Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

Clausestructure 57 subclassify these into more specific categories, such as transitive verb, direct object, and subject complement.

Such subclassification is typicar of both formal and functional distinctions in grammar. onry through these flner distinctions can an adequate account be given of what combinations of constituents enter into the structure of the English clause. To clarify the terminology and its use, let us return to the seven clause types in Tqble 2.16, and specify the structures more precisely (again omitting optional adverbials) by means of subcategories of V, O, C, and A, inTqble 2. 19 opposite. The abbreviations used are those which will be current throughout this book (new examples are added for further illustration). Further variations on these clause types, including some exceptional patterns, are discuss ed in 16.lgff. Systematic correspondences 2,20 The study of grammatical structure is aided by observing systematic correspondences between one structure and another. Such correspondences are sometimes described in terms of transformational rules, but we shall not make use of such theoretical formulations in this book. Instead, we shall use demonstrable correspondences as an informal way of showing similarities and contrasts between structures. They are important in explaining the relation between grammatical choice and meaning, and also in providing criteria for classification. A systematic correspondence may be broadly defined as a relation or mapping between two structures X and Y, such that if the same lexical content occurs in X and in Y, there is a constant meaning relation between the two structures. (In using the term 'lexical content', we allow for the possibility that X and Y may contain different, though related, lexical items, such as wise and wisely.) This relation is often one of semantic equivalence, or paraphrase. In 2.21-24, we give three important examples of systematic correspondence, and show how they help in the identification of clause elements. Further types of correspondence will be examined tn2.45fi'. The symbol - is used in this book to represent such correspondences. Lack of systematic correspondence is symbolized by *. We take the seven basic clause types of [1-7] as the point of departure for our description, but do not regard correspondences as unidirectional. Active and passive structures 2.21 Clauses containing a noun phrase as object are distinguished by the fact th at they are usually matched by passive clauses, in which the object noun phrase now appears as subject (Vpu,, : passive verb phrase), cJ' Table 2.21 on the next page. As type SVOO clauses have two objects, they can often have two passive forms - one in which the indirect object becomes the subject, and another in which the direct object becomes subject. Further discussion of the active-passive relationship is found in 3.63ff. As the formulae show, this correspondence permits us to convert clauses of types with an object into equivalent types without objects (or, in the case of SVOO, with only one object). Thus the passive of They considered him a genius ISVOCI is closely parallel in meaning to the SZC pattern, except for the passive verb phrase:

S-ar putea să vă placă și