Download Basic patterns of the simple sentence

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

French grammar wikipedia , lookup

Scottish Gaelic grammar wikipedia , lookup

American Sign Language grammar wikipedia , lookup

Proto-Indo-European verbs wikipedia , lookup

Ojibwe grammar wikipedia , lookup

Inflection wikipedia , lookup

Udmurt grammar wikipedia , lookup

Old Irish grammar wikipedia , lookup

Polish grammar wikipedia , lookup

Ukrainian grammar wikipedia , lookup

Macedonian grammar wikipedia , lookup

Swedish grammar wikipedia , lookup

Germanic weak verb wikipedia , lookup

Causative wikipedia , lookup

Germanic strong verb wikipedia , lookup

English clause syntax wikipedia , lookup

Japanese grammar wikipedia , lookup

Navajo grammar wikipedia , lookup

Ancient Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup

Portuguese grammar wikipedia , lookup

Old English grammar wikipedia , lookup

Chinese grammar wikipedia , lookup

Kannada grammar wikipedia , lookup

Italian grammar wikipedia , lookup

Yiddish grammar wikipedia , lookup

Modern Hebrew grammar wikipedia , lookup

Serbo-Croatian grammar wikipedia , lookup

Sotho verbs wikipedia , lookup

Icelandic grammar wikipedia , lookup

Russian grammar wikipedia , lookup

Hungarian verbs wikipedia , lookup

Kagoshima verb conjugations wikipedia , lookup

Latin syntax wikipedia , lookup

Spanish grammar wikipedia , lookup

Lexical semantics wikipedia , lookup

Georgian grammar wikipedia , lookup

Pipil grammar wikipedia , lookup

Transcript
Basic patterns of the simple sentence
The term "sentence" is a controversial one in modern linguistics, and there are varying
definitions of what a sentence is, or should be. For the purposes of this analysis we will
use the traditional definition: a sentence (in the ordinary declarative form) must consist
at least of a subject and a finite verb phrase.
Dogs bark.
But of course in most cases a subject and a verb phrase alone are not sufficient to form
a grammatically complete sentence.
*Sarah seems.
*Fred made.
These sentences have exactly the same syntactic form as the first example, and yet they
are not full sentences. To make them grammatically complete, we must say what Sarah
feels, and what Fred made. For instance,
Sarah seems fine.
Fred made a mistake.
In other words the meaning (i.e. the semantics) of the particular verb determines what, if
anything, must follow it. The elements following verbs are called their complementation.
And, as we have just seen, some verbs need a complementation and others do not. Bark
needs none, seem needs a subject complement, make requires a direct object. This
illustrates two important general points: firstly, semantics and syntax are closely
connected: the meaning of the verb here influences the syntactic pattern of the sentence.
This brings us to the second point: basic sentence patterns depend on the verb. For this
reason many grammarians refer to "verb patterns" rather than "sentence patterns".
These are the basic patterns of verb complementation:
1. subject + verb
Dogs bark.
2. subject + verb + subject complement
Sarah seems fine.
3. subject + verb + direct object
Fred made a mistake.
4. subject + verb + direct object + object complement
Fred makes me angry.
5. subject + verb + direct object + adverbial
Sarah put the book on the table.
6. subject + verb + indirect object + direct object
Sarah lent Fred her car.
7. subject + verb + adverbial
The book was on the table.
These are the compulsory complementations. They are the "minimum". Optional
complementation, in the form of adverbials, can be added:
Dogs bark loudly.
Sarah put the book on the table quickly.
Verbs are sometimes classified according to the type of complementation they need:
a) Intransitive verbs (bark, seem) are those without objects. There are two types: those
with no compulsory complementation (bark); and those which have to take a subject
complement (seem in 2.) or an adverbial (be in 7.; remain, stay, go, come are further
examples).
b) Transitive verbs are those which have a direct object (make in 3.). They are sometimes
called monotransitive, to distinguish them from the verb types in c) and d).
c) Complex transitive verbs have a direct object, plus an object complement (make in 4.).
d) Ditransitive verbs have an indirect and a direct object (lend in 6.). They become
ordinary transitive verbs when the indirect object is turned into a prepositional phrase
(usually with to). The prepositional phrase is then analysed as an adverbial:
Sarah lent her car to Fred.
It is important to remember that after ditransitive verbs the indirect object must precede
the direct object.
e) Finally, verbs like put require not just a direct object, but in addition an adverbial.
Adverbials are usually optional parts of sentences - but not in this case! Here the
adverbial is a compulsory part of the verb complementation. Take is a similar example,
i.e. it requires an adverbial after the direct object. The same is true of transitive verbs like
lend which can also be ditransitive. In their transitive form many of these verbs require
an adverbial (which in the ditransitive form would be rendered by the indirect object) see example under d).
There are intransitive verbs too which require complementation by an adverbial (see 7.).
If be is not followed by a subject complement, for example, it must be complemented by
an adverbial:
Postlethwaite is in prison.
Stay is another example. So too are certain verbs of motion like go and come. They need
adverbial complementation, otherwise they don't make semantic and syntactic sense.
The example of make in 3. and 4. shows us that some verbs can belong to more than one
of these categories. Make has a transitive and a complex transitive use. Many verbs can
be used transitively, as well as intransitively:
The gorilla sang. (intransitive)
The gorilla sang the national anthem. (transitive)
Most (though not all) ditransitive verbs can be used in an ordinary transitive way, as we
have seen.
Peter Fenn: Syntax, SS 2004, Handout I, Pädagogische Hochschule Ludwigsburg