Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 7, 2015 11:31:09 GMT 5.5
Reading The Makeup Tax in The Atlantic this morning, I found the following sentences (which are of course common) syntactically interesting when we discuss verb phrases (VP).
Carrying on the traditions of H.E. Palmer and A.S. Hornby 1920s and 1930s), Quirk et al. (1972 and 1985) split the following sentence into four separate constituent phrases, one of which being a verb phrase including a finite verb, have finished.
NPs = Noun phrase functioning as the subject
VP = Verb Phrase
NPo = Noun phrase functioning as the object of the VP
AP = Adverb phrase
We know that "have" in the VP is a finite verb. This VP is not a phrasal verb and it would be wrong to call so. There is the uncontroversially recocgnized category of the phrasal verb.
Interestingly, the Quirk et al. theory of analyzing the VP becomes inadequate on various counts for there are things their theory cannot account for. Here, in this discussion, we will go beyond Quirk et al. to drag elements 3 and 4 in the example sentence into the bounds the VP as its part.
This newer paradigm will, for now, split the sentence into three parts as
Workplace policies that allow employees to work from home, where their facial-contrast levels are judged only by their cats, could be an immediate help. (i)So (ii)could including more bare-faced women in TV shows and magazine spreads.When I propose to discuss VPs here, I would expect Indian readers who have not studied linguistics or at least English syntax along the theoretical lines that developed after the 1980s not to let their knowledge of traditional grammar get in the way of appreciating the newer way of analysis. For example, in his Text-book of Higher English Grammar and Composition, P. K. Sarkar say a phrase does not have a finite verb. Conceiving of a phrase without a finite verb will handicap an approach to phrase structure, particularly the VP. It follows from Sarkar's definition of a phrase that there cannot be averb phrase, but phrasal verb. However, there are both VPs and phrasal verbs, and they are different.
Carrying on the traditions of H.E. Palmer and A.S. Hornby 1920s and 1930s), Quirk et al. (1972 and 1985) split the following sentence into four separate constituent phrases, one of which being a verb phrase including a finite verb, have finished.
(1 NPs)The students (2 VP)have finished (3 NPo)their assignments (4 AP)just recently.Here
NPs = Noun phrase functioning as the subject
VP = Verb Phrase
NPo = Noun phrase functioning as the object of the VP
AP = Adverb phrase
We know that "have" in the VP is a finite verb. This VP is not a phrasal verb and it would be wrong to call so. There is the uncontroversially recocgnized category of the phrasal verb.
Interestingly, the Quirk et al. theory of analyzing the VP becomes inadequate on various counts for there are things their theory cannot account for. Here, in this discussion, we will go beyond Quirk et al. to drag elements 3 and 4 in the example sentence into the bounds the VP as its part.
This newer paradigm will, for now, split the sentence into three parts as
(NP)The students (Aux)have (VP)completed their assignments just recently.