|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 12, 2015 13:14:40 GMT 5.5
D.J. Allerton (2006) suggests to examine five sentence to distinguish surface objects from other non-subject noun phrases. (1) The piano damaged a/the carpet. (2) The piano resembled a/the pianola. (3) The piano weighed a ton. (4) The piano had a stool. (5) The piano seemed an antique.
The post-verb noun phrase in (1) is slightly different from the post-verb noun phrases the other sentences (2-5) have. Yes, all these sentences share certain features: for instance, they freely allow an adverb like obviously between the subject noun phrase and the verb, but not between the verb and the noun phrase that follows; and they allow the post-verb noun phrase to be fronted to pre-subject position as (1a) A/the carpet, the piano damaged. (2a) A/the pianola, the piano resembled. (3a) A ton, the piano weighed. (4a) A stool, the piano had. (5a) An antique, the piano seemed.
However, while the post-verb noun phrase in (1) stands out from the rest, all the rest of the post-verb noun phrases are not themselves identical either. Of the post-verb noun phrases from (2) to (5), an antique of (5) stands out as most different. Traditional grammars refer to such noun phrases as "complements," and this usage is retained by Quirk et al. (1985), although the term "complement" is used by Halliday (1985) for all of the non-subject noun phrases of (1) - (5), including objects. Many grammarians adopt the term "predicate nominal," without considering the need for a corresponding term "predicate adjectival," to cover the possibility of something like (very) ancient replacing an antique in (5).
Jespersen adopts the term "predicative" for both nominal and adjectival possibilities, but it lacks distinctiveness. Allerton (2002) uses the term DESCRIPTOR (borrowing from computer technology), which is subdivided into NOMINAL DESCRIPTOR and ADJECTIVAL DESCRIPTOR.
Still there needs to be another subclass of descriptor to account for the post-verb phrase in sentences like (6) The piano seemed in good condition. Such prepositional phrases are clearly not adverbial in function and were identified by Jespersen as "predicative." The verb seem in general is not permitted to occur without a suitable element to satisfy its valency, but obviously this can be a suitable prepositional phrase, just as well as an adjective phrase or a noun phrase as in (6) itself and in (6a) The piano seemed old. (6b) The piano seemed a/the pianola. [The same as (2) above.]
All these three possibilities make equally good answers to the questions like What was the piano like? or What state was the piano in? We will call such prepositional phrases PREPOSITIONAL DESCRIPTIORS. Further examples with appropriate subjects) would be in good health, out of condition, in a bad mood.
The capacity for being replaced by equivalent adjective phrases or prepositional phrases is thus a distinguishing feature of nominal descriptors, compared with other non-subject noun phrases.
Another important marker of non-subject noun phrases is that they cannot be the focus of a cleft sentence. (7) *It was an antique that the piano seemed (not a wreck). * indicates that the sentence is not acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Somak Meitei on Aug 12, 2015 22:14:19 GMT 5.5
May I express something which may be an another thing. The factors that have effects on the post-verb noun phrases about their difference from one another are better to be analysed. I may be in a cleft though I pen a lot about what the question may answer, but all of you will let me write something. It is because of the meanings of the nouns and the verbs, which can/ cannot be put in the passive form. The post -verb noun phrase ' a/the carpet' is slighly differen from those in the sentences from 2 to 5 because of the nature of the verb 'damage' , which can be put in the passive. form and their meanings. The word 'antique' can be replaced by prepositinal or adjectival phrase because of its meaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 12, 2015 23:21:14 GMT 5.5
True. Post-verb noun phrases and other predicative elements technically called "elaborators" generically are actually determined (allowed or not allowed) by the nature of the individual verbs, which is technically called the valency of the verb. This is partly why the "verb phrase" covers these elements in contemporary grammar of English. Now that we have established the fact that different verbal valencies take differdnt elaborators (that is, of appropriate nature), the roles elaborators of even the same grammatical categories play in sentences of the same patterns can be different. For example, the syntactical cases of the infinitive clauses in (8) and (9) are similar but not identical. (8) The pianist offered to play for nothing.
(9) The pianist hoped to entertain the audience. Likewise, in (1) The piano damaged a/the carpet.
(2) The piano resembled a/the pianola.
(3) The piano weighed a ton.
(4) The piano had a stool. the underlined post-verb noun phrases are all in objective case. However, it is only "a/the carpet" in (1) that corresponds to the subject of the sentence's passivized form. The rest of the noun phrases cannot achieve this. Not all transitive verbs allow passivization. The natures of the other post-verb noun phrases are not also identical. |
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 12, 2015 23:42:43 GMT 5.5
The noun phrases a/the pianola (2), a ton (3) and a stool (4) are called "OBJOIDS" because they have "some" but not all of the charactetistics of full or true objects. Objoids cannot become passive subjects. Conversely, true objects can become passive subjects and they allow the so-called "tough-movement" sentences as below A/the carpet was difficult to damage (in those days). |
|
|
|
Post by Somak Meitei on Aug 13, 2015 8:10:47 GMT 5.5
May I express something which may be an another thing. The factors that have effects on the post-verb noun phrases about their difference from one another are better to be analysed. I may be in a cleft though I pen a lot about what the question may answer, but all of you will let me write something. It is because of the meanings of the nouns and the verbs, which can/ cannot be put in the passive form. The post -verb noun phrase ' a/the carpet' is slighly differen from those in the sentences from 2 to 5 because of the nature of the verb 'damage' , which can be put in the passive form and its(carpet) meaning. The word 'antique' can be replaced by prepositinal or adjectival phrase because of its meaning. May I express something which may be an another thing. The factors that have effects on the post-verb noun phrases about their difference from one another are better to be analysed. I may be in a cleft though I pen a lot about what the question may answer, but all of you will let me write something. It is because of the meanings of the nouns and the verbs, which can/ cannot be put in the passive form. The post -verb noun phrase ' a/the carpet' is slighly differen from those in the sentences from 2 to 5 because of the nature of the verb 'damage' , which can be put in the passive. form and their meanings. The word 'antique' can be replaced by prepositinal or adjectival phrase because of its meaning. |
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 13, 2015 9:40:24 GMT 5.5
Please refer to posts 3 and 4.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thoithoi O'Cottage on Aug 13, 2015 12:58:45 GMT 5.5
The structure of sentence (2) is the same as (10) The boy resembled me. The verb "resemble" in this context does not "semantically" allow any noun phrase following it though virtually any noun phrase can gramatically fit into this slot. For example, (11) *The boy resembled a house. while syntactically wholesome, is semantically unacceptable in normal circumstances of our language use. Yes, to some extent you can say it is the subject noun phrase that determines what DESCRIPTOR can and cannot follow the verb, but beyond that point it becomes clear that it is majorly the valency of the verb that determines descriptors most of the time. For example, in (12) The boy gave him a book. the nominal elaborator phrases, "him" and "a book," are determined by the verb "gave." It is solely the nature of this verb that takes both these elaborators simultaneously and in that order. (Yes, "give" allows another construction using the preposition "to.") The boy can do other things but if he "gives," the action necessarily takes at least two nominal elaborators.
|
|
