(134) Passive Voice Rule =>
[Be + Verb + Past Participle + by]
The Passive voice is also carried out by Aux "Be". One
of the properties of the Passive Voice is that it allows the Object
of an otherwise Active sentence to become the Subject of a Passive
sentence. This is particularly handy when one wants to emphasis
or put focus onto the object for discourse reasons. Consider the
contrast between the active vs. passive voice in the paradigm below
noting that the Subject of an Active Sentence becomes the Object
of a Passive (and vice versa).:
(135) Table: Active vs. Passive Voice
Active vs. Passive Voice |
SVO Word Order |
OVS Derived Word Order
Rule [Be + Verb + Past Part.+(by)] |
Active: |
The thieves stole the jewels |
........................................... |
Passive: |
............................. |
The jewels were stolen... (by the thieves). |
(136)
Passive sentences: |
Active / Declarative counterparts: |
(a) Mary was kissed by John. |
=> (a') John kissed Mary. |
(b) The ball was kicked by Jim. |
=> (b') Jim kicked the ball. |
(c) The package was sent by Royal Mail. |
=> (c') Royal mail sent the package. |
(d) A letter was stamped by Post-Man Pat. |
=> (d')Post-Man Pat stamped a letter. |
In all the above examples, the Passive Rule [Be+Verb+Past Part.+by]
applies. Passive (OVS) constructions can then be said to originate
from out of Declarative (SVO) sentences. In other words, a passive
construction is formed via the following procedure: (i) a Declarative
(SVO) sentence + (ii) Passive rule => passive sentence. The passive
rule entails movement of a sort here in that the Subjects and Objects
reverse their positions. This movement could be viewed as existing
at a Sentence Level since the whole sentence has been up-rooted
(as opposed to just a word or phrase). (For a summary of movement,
see §4 below.)
Perhaps the most complicated part of the Passive Rule is the Past
Participle (Past Part.) component plus "by".
For starters, the "by" is not a prepositional "by"
since it cannot be substituted by any other preposition: e.g., *Mary
was kissed under John, The ball was kick between Jim and Fred,
etc.. Of course, these prepositions are indeed available to be used
as prepositions in derived passive sentences, the matter here is
that they in no way serve as a replacement for the "by"
component of the passive rule--e.g., Mary was kissed under John
by Jim, The ball was kicked between Jim and Fred by John,
etc. The "by" component of the passive rule should be
thought of as actually that, part of the rule--it is a lexical item
projecting an Adverbial Phrase (AdvP) that is invariably fixed and
doesn't in any way come to represent a class of words, say 'preposition'.
One other note here that needs to be mentioned is that the "by"
component can get and often gets deleted: the derived passive Mary
was kissed is fine enough a sentence without any mention of
the culprit (= the one doing the kissing). In fact, passives quite
often go without any overt object of which to speak (i.e., their
intrinsic subject gets omitted). Such elliptical sentence structure
places the heavy burden of understanding on pragmatics and/or context.
For instance, The boy was arrested implies that The
police arrested him => (by the police), President
Clinton was impeached implies that Congress impeached
him => (by congress), etc.
The Past Participle morphology surfaces as an Inflection
onto the Main Verb of the sentence. Recall, that this Past Part.
inflection in no way denotes grammatical tense since, by rule, only
the first Main Verb of a sentence takes on the role of projecting
Tense via Inflection: 3P, Sing/Present {s} and Regular Past {ed}.
Rather, the past participle should be viewed as a Particle
whose Inflection beings about some change in Aspect--a time referential
of Duration with a non-grammatical [-Tense] status (much
in the same manner as how the Infinitive/Particle "to"
/ "ing" maintains a [-Tense] status). The table below
shows Past Participle Inflections:
(137) Table: Past Participle Inflections
Past Participle Inflection: |
Token Sentence:
Be+ V+ {en}: |
Rule: |
Regular {en}: |
Mary was seen with Jim (by John).
This paper is written by a student.
The test should be taken by students. |
was se-en
is writ-en
be tak-en |
Irregular {ed}: |
The exams were graded by Mary. |
were grad-ed |
Irregular{vowelchange}: {vowel change} + {en}: |
A song will be sung by Maria.
The window was broken by the wind. |
be s-u-ng
was br-o-k-en |
Irregular {no change}: |
The book was put on the desk by John. |
was put-ø |
(Note that for clarity, the Regular Past Participle morphology
is labeled herein as the {en} suffix, so that there lies no confusion
between (i) regular past tense {ed} and (ii) past participle {ed}--the
former being regular while the latter is irregular).
Consider the tree diagramming of passive constructions below showing
Passive Rule functional Features/Inflection:
(141) Have
The Auxiliary "Have" is responsible for forming the Perfect
or Past Participle constructions. This type of grammatical
construction often gives one the impression of having a dual tense
since it is possible to denote a quasi present-past or past-past
reference to grammatical time. However, what is important to realize
here, as a grammatical rule, is that only the First Main Verb of
a sentences gets the task of representing grammatical Tense/Time--or,
as the saying goes-- "The first verb gets the Time".
So, even though it may appear that a second verb (positioned in
the second verb slot) has an easily identifiable tense inflection
e.g., such as a past tense inflection {-ed}, this second verb's
inflection doesn't represent the grammatical tense for the sentence,
but rather only marks this second order grammatical function of
Past Participle/Perfect Aspect. The Perfect aspect
is very similar in nature to the Progressive (imperfect) aspect
in the sense that the role of Aspect is not to mark tense
(per se), but merely to denote the "time" and
"manner" of duration of the activity described by the
verb: viz., the Progressive aspect denotes continuity of action,
a sort of present participle (showing that some action is not yet
completed), while Perfect denotes a kind of completion of action.
Consider the Perfect rule below:
(142) Perfect Rule => [Have + Verb + Past Participle
{en}]
Token Example |
Have/Tense |
Verb |
Past Participle |
(a) John has run on the track |
[have/present |
+ run |
+ {ø}] : irregular] |
(b) He has put the track meet on hold |
[have/present |
+ put |
+ {ø}] |
c) The freshmen had used the long jump |
[have/past |
+ use |
+ {ed}] |
(d) The team had swum its lap. |
[have/past |
+swim |
+ {vowel change}] |
(e) She has written down our times. |
[have/present |
+ write |
+ {en}] : regular |
The standard form of the Past Participle Rule is: [Verb => add
{-en}] (as in has writt-en). However, the rule, just like
its Past Tense rule counterpart (Verb => add {-ed}], has its
irregular forms as well. Consider the regular and irregular
forms below with the rule [Verb => add {-ed}] defined as the
"Irregular rule" if only to separate it from the "Regular"
Past Tense rule [Verb => add {ed}]. In any case, the inflection
{-en} should be properly thought of as the regular form of the Perfect
construction: [Verb + {en}].
(143)
|
Regular Perfect |
Token Examples: |
|
Rule: Verb => add {en} |
John has written/spoken/seen/eaten/taken... |
(144)
|
Irregular Perfect |
Irregular Perfect |
|
(i) Rule: Verb => add {ed} |
John has recorded/talked/visited/cooked/... |
|
(ii) Rule: Verb =>add {ø} (no change) |
John has put/cut/set/... |
|
(iii) Rule Verb => add (vowel change} |
John has drunk/sung/rung/swum... |
Included among the pattern of steady rules, there is some overlap
of irregular forms: e.g., got/gotten, dived/dove, knelt/kneeled,
etc. and in particular, whenever an irregular verb is used in a
novel setting, the regular rule process kicks in and acts as the
default: e.g., He has drived (vs. driven) the ball
over the fence (U.S. baseball), The man was hanged (vs.
hung) etc. The {-ed} form is overextended on such verbs. (NB. This
same process is observed with the N+{s} default rule as well--e.g.,
I need two computer mouses / *mice). In this sense, the
{-ed} forms for both regular (past) and irregular (perfect) seem
to be the default inflection. In addition to the {-en} inflection
of regular, the Perfect also entertains a host of Irregular inflections
including (i) no change (or zero allomorph) put>put>put,
and (ii) vowel change sing<sang>sung.
(145) Tree diagrams showing Perfect
Tense
Of course, by simply changing a Present (=Pres(ent) 3 (Person) Sing(ular))
inflection to a Past Inflection [+Past] (a feature selection as
controlled by the Tense node under Aux) we would get had run/used/written
(respectively). Note that the Participle inflections don't change
with the changing of tense from present to past--"only the
first verb gets the time" so only the first Auxiliary/verb
changes tense. The examples below show how a Main Verb (in second
position-- V2) and an Auxiliary Verb (in first position--V1) may
show up as non-contrasting homophones (cf., 146, 148) though with
distinct grammatical roles.
(146)
|
The double "Had" (homophone): Lexical verb (Have) |
|
(a) I had had a bad day today. |
|
(b) She had had many boyfriends before her divorce. |
|
(c) The President had had one too many slips of the
tongue. |
(147)
|
The double "Be" (non-homophone): Lexical verb
(Be) |
|
(a) I am be-ing bad today. |
|
(b) She was be-ing too open with other boys. |
|
(c) The President is be-ing too lazy with his word
choice. |
(148)
|
The double "DoBe" (homophone): Lexical verb (Do) |
|
(a) I do do the wash at home! (! =emphatic usage) |
|
(b) We do do the chores around the house! |
|
(c) They do do many things! |
Recall that these examples typify the dual status of "Do-Be-Have"
as belonging both to a Main Verb class and an Auxiliary class--depending
on its role and structure within the given sentence.
(149) A Recap: The Three Auxiliary Verbs and their
Grammars
Aux Verb |
Grammar |
Token Example |
Do |
Simple
[Do + Subj + Verb] => Q
Subj [Do + Neg + Verb] => Neg |
Do you like Pizza?
I do not like pizza
(She does speak French) (Emphatic) |
Be |
(i) Progressive
[Be + Verb + ing]
[Neg] |
She is cooking pizza Is she cooking
pizza?
She is not cooking pizza |
Be |
(ii) Passive
[Be + Verb + Past Participle + by]
[Neg] |
She was kissed by John Was she kissed
by John?
She was not kissed by John |
Have |
Perfect
[Have + Verb + Past Participle] |
She has spoken to him {-en}(Past Part)
She has talked to him {-ed}(Past Part) Has
she spoken to him?
She has not talked to him |
Using a reduced tree notation, you may think of the hierarchical
syntactic structure for the three Aux verbs as follows (Reduced
Tree Representation for Declaratives):
Note that for all configurations, the Auxiliary Inversion rule
(as shown in (a, ii) as well as the Negation rule applies.
(151) Combinations of Auxiliary Constructions
"Be" & "Have"
Keeping to our now reduced syntactic trees (as drawn above), we
see how the latter two Aux Verbs (Be & Have), which form complex
grammars (as opposed to the simple grammar of Aux "Do"),
can merge to form Auxiliary Combinations:
A Rule of thumb on Combination orders:
(i) Perfect always before Progressive/Passive
(ii) Progressive always before Passive
(a) Perfect Aux "Have" with Progressive Aux "Be"
i. [Have + V + Past Part] => [has + be + {en}]
ii. [Be + V + ing]
=> [be + study +{ing} ]
Examples: |
She has been studying English for two years. |
|
|
Has she been studying English for two years?
|
(Aux. Inversion) |
|
She has not been studying English for two years |
(Negation) |
Diagram: |
She has be -en study -ing |
|
|
(NB. Note that while the verb "Be" serves as a Lexical
Main Verb for the first diagram (a, i)--since it occupies the verb-slot
of the structure--it, at the same time, also serves as true functional
Aux. Verb for the second diagram (a, ii)--since it occupies the
Auxiliary slot. Recall, that since Verbs "Do-Be-Have"
hold a dual status as functioning either in the capacity of a Main
Verb or Aux Verb (depending on the structure or slot the verb occupies),
"recycling" might be a nice way to think about their 'switching'
of roles here. Also see (153) below for differences between Aux
and Main verbs--recalling that "be"/"have"
can function as a linking/main verb (respectively) in the sentences
(She is a teacher vs. she has been very good
& She has my book vs. she has had a bad day,
etc.). This same style of recycling applies across the board for
all merged combinations of Auxiliary construction. Also note that
the rules of Aux. Inversion and negation continue to apply.)
(b) Progressive Aux "Be" with Passive Aux "Be"
i. [Be + V + ing] |
=> [was + be + {ing}] |
ii. [Be + V + Past Part + by] |
=> [be + kiss + {ed}+ by] |
Examples: |
She was being kissed by John. |
|
|
Was she being kissed by John? |
(Aux. Inversion) |
|
She was not being kissed by John. |
(Negation) |
Diagram: |
She [ was be -ing
kiss -ed by ] John |
|
|
|
(c) Perfect Aux "Have" with Passive Aux "Be"
i. [Have + V + Past Part] |
=> [has + be + {en}] |
ii. [Be + V + Past Part + by] |
=> [be + take + {en}+ by] |
Examples: |
She has been taken (for a ride) by John. |
|
|
Has she been taken (for a ride) by John? |
(Aux. Inversion) |
|
She has not been taken (for a ride) by John. |
(Negation) |
Diagram: |
She [ has be -en take
-en by ] John |
|
|
|
As an exercise, see if you can diagram the following three tier
Aux construction (you should notice that the structure involves
the recycling of two Aux/Main Verbs "be" ):
e.g., !? She [ has been being beaten by] her husband for several
years.
Why not toss in a modal for good measure?:
e.g., !? She [could have been being beaten by] her husband
for several years
We must address one last note before we leave the Auxiliary constructions
behind. One interesting way to show that the Aux class reflects
a functional highly abstract class par excellence is to
see what happens to it in colloquial English. The abstract nature
of Aux shows up in colloquial English in ways that suggest it may
form a general proto-class of its own. For instance, consider how
the Negative form "ain't" can overlap as a general
abstract verb to cover both "Be" and "Have"
counterparts. I believe this demonstrates more than anything the
non-concrete (non-substantive) nature of the Aux. verb.
(152) Usage if "Ain't"
(a) It ain't my fault (ain't = be + not) |
=> (It is not/isn't my fault) |
|
(b) He ain't got money (ain't = have + not). |
=> (He has not/hasn't got any money) |
In other words, "Ain't" in the above cases seems to serve
as a sort of prototype formal/functional category that makes use
of an overlapping category--say, [+Aux] with two spell-out forms:
Be and Have. The rule might look something like
the following: "ain't" = [Be or Have + (n't)].
(153) A Recap: Differences between Auxiliary
and Main Verbs "DO-BE-HAVE"
As a nice recap, perhaps the easiest way to understand the inherent
differences between the homophones (same-sounding, but
grammatically different) Auxiliary/Main Verbs is to consider the
logic behind the three forms of propositions below:
(154) |
Do |
(a) I do the wash. <do> => Transitive Main Verb
[logic: do(I, the wash)]
(I do x, x = the wash)
(b) I do do it / I do not do it (also see (114) on
'Do-insert') <do> => Aux. Verb: [-logic]
[+grammatical, emphatic/negative] |
(155) |
Be |
(a) Mary is the teacher <is> => Copular/linking
Verb [logic: is (Mary, the teacher)]
Mary = the teacher (Mary equals the teacher)
(i) I need to see Mary (ii) I need to see The teacher
(b) Mary is smoking (lexical verb:
smoke) <is> => Aux Verb [-logic] [+grammar,
progressive]
Mary is smoking (Mary doesn't equal smoking)
(i) Mary is a girl who smokes |
(156) |
Have |
(a) I have a coin <have> => Transitive Main Verb
[logic: have(I, a coin)]
(b) I have spoken (lexical verb: speak)
<have> => Aux. Verb [-logic] [+grammar, perfect]
|
(157) Modals
On the heels of the Auxiliary Verb, we have a class of verb-like
items called modals (or modality verbs). While these verb are also
functional (and hence somewhat abstract) like their Auxilairy verb
counterparts, they however cannot take on Verbal INFLection such
as Tense and/or Agreement. For example, consider the ungrammaticality
of the sentences below:
(158)
No INFL on Modals: |
No INFL on adjacent [-Fin] Verb |
Correct grammar |
(a) *She can-s do it. |
(a') *She can to do it |
(a") She can do it. |
(b) *He may-ed a drink. |
(b') *He may to drink |
(b") He may drink. |
(c) *John will-s the car |
(c') *John will to wash the car. |
(c") John will wash.. |
The class of modals tends to denote abstract states such as--e.g.,
the giving of advice (should), possibility (might/may), potential
(can), non-grammatical future time reference (will) etc. We shouldn't
think of modal "will" being our Future tense in English
since, as a grammatical rule, only the verbs (not Modals) take on
Tense and Inflection (see (102) above). Besides, "will"
seems to be used for a number of possible modalities aside from
our commonly conceived future reference--e.g. (cited from Palmer
1984: p. 198):
(159)
i. I'll come if you want me to. |
(modality =willingness) |
ii. She'll sit for hours. |
(modality = habit) |
iii. That'll be John. |
(modality = probability) |
Recollecting our badly conceived notion that modal "will"
provided English with a future grammatical Tense, consider the counter
examples below which similarly provide future reference with or
without the modal "will".
iv. John will start/work/talk Monday |
(modality = future reference) |
v. John starts/works/talks Monday |
(main verb = future reference) |
The overall syntactic functions of the Aux/Modal is that they introduce
Verbs. Recall, in our earlier discussions, that Auxiliaries are
viewed as playing a functional/grammatical role in that they introduce
Lexical Verbs, [Aux =>V] and that Determiners are said to function
in a similar way in that they introduce Lexical Nouns [Det =>
N]. So, here we have gone full circle in expressing the roles of
the two functional items. One side note is in order here. Since
Modals seem to have their own word classification, they are entitled
to link-up with their Auxiliary counterparts to form two types of
modality expressions:
(160)
Modality Structures |
|
(a) [Modal + Auxiliary] |
(i) She might be sleeping at this early hour. |
|
(ii) This book should not have been written by John. |
|
(iii) Will Mary have studied for ten years. |
In example (i), the modal might expresses possibility
within a progressive grammar. In (ii), should expresses
advice within a (Negative) Perfect Passive structure. And (iii)
expresses a future reference within a Interrogative (Question) Perfect
structure--denoting that idea that the action of the verb "studying"
will be completed (marking a ten year span, perfect grammar) at
some future date. Also note that the same rules apply to Modals
as they do to Aux Verbs regarding Inversion (for Questions) and
Negative "not" (for Negation).
2.4 Prepositional Phrase (PP)
(161) Table: Prepositions
Some Common Prepositions |
about, above, across, after, along, among, as,
at, against, before, below, beside, between, beyond, by, despite,
down, during, except, for, from, in, including, inside, into,
near, of, off, on, onto, out, over, round, since, though, to,
towards, underneath, until, up, via, with |
Some Phrasal Prepositions |
according } to |
along side} of |
apart } from |
along} with |
due
owing
in addition
in regard |
because
by means
by reason
by way |
down
across
away
aside |
accordance
together
connection
associated |
Earlier on in this text, we had tentatively established the word-class
of Preposition as having a Lexical Categorical status. One argument
in favor of a lexical status could be based on the fact that since
(at times) Prep(ositions) formulate opposites, there must be a certain
amount of inherent meaning involved--since only proper meaningful
properties could ever hope to derive opposites--e.g., on-top
vs. under, on vs. off, for vs. from, etc. However, as it turns
out, this keen and somewhat intuitive observation regarding semantics
is often what is at the heart of our misguided analyses of Prep
as a lexical category. In fact, there are a number of good reasons
for considering Prepositions as having a functional status (and
not a lexical status). One reason has to do with this quasi inherent
meaning. It is indeed true that Prepositions do communicate a certain
amount of meaning, but at a closer look, one discovers that all
derived 'meaning' is rather dependent on structure (an element pointing
more to a functional status): clearly, there is no sense of meaning
in the words with/in/on/between/etc. except that they establish
a structural relationship with the preceding nominal (DP-subject)
and the following Determiner Phrase (DP-object) as in J(ohn)
walks with M(ary) [ walk(J & M) ] showing that the DP-subject
John and the DP-object Mary are conjoined in the
act of walking. As was presented earlier in our discussion
of lexical/substantive words (lexical categories: Nouns, Verbs,
and Adjectives), Prepositions carry very little in the way of substantive/conceptual
meaning. Ask yourself the following question: what does--(i) Car
[+N], or (ii) Red car [+Adj, +N], or (iii) Red cars
go fast look like in your mental eye? Certainly, you can formulate
some type of mental substantive description of the word categories
that make up the sentence above. Now, ask yourself what a preposition
would look like in your mind's eye--say, "with" in the
sentence below: Girls "with" red cars drive fast.
While all other words bear and contribute a fair amount of substantive
meaning, the preposition "with" lacks any sort of meaning
and is inserted into the structure in order to maintain an abstract
structural/grammatical relation (expressing location or manner)
to the substantive words. In a more finer-grained analysis of Feature
Theory however, the level of functional abstraction becomes obvious.
Recall that our earlier discussion of Functional categories brought
us to the topic of lexical counterparts--recapping, we stated that
Functional Determiners work alongside their Lexical Noun counterparts
(merging into a DP) in providing formal abstract functional material
for purposes of feature checking, and that the Functional Auxiliaries
work alongside their Lexical Verb counterparts apparently for the
same reasons. Well, it seems that Prepositions likewise enter into
a functional partnership--viz., Preps introduce DPs [Prep =>
DP-object]. That is, whenever you find a Preposition, a following
DP-Object shouldn't be far behind. Again, as stated earlier, this
is what's behind the notion of preposition standing--you can never
leave a Prep standing alone without it properly introducing a DP.
Feature Theory nicely captures this PP to DP relation by stipulating
that Prepositions are indeed functional in that they hold at least
one functional feature that must be checked by its adjacent DP.
The feature to be considered here involves Case. Recall,
Case is a grammatical realization of a given Pronoun and/or Prenominal
forming the following paradigm: Nominative/Subject "I"
vs. Accusative/Object "me" vs. Genitive "my"(+
N) etc. (See (50) above for a recap of the full Case paradigm).
What we are on about here is that Preps hold at least one functional
feature specific to Case, and that this one feature forces the two
Phrases (PP & DP) to merge together (for reasons having to do
with formal feature checking). Since Preps hold this functional
feature, we must now reanalyze the whole class of Prepositions as
a Functional Category. Considered the PP projections below showing
both proper and erroneous feature spell-outs:
As we see in (162c)-prime above, a feature crash occurs because
the Prep's obliged [-Nom] feature crashes with an improper projected
[+Nom] DP (a DP which instead should have a [-Nom] Accusative status).
This one feature projection originating in the Preposition of a
Prepositional Phrase accounts for the ungrammaticality of the sentences
below:
(163) PP Feature Mismatch
(a) [ pp
because] [ DP
you and *I/ (= me)] (d) [ pp
with] [ DP
you and *she/ (=her)]
(b) [ pp
like] [ DP
you and *I/ (= me)] (e)
[ pp alongside]
[ DP *we
(=us)]
(c) [ pp
before] [ DP
Mary and *he (= him)] (f) [ pp
between] [ DP
you and *I/ (= me)
Preposition Phrases
Prepositional Phrases can function in one of two ways--(i) Adverbial,
or (ii) Adjectivally. When Preps function Adverbially, they are
called adverbial modifiers, and when they function Adjectivally,
they are called adjectival modifiers. One must keep in
mind, however, that the word class "Preposition" doesn't
change under these circumstances: viz., there are no hybrid word
classes such as Adj(ective)-Prep or Adv(erb)-Prep (respectively).
Perhaps a better way to think about it is to say that the Prep changes
are not systematic, but rather have to do with bringing about a
certain flavor of modification--something Preps are not typically
associated with. Recall that the classic functional definition of
Prep more or less involves the expression of manner or
location between the two associated DPs. The notion behind
any form of modification is not an inherent feature of Preposition;
nonetheless, Preps do seem to enter into such modification. Consider
the examples of Adj/Adv-Prep modification below:
(164) Adjectival Prepositional Phrases: The modification
of a DP/Noun
(a) The Professor often teaches classes full
of Freshmen. |
(Adjectival) |
|
=> Freshmen classes |
|
|
[DP
[D
ø] [Adj
Freshmen] [N
classes]] |
|
|
|
Adj-modification |
(b) The President owns a boat with a red,
white, and blue sail. |
(Adjectival) |
|
=> A red/white and blue sailed boat |
|
|
[DP
[D
A] [Adj
red-white-blue sailed] [N
boat]] |
|
|
Adj-modification |
(c) The dinner after school was fun.
|
(Adjectival) |
|
=> The after school dinner |
|
|
[DP
[D
The] [Adj
after school] [N
dinner]] |
|
|
Adj-modification |
(d) The car with an electric motor was too expensive. |
(Adjectival) |
|
=> The electric motor car |
|
|
[DP
[D
The] [Adj
electric motor] [N
car]] |
|
|
Adj-modification |
(165) Adverbial Prepositional Phrases: The modification
of a VP/Verb
(a) John and Mary walked along the beach |
(Adverbial: Place) |
|
=> walked along |
|
|
[VP
[V
walked] [Adv
along]] |
|
|
|
Adv-modification |
(b) The lecture began after lunch (and) without
interruption |
|
|
=> began after (&) => began without
|
(Adv Time & Manner) |
|
[VP [V began] [Adv
after] [Adv
without]] |
|
|
|
Adv-modification |
2.5 Summary
of Features
In summary, having now Spelled-Out a certain amount of Functional
Features in the pages above, what we can conclude are the following
points:
(0) The most general observation that can be drawn here is that
there exist two types of words:
(i) Lexical Words (=Noun, Verbs, Adjective, and Adverb)-these
words are substantive in nature and thus contribute to a full range
of meaning; and
(ii) Functional Words (=Determiners, Auxiliary/Modal,
Preposition)--these words are not substantive, but rather abstract
in meaning and thus contribute only abstract grammatical relations.
(1) There seems to arise a general grammatical framework that stipulates
what kinds of words can sit amongst other words. So, for all intense
and purposes, what has been presented in the pages above is more
or less a theory which stipulates a general adjacency condition.
This condition is said to apply to Functional words as they work
alongside their Lexical word counterparts--a kind of Structure
Class-to-Form Class syntactic co-operation. In
fact, one of the ways we were able to determine functional vs. lexical
word class distinctions was to see if an adjacency condition applied.
This test later allowed us to reconsider the status of the word
class "Preposition" and to adjust its status from lexical
to functional--since its own adjacency condition called for it to
precede a DP-Object.
(2) D=>N
One of the first class of Functional features looked at was the
class of DP-features. This class included the following specific
DP-features: Definiteness, Person, Number, and Case. These
four main DP-features contributed to an abstract (formal) grammatical
relation reflecting how substantive Nouns get interpreted in the
grammar.
(3) Aux=>V
Another class of functional features we looked at involved how an
Auxiliary verb worked alongside a Main Verb. The class included
the following specific AUX-features: Tense, and Person &
Number (=Agreement).
|