, and the dependency-based trees are the b-
trees on the right. While the structures assumed here can be disputed - especially the
constituency structures - the trees all show the main stance toward raising structures. This stance
is that the "subject" of the lower predicate appears as a dependent of the higher predicate - the
Sciences

relevant constituents are in bold. Relatively flat structures are assumed to accommodate this
behavior. Both it and the claim are shown as dependents of expects and proves, respectively,
although they are semantic arguments of the lower predicates to happen and to be false,
respectively.
A number of empirical considerations support the relatively flat structures shown here. That is,
empirical considerations support the position of the "raised" constituent as a dependent of the
matrix predicate/verb. These dependents can appear in object form, they can appear as the
subject of passive sentences, and they can appear as reflexives co-indexed with the matrix
subjects:
a. We expect him to help. - Pronoun him appears in object form.
b. He is expected to help. - Object pronoun becomes subject in passive.
c. He1 expects himself1 to help. - Reflexive is co-indexed with subject.
a. You proved her to be competent. - Pronoun her appears in object form.
b. He was proved to be competent. - Object pronoun becomes subject in passive.
c. She1 proved herself1 to be competent. - Reflexive is co-indexed with subject.
This behavior speaks strongly for the general analysis reflected in the trees, namely that the
"raised" constituent is a dependent of the higher predicate.
Raising and Control
An understanding of the raising is significantly expanded by comparing and contrasting the

raising with control. Examine the following (dependency) trees:
Sciences

The a-trees contain the raising predicates wants and judges, whereas the b-trees contain the
control predicates told and asked. Despite the fact that structures assumed for these different
predicate types are essentially the same, there is a major distinction to be drawn. This distinction
is that the control predicates semantically select their objects, whereas the raising predicates do
not. In other words, the object is a semantic argument of the control predicate in each case,
whereas it is not an argument of the raising predicate. This situation obtains despite the fact that
both predicate types take the object to be the "subject" of the lower predicate.
The distinction between raising-to-object and control predicates is identified using the there-
insertion diagnostic. Expletive there can appear as the object (or subject) of raising predicates,
but it cannot appear as the object of control predicates, e.g.:
a. Sam judges there to be a problem. - Expletive there can appear as the object of a raising-to-
object predicate.
b. *Sam asked there to be a problem. - Expletive there cannot appear as the object of an object
control predicate.
a. We want there to be a revision. - Expletive there can appear as the object of a raising-to-object
predicate.
Sciences

b. We helped there (to) be a revision. - Expletive there cannot appear as the object of an object
control predicate.
Since the raising predicates place no semantic restrictions on their object dependents,
expletive there is free to appear. In contrast, object control predicates do place semantic
restrictions on their object arguments, which means expletive there usually cannot appear.
DO NOT FORGET!
Sciences

1. Usually raising is the construction where a given predicate /verb takes a dependent that is
not its semantic argument, but rather it is the semantic argument of an embedded
predicate. In other words, an argument that belongs to an embedded predicate is realized
syntactically as a dependent of a higher predicate/verb. Not all languages have raising
predicates, but English is one that does.
2. The term raising has its origins in the transformational analysis of such constructions; the
one constituent is seen as "raised" from its initial position as the subject of the embedded
predicate to its final position as a dependent of the matrix predicate/verb.
3. The fact that the raised constituent behaves as though it is a dependent of the higher
predicate is generally reflected in the syntax trees that are employed to represent the
raising structures.
QUESTION
1. Which are the types of the syntactic procedure of raising predicates/verbs?
UNIT 9
Control Constructions
Sciences

Control is a construction where the understood subject of a given predicate is determined by

some expression in context. Stereotypical instances of control involve verbs. A super-ordinate
verb "controls" a subordinate, non-finite verb. Control was intensively studied in the
Government and Binding (GB) framework in the 1980s, and much of the terminology from that
era is still used today. In the days of Transformational Grammar, control phenomena were
discussed in terms of EQUI-NP deletion. Control is often analyzed in terms of a null pronoun
called PRO. Control is also related to the raising, although there are important differences
between the control and the raising. Most if not all languages have control constructions and
these constructions tend to occur frequently.
Standard instances of (obligatory) control are present in the following sentences:
Susan promised us to help. - Subject control with the obligatory control predicate promise
Fred stopped laughing. - Subject control with the obligatory control predicate stop
We tried to leave. - Subject control with the obligatory control predicate try
Sue asked Bill to stop. - Object control with the obligatory control predicate ask
They told you to support the effort. - Object control with the obligatory control predicate tell
Someone forced him to do it. - Object control with the obligatory control predicate force
Each of these sentences contains two verbal predicates. Each time the control verb is on the left
and the controlled verb on the right. The control verb determines which expression is interpreted
as the "subject" of the verb on the right. The first three sentences are examples of subject control,
because the subject of the control verb is also the understood subject of the controlled verb. The
second three sentences are instances of object control, because the object of the control verb is
also the understood subject of the controlled verb. The argument of the matrix predicate that
functions as the "subject" of the embedded predicate is the controller. The controllers are in bold
in the examples.
Control and Auxiliary Verbs
Sciences

Control predicates have semantic content; they semantically select their arguments, that is, their
appearance strongly influences the nature of the arguments they take. In this regard, they are
much different from auxiliary verbs, which lack semantic content and do not semantically select
arguments. Compare the following pairs of sentences:
a. Sam will go. - will is an auxiliary verb.
b. Sam yearns to go. - yearns is a subject control verb.
a. Jim has to do it. - has to is a modal auxiliary verb.
b. Jim refuses to do it. - refuses is a subject control verb.
a. Jill would lie and cheat. - would is a modal auxiliary.
b. Jill attempted to lie and cheat. - attempted is a subject control verb.
The a-sentences contain auxiliary verbs that do not select the subject argument. What this means
is that the embedded verbs go, do, and lie and cheat are responsible for semantically selecting the
subject argument. The point is that while control verbs may have the same outward appearance
as auxiliary verbs, the two verb types are quite different.
Optional Control
Control predicates (such as promise, stop, try, ask, tell, force, yearn, refuse, attempt) obligatorily
induce a control construction. That is, when control predicates appear, they inherently determine
which of their arguments controls the embedded predicate. Control is hence obligatorily present
with these predicates. In contrast, many predicates can be controlled even when a super-ordinate
control predicate is absent, e.g.
He left singing all the way. - Non-obligatory control of the present participle singing
Understanding nothing, the class protested. - Non-obligatory control of the present

participle understanding
Holding his breath too long, Fred passed out. - Non-obligatory control of the present
participle holding.
Sciences

In one sense, control is obligatory in these sentences because the present

participles singing, understanding, and holding are clearly controlled by the matrix subjects. In
another sense, however, control is non-obligatory (or optional) because there is no control
predicate present that necessitates that control occur. General contextual factors are determining
which expression is understood as the controller. The controller is the subject in these sentences
because the subject establishes point of view.
Arbitrary Control
Arbitrary control occurs when the controller is understood to be anybody in general, e.g.:
Reading the Dead Sea Scrolls is fun. - Arbitrary control of the gerund reading.
Seeing is believing. - Arbitrary control of the gerunds seeing and believing
Having to do something repeatedly is boring. - Arbitrary control of the gerund having
The understood subject of the gerunds is non-discriminate; any generic person will do. In such
cases, control is said to be "arbitrary". Any time the understood subject of a given predicate is not
present in the linguistic or situational context, a generic subject (e.g. 'one') is understood.
Representing Control
Theoretical linguistics posits the existence of the null pronoun PRO as the theoretical basis for
the analysis of control structures. The null pronoun PRO is an element that impacts a sentence in
a similar manner to how a normal pronoun impacts a sentence. The null PRO is added to the
controlled predicate, where it occupies the position that one would typically associate with an
overt subject (if one were present). The following trees illustrate PRO in both constituency-based
structures of phrase structure grammar and dependency-based structures of dependency
grammars:
Sciences

The constituency-based trees are the a-trees on the left, and the dependency-based trees the b-
trees on the right. Certainly aspects of these trees - especially of the constituency trees - can be
disputed. In the current context, the trees are intended merely to suggest by way of illustration
how control and PRO are conceived of. The indices are a common means of identifying the
controller of PRO and the controlled predicate, and the orange arrows indicate further the control
relation. In a sense, the controller assigns its index to PRO, which identifies the argument that is
understood as the subject of the controlled predicate.
A (constituency-based) X-bar theoretic tree that is consistent with the standard GB-type analysis
is given next:
Sciences

The details of this tree are, again, not so important. What is important is that by positing the
existence of the null subject PRO, the theoretical analysis of control constructions gains a useful
tool that can help uncover important traits of control constructions.
The Control and the Raising
Control must be distinguished from the raising, though the two can be outwardly similar. Control
predicates semantically select their arguments, as stated above. Raising predicates, in contrast, do
not semantically select (at least) one of their dependents. The contrast is evident with the so-
called raising-to-object verbs (=ECM-verbs) such as believe, expect, want, and prove. Compare
the following a- and b-sentences:
a. Fred asked you to read it. - asked is an object control verb.
b. Fred expects you to read it. - expects is a raising-to-object verb.
a. Jim forced her to say it. - forced is an object control verb.
b. Jim believed her to have said it. - believes is a raising-to-object verb.
Sciences

The control predicates ask and force semantically select their object arguments, whereas the
raising-to-object verbs do not. Instead, the object of the raising verb appears to have "risen" from
the subject position of the embedded predicate, in this case from the embedded predicates to
read and to have said. In other words, the embedded predicate is semantically selecting the
argument of the matrix predicate. What this means is that while a raising-to-object verb takes an
object dependent, that dependent is not a semantic argument of that raising verb. The distinction
becomes apparent when one considers that a control predicate like ask requires its object to be an
animate entity, whereas a raising-to-object predicate like expects places no semantic limitations
on its object dependent.
The different predicate types can be identified using expletive there. Expletive there can appear
as the "object" of a raising-to-object predicate, but not of a control verb, e.g.
a. *Fred asked there to be a party. - Expletive there cannot appear as the object of a control
predicate.
b. Fred expects there to be a party. - Expletive there can appear as the object of a raising-to-
object predicate.
a. *Jim forced there to be a party. - Expletive there cannot appear as the object of a control
predicate.
b. Jim believes there to have been a party. - Expletive there can appear as the object of a raising-
to-object predicate.
The control predicates cannot take expletive there because there does not fulfill the semantic
requirements of the control predicates. Since the raising-to-object predicates do not select their
objects, they can easily take expletive there.
DO NOT FORGET!
Sciences

1. Control is a construction where the understood subject of a given predicate is determined

by some expression in context. Stereotypical instances of control involve verbs. A super-
ordinate verb "controls" a subordinate, non-finite verb.
2. Control predicates have semantic content; they semantically select their arguments, that
is, their appearance strongly influences the nature of the arguments they take.
3. Arbitrary control occurs when the controller is understood to be anybody in general.
4. Control must be distinguished from the raising, though the two can be outwardly
similar. Control predicates semantically select their arguments, as stated above. Raising
predicates, in contrast, do not semantically select (at least) one of their dependents.
QUESTION
1. Control predicates may induce control constructions?
UNIT 10
Relative Clause
Sciences

A relative clause is a kind of subordinate clause, one of whose arguments shares a referent with a
main clause element on which the subordinate clause is grammatically dependent.
Typically, a relative clause modifies a noun or noun phrase, and uses some grammatical device to
indicate that one of the arguments within the relative clause has the same referent as that noun or
noun phrase. For example, in the sentence I met a man who wasn't there, the subordinate
clause who wasn't there is a relative clause, since it modifies the noun man, and uses the pronoun
who to indicate that the same "man" is referred to within the subordinate clause (in this case, as
its subject).
Types of Relative Clause
Bound and free
A bound relative clause, the type most often considered, qualifies an explicit element (usually
a noun or noun phrase) appearing in the main clause, and refers back to that element by means of
some explicit or implicit device within the relative clause. The relative clause may also be called
the embedded clause; the main (or higher-level) clause in which it is embedded is also called
the matrix clause. The noun in the main clause that the relative clause modifies is called
the head noun, or (particularly when referred back to by a relative pronoun) the antecedent.
For example, in the English sentence "The man whom I saw yesterday went home", the relative
clause "whom I saw yesterday" modifies the head noun man, and the relative
pronoun whom refers back to the referent of that noun. The sentence is equivalent to the
following two sentences: "I saw a man yesterday. The man went home." Note that the shared
argument need not fulfill the same role in both clauses; in this example the same man is referred
to by the subject of the matrix clause, but the direct object of the relative clause.
A free relative clause, on the other hand, does not have an explicit antecedent external to itself.
Instead, the relative clause itself takes the place of an argument in the matrix clause. For
example, in the English sentence "I like what I see", the clause what I see is a free relative
clause, because it has no antecedent, but itself serves as the object of the verb like in the main
clause. (An alternative analysis is that the free relative clause has zero as its antecedent.)
Restrictive and non-restrictive
Sciences

Bound relative clauses may or may not be restrictive. A restrictive, or defining, relative clause
modifies the meaning of its head word (restricts its possible referent), whereas a non-restrictive
(non-defining) relative clause merely provides supplementary information. For example:
The man who lives in this house has not been seen for days. This (who lives in this house) is a
restrictive relative clause, modifying the meaning of man, and essential to the sentence (if the
clause were omitted, it would no longer be known which man is being referred to).
The mayor, who lives in this house, has not been seen for days. This is a non-restrictive
relative clause, since it provides supplementary information about the mayor, but is not essential
to the sentence if the clause were omitted, it would still be known which mayor is meant.
In speaking it is natural to make slight pauses around non-restrictive clauses, and in English this
is shown in writing by commas (as in the examples). However many languages do not
distinguish the two types of relative clause in this way. Another difference in English is that only
restrictive relative clauses may be introduced with that or use the "zero" relative pronoun.
A non-restrictive relative clause may have a whole sentence as its antecedent rather than a
specific noun phrase; for example:
The cat was allowed on the bed, which annoyed the dog.
Finite and non-finite
Relative clauses may be either finite clauses (as in the examples above) or non-finite clauses. An
example of a non-finite relative clause in English is the infinite clause on whom to rely, in the
sentence "She is the person on whom to rely".
DO NOT FORGET!
1. A relative clause is a kind of subordinate clause, one of whose arguments shares

a referent with a main clause element on which the subordinate clause is grammatically
dependent.
Sciences

2. Typically, a relative clause modifies a noun or noun phrase, and uses some grammatical
device to indicate that one of the arguments within the relative clause has the same
referent as that noun or noun phrase.
3. A bound relative clause, the type most often considered, qualifies an explicit element
(usually a noun or noun phrase) appearing in the main clause, and refers back to that
element by means of some explicit or implicit device within the relative clause.
4. A free relative clause, on the other hand, does not have an explicit antecedent external to
itself. Instead, the relative clause itself takes the place of an argument in the matrix
clause.
5. A restrictive, or defining, relative clause modifies the meaning of its head word (restricts
its possible referent), whereas a non-restrictive (non-defining) relative clause merely
provides supplementary information.
QUESTIONS
1. What is a matrix clause?
2. What is an antecedent?
UNIT 11
The Complemetizers and the Complement Clause
Sciences

In Generative Grammar, a complementizer (or complementiser) is a lexical category (part of

speech) including those words which can be used to turn a clause into the subject or object of a
sentence. For example, the word that is generally called a complementizer in English sentences
like Mary believes that it is raining. Complementizer is a technical term in linguistics; in
traditional grammar, such words are normally considered conjunctions.
The standard abbreviation for complementizer is C. The complementizer is widely held to be the
syntactic head of a full clause, which is therefore often represented by the abbreviation CP (for
complementizer phrase). Evidence that the complementizer functions as the head of its clause
includes the fact that it is commonly the last element in a clause in languages like Korean or
Japanese, in which other heads follow their complements, and always first in "head-initial"
languages such as English.
It is common for the complementizers of a language to develop historically from other syntactic
categories (a process known as grammaticalization). Across the languages of the world, it is
especially common for determiners to be used as complementizers (e.g., English that). Another
frequent source of complementizers is the class of interrogative words. It is especially common
for a form that otherwise means what to be borrowed as a complementizer, but other
interrogative words are often used as well; e.g., colloquial English I read in the paper how it's
going to be cold today, with unstressed how roughly equivalent to that). English for in sentences
like I would prefer for there to be a table in the corner shows a preposition that has arguably
developed into a complementizer. (The sequence for there in this sentence is not a prepositional
phrase under this analysis).
Empty Complementizers
Some analyses allow for the possibility of invisible or "empty" complementizers. An empty
complementizer is a hypothetical phonologically null category with a function parallel to that of
visible complementizers such as that and for. Its existence in English has been proposed based on
the following type of alternation:
He hopes you go ahead with the speech
He hopes that you go ahead with the speech
Sciences

Because that can be inserted between the verb and the embedded clause, the original sentence
without a visible complementizer would be reanalyzed as
He hopes C you go ahead with the speech
This suggests another interpretation of the earlier "how" sentence:
I read in the paper <how> C [it's going to be cold today]
In this case the word "how" serves as a specifier to the empty complementizer. This allows for a
consistent analysis of another troublesome alternation:
The man <whom> C [I saw yesterday] ate my lunch!
The man <OP> C [I saw yesterday] ate my lunch!
The man <OP> that [I saw yesterday] ate my lunch!
In this case the "OP" represents an invisible interrogative known as an operator.
In a more general sense, the proposed empty complementizer parallels the suggestion of near-
universal empty determiners.
DO NOT FORGET!
1. In Generative Grammar, a complementizer (or complementiser) is a lexical category (part

of speech) including those words which can be used to turn a clause into the subject or
object of a sentence. For example, the word that is generally called a complementizer in
English sentences.
Sciences

2. An empty complementizer is a hypothetical phonologically null category with a function

parallel to that of visible complementizers such as that and for.
QUESTION
1. Which is the term for complementizer in traditional grammar?
UNIT 12
Adverbial Clauses
An adverb clause is a dependent clause that functions as an adverb. In other words, it contains
a subject (explicit or implied) and a predicate, and it modifies a verb.
Sciences

I saw Joe when I went to the store. (explicit subject 2)
He sat quietly in order to appear polite. (implied subject he)
According to Sidney Greenbaum and Randolph Quirk, adverbial clauses function mainly
as adjuncts or disjuncts. In these functions they are like adverbial phrase, but due to their
potentiality for greater explicitness, they are more often like prepositional
phrase (Greenbaum and Quirk 1990):
We left after the speeches ended. (adverbial clause)
We left after the end of the speeches. (adverbial prepositional phrase)
Adverbial clauses modify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs. For example:
Hardly had I reached the station when the train started to leave the platform.
The adverbial clause in this sentence is "when the train started to leave the platform" because it is
a subordinate clause and because it has the trigger word (subordinate conjunction) "when".
Types of Adverbial Clauses
Type of
Common Conjunctions Function Example
Clause
clauses of when, before, after, since, while, as, These clauses are used Her goldfish
time as long as, until, till, etc. to say when something died when she was
(conjunctions that answer the happens by referring to young.
Sciences

question "when?"); the paired

correlative conjunctions hardly ... a period of time or to
when, scarcely ... when, barely ... another event.
when, no sooner ... than
These clauses are used

If they lose weight
to talk about a possible
clause of during an illness,
if, unless, lest or counterfactual
condition they soon regain it
situation and its
afterwards.
consequences.
They had to take

These clauses are used some of his land so
clauses of
in order to, so that, in order that to indicate the purpose that they could
purpose
of an action. extend the church
yard.
I couldn't feel anger

clauses of against him
because, since, as, given to indicate the reason
reason because I liked him
for something.
too much.

to make two I used to read a
clause of statements: one of lot although I don't
although, though, while
concession which contrasts with get much time for
the other or makes it books now.
seem surprising.
Where, wherever, anywhere, These clauses are used He said he was

clauses of
everywhere, etc. (conjunctions that to talk about the happy where he
place
answer the question "where?") location or position of was.
Sciences

something.
Adverb as is a clause Johan can speak

clause of
as which states English as fluently
comparison
comparison. as his teacher.

to talk about someone's
I was never allowed
clauses of behavior or the way
as, like, the way to do things as I
manner something is done,
wanted to do them.
answering the
question, "How?"
My suitcase had
become so
result damaged on the
so...that, such...that to indicate the result of
clauses journey home that
something.
the lid would not
stay closed.
DO NOT FORGET!
1. An adverb clause is a dependent clause that functions as an adverb. In other words, it

contains a subject (explicit or implied) and a predicate, and it modifies a verb.
2. Adverbial clauses function mainly as adjuncts or disjuncts. In these functions they are
like adverbial phrase, but due to their potentiality for greater explicitness, they are more
often like prepositional phrase (Greenbaum and Quirk 1990):
QUESTION
Sciences

1. Which are the most known adverbial clauses in English?
Answer Key
Unit 1
1. The coordinate structures are classified as follows: syndetic, asyndetic and

polysyndetic.
Unit 2
1. Two syntactic subordinated units are in a head-dependent relationship.
Unit 3
1. The classification of clauses is made according to the structure and to the purpose
of the clauses.
Sciences

Unit 4
1. The four basic sentence functions in the world's languages include the declarative,
interrogative, exclamatory and the imperative.
2. These correspond to a statement, question, exclamation, and command respectively.
Unit 5
1. The most common non-finite clauses are: the infinitive-clauses, participial clauses and
gerundial clauses.
Unit 6
1. The placement of an adverbial modifier directly after the to of an infinitive phrase (to
slowly drift away) is called a split infinitive, and it is sometimes regarded as a
grammatical or stylistic error.
Unit 7
1. Governors are heads of the lexical categories (V, N, A, P) and tensed (T).
Unit 8
1. There are at least two types of raising predicates/verbs: raising-to-subject verbs and
raising-to-object predicates.
Unit 9
1. Control predicates (such as promise, stop, try, ask, tell, force, yearn, refuse, attempt)
obligatorily induce a control construction. That is, when control predicates appear, they
inherently determine which of their arguments controls the embedded predicate. Control
is hence obligatorily present with these predicates.
Unit 10
1. The main (or higher-level) clause in which it is embedded a relative clause is also called
the matrix clause.
Sciences

2. The noun in the main clause that the relative clause modifies is called the head noun, or
(particularly when referred back to by a relative pronoun) the antecedent.
Unit 11
1. Complementizer is a technical term in linguistics; in traditional grammar, such words are

normally considered conjunctions.
Unit 12
1. The most known adverbial clauses in English are: the adverbial clause of time, condition,
purpose, reason, concession, place, comparison, manner, result.
Bibliography
1. Bach, E., Syntactic Theory, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1974.
2. Carnie, A., Syntax: A Generative Introduction, MA: Blackwell Publishing,

New York, 2007.
3. Chomsky, Noam, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, 1965.
4. Chomsky, Noam, Syntactic Structures, Oxford University Press, Oxford,

1985, (first edition 1957).
5. Edmonds, J. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax, Academic

Press, New York, 1976.
6. Greenbaum, Sydney & Quirk, Randolf, A Students Grammar of the

English Language, Longman Group Ltd., London, 1990.
Sciences

7. Huddleston, Rodney, Introduction to English Transformational Syntax,

Longman, London, 1976.
8. McCawley, James, Syntactic Phenomena of English, University of

Chicago, Chicago, 1998.
9. Jespersen, Otto, Analytic Syntax, Copenhagen, Levin and Munksgaard,

2001 (first edition 1937).
10. Baker, Carl Lee, English Syntax, Cambridge University Press, MIT Press,
Cambridge, second edition 1995.
Online Resources:
1. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/228762/generative-
grammar
2. www.ust.edu/open/library/other/26/20/English%20/Grammar
%20/University %20Course.pdf
Sciences

Syntax 2

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Syntax 2

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

LEC: English Syntax of the Sentence Structure 2014

The Syntax of the Sentence Structure

Second Year of Study

Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

The Functions of the Sentence . 25

The Types of the Clauses .. 32

The Uses of the Non-Finite Constructions ...... 41

Government and Biding ... 46

Raising Constructions ... 51

The Complementizer and the Compplement Clause . 69

Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

In the theory of linguistics, coordination is a frequently occurring complex syntactic structure

Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

[The chicken] and [the rice] go well together. - NP + NP.

The president will [understand] and [agree]. - V + V

The president will [understand the criticism] and [take action] - VP + VP

Insects were [in], [on], and [under] the bed. - P + P + P

Susan works [slowly] and [carefully]. - Adv + Adv

Susan works [too slowly] and [overly carefully]. AdvP + AdvP

Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

Nested Coordinate Structures

Fred and Bill and Sam came.

a. [Fred] and [Bill] and [Sam] came.

b. [Fred] and [[Bill] and [Sam]] came.

c. [[Fred] and [Bill]] and [Sam] came.

b'. [Fred] or [Bill and Sam] came.

c'. [Fred and Bill] or [Sam] came.

A theory of coordination needs to be in a position to address nesting of this sort.

Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

Sarah is [a CEO] and [proud of her job]. - NP + AP

Is Jim [conservative] and [a closet Republican]? - A + NP

Bill is [in trouble] and [trying to come up with an excuse]. - PP + VP

Sam works [evenings] and [on weekends]. - Adv + PP

[When did he] and [why did he] do that?

[She has] but [he has not] understood the task.

[The old] and [the new] submarines submerged side-by-side.

We expect [Connor to laugh] and [Jillian to cry].

Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

b. They saw [him first] and [her second]. - Non-gapping analysis

Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

Forward and Backward Coordination

Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

In Generative Transformational Grammar, the interaction of coordination and extraction

In pseudo-coordinative constructions, the coordinator generally appears to have a subordinating

Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

in Dutch and German. The pseudo-coordinative construction is limited to a few verbs. In

Why don't you go and jump in the lake

I will try and jump in the lake

The pupils sat and read their textbooks

A typical property of pseudo-coordinative constructions is that, unlike ordinary coordination,

What did she go and jump in t?

What did she try and jump in

Which textbooks did the pupils sit and read.

The Structure of Coordination

Theoretical accounts of coordination vary in major respects. For instance, constituency -

Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

mechanisms to "rectify" non-constituent conjuncts (e.g. conjunction reduction and RNR, as

Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

Department of Letters and Foreign Languages

4. Gapping (and Stripping) is an ellipsis mechanism that occurs in coordinate structures

6. In pseudo-coordinative constructions, the coordinator generally appears to have a