* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Basic patterns of the simple sentence
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
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
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
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