|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Jun 12, 2014 11:57:50 GMT 5.5
This thread will study Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English language, their field of control or the field of control they are in, and their interpretation.
I will write independently, but if anybody has any question or issues, they can of course join me with their queries or problem presentation and perhaps with explanations.
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Jun 12, 2014 19:37:58 GMT 5.5
Free adjuncts and absolutes are non-finite or verbless clauses attached to matrix clauses to provide additional (but not essential) information. They are are linked semantically and intonationally to the rest of the sentence, but lack any obvert expression of a syntactic linkage--their removal does not affect the rest of the sentence syntactically. Consider these constructions: 1. Speaking on the DXN this morning, the Minister of Transport, John Bruce, said he is responsible for the Blue Bullet train derailment killing 134 passengers late last night.
2. The rain having ceased finally, shoppers started to pour out from under the awnings outside the rows of shops. Despite these similarities, free adjuncts and absolutes (exemplified by the emphasized parts in 1 and 2 above respectively) are of different syntactical composition types. Sent from Samsung Galaxy with Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Jun 12, 2014 21:57:50 GMT 5.5
In free adjunct compositions, the agent of the action ("subject" from now on) is absent from the clause, while this missing subject is supplied by the subject noun phrase (NP) of the matrix clause. In other words, the matrix clause shares its subject with the free adjunct clause. In 1 the subject of the nonfinite "Speaking" is missing from "Speaking on the DXN this morning", but subject of the matrix clause "the Minister of Transport" supplies its missing subject--it was "the Minister of Transport (John Bruce)" who "spoke" on the DXN this morning.
Unlike a free adjunctve construction, an absolute clause has an overt subject. In 2, "The rain" is the subject of the non-finite "having ceased" (though it does not have to agree with the subject in person and number). In this sense, though the clause cannot stand independently as a grammatically wholesome sentence, it standing in an S+V form (though not having to agree in person and number as in the case of finite clauses) is comparatively very less dependent on the matrix clause. This sufficiency makes such kind of a composition absolute.
Sent from Samsung Galaxy with Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Jun 12, 2014 22:24:39 GMT 5.5
A matrix clause is a clause to which a free adjunct clause or an absolute clause is attached. A matrix clause functions as the matrix of the adjunctive or absolute additions, and it can be an independent clause, or a main clause, or a subordinate clause.
Sent from Samsung Galaxy with Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Jun 13, 2014 9:44:02 GMT 5.5
Free AdjunctsFree adjuncts can be classified based on the nature of their heads, which can be (i) verbal or (ii) non-verbal. Verbal free adjuncts have non-finite verbal heads, and based on the non-finite forms of the verbal heads, verbal free adjuncts can further be classified into three: (i) Present participle (1) (ii) Past participle (3) (iii) Infinitive (4) 3. Accused of a crime he did not commit, the poor man was worried about what he will and may undergo. 4. To cover the increased extravagant luxury spending in the palace, the king imposed new taxes on the already text-heavy essential commodities. Non-verbal heads can be: (i) Noun phrase (NP) (5) (ii) Prepositional phrase (PP) (6) (iii) Adjective or adverb (7) (iv) Adjective/adverb phrase (Adj P/Adv P) (8) 5. A man of his word, he will never renege on this contract despite the meager benefit he will get from it. 6. Off her rocker, the landlady repeatedly insisted on Billy Weaver's signing the book. 7. Starved, sleepless and dirty for days, he could not hope to win the competition. 8. Utterly apart from Alastair..., Charlie scowled and drank nothing. Sent from Samsung Galaxy with Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Jun 15, 2014 19:14:17 GMT 5.5
While free adjuncts are easily distinguishable from absolutes in that the latter have obvert subject NPs, there arises a problem in defining a free adjunct in terms of the traceability of its implicit subject in the matrix clause's subject. Consider these sentences: 9. Being Sunday, all the offices were closed. 10. Walking across the blocks, there will be lobotomized patients visible, working quietly by the paths in the garden. 11. Raining cats and dogs outside, you cannot take a walk in the park right now. 12. Unknown to his closest advisers, he had secretly negotiated with an enemy emissary. 13. To put it frankly, you've caused us quite a few serious problems. In sentences from 9 to 13, the absent subjects of the free adjuncts are not implied in the matrix clauses. The untraceability of the adjuncts' absent subjects in the matrix clauses makes the free adjuncts syntactically unrelated to the matrix clauses. Unrelated free adjuncts are quite tricky--some constructions can be acceptable while some others of the same syntactical property may not be acceptable at all. *14. While reading newspaper the dog barked. *15. After denying Jesus for the third time, the cock crew. 16. The siren sounded, indicating that the raid was over. 17. For three weeks the city had sweltered in heat and humidity, producing tensions all around. Constructions 14 and 15 are not acceptable, but 16 and 17 are. Then what are the factors determining the un/acceptability of free adjunct constructions? Sent from Samsung Galaxy with Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Jun 17, 2014 10:16:42 GMT 5.5
There has not been a definitive explanation given as to why some unrelated free adjuncts (UFA) are acceptable while some others are not. Until Kortmann (1991), most linguists had attributed (acceptably but not enlighteningly) the un/acceptability of an unrelated free adjunct construction to the ir/recoverability by the audience or reader of the missing agent (free adjunct subject, SFA) from the context. 18. Arguon comes back late with two more very fat files. He is tired but he cannot retire for the day yet--tomorrow at 10, he has to stand firm and invincible for the feeble mother against that monster with a lot of powerful connections infiltrating even into the court itself. These files will give him access to the monster's secrets, and he should study what they contain. This very night. He has not slept in days; he has not eaten properly for days--some people have been following him in the shadows. He has been on the move, breaking all his routine to throw them off his track. He needs some sleep very badly, but he is running out of time, and his case tomorrow, differently from any other he has fought, will be one that will determine the life and death of not just the poor woman, but also of himself. Their death is the beginning of others' death, the death of the nation.
Arguon takes a quick cold shower, changes himself into a night dress, and coming back into his study, he opens the files and begins to read the pages one after another, shocking him, surprising him, overwhelming him, making him exasperated, killing off all his sleepiness and weariness. While reading , the dog barks all of a sudden. He puts the light out immediately, moves quietly to the window overlooking the garden. The dog is heard no more--he has stopped barking, so sudden enough to raise suspicion. Then in the complete silence, he hears the little sounds of twigs snapping in the garden.
Put in this context, While reading, the dog barks all of a sudden loses much of its "unacceptability" (if it is still not totally acceptable), because even if the matrix clause (the dog barks all of a sudden) provides no clues of the SFA, the context fills the gap--it is Arguon/he that's reading, not the dog.
However, even in contexts, some unrelated free adjuncts tend toward unacceptability while others are acceptable, for the degree of recoverability of SFA from the context is not set for all constructions. It is not clear which factors determine for SFAs to be recoverable or less recoverable or irrecoverable from the context.
|
|