Language Schema&&&&&&&&&&
Category :
&&& &&&&&&&&&&&Lexical
&&&Functional
Definitions:
Form Class
Structure Class
word meaning
no word meaning
concrete-substantive
abstract-non-substantive
associative/memory
rule-based/variable
conceptual
grammatical
1-to-1 relation
1-to-many relation
Morphology:
Derivational
Inflectional
Philosophy:
Skinner: behaviorism
Chomsky: innate grammar
Cognitive based--learning
Autonomous syntax
Communication:
Species-specific (human) Language
Area of Brain:
posterior, both hemisphere
anterior, left hemisphere
temporal lobe: motor-strip
frontal lobe: Broca's area
What we see in the sentence
experiment above, and expressed in the diagram in (2), is that the
lexical /s/ is never dropped. This phenomena can be accounted for
by the fact that the lexical categories--here being a lexical item
/s/--are composed of crucial substantive (lexical) information and
must be preserved in order to effectively communicate the whole
lexical/word meaning. For example, the initial /s/ dropped in Sally
would give us &-ally /&li/ (in IPA), which would completely
distort the intended meaning. The same problem would arise with
&-cks /aks/. In these cases, the /s/ is said to be lexical
because it contributes to the overall word meaning: without the
full lexical meaning to which the /s/ contributes, the meaning is
changed. On the other hand, and in contrast to the lexical /s/,
if the functional /s/ is omitted, there occurs no meaning loss.
Functional elements of a given sentence can therefore be defined
as being &non-crucial& for the actual transmission of
communication. Whether or not we say &wear& or
&wear-s& tells nothing of the actual meaning
of the word--viz., the /s/ in &wear-s& must be
present only to carry out an abstract relationship of functional
grammatical between (i) Sally [Pronoun: 3Person/Singular]
and (ii) wear-s [Main Verb: 3Person/Singular/Present].
So to recap, if a speaker drops a lexical element--such as an /s/
in the case above--the dictionary entry of the word-meaning (or
lexeme) is lost and no communication can be transmitted effectively.
On the other hand, if only functional elements are dropped, and
all other lexical elements are maintained, then a basic level of
communication is retained. As discussed above, what one typically
finds among ESL students is that those functional elements which
reflect more abstract properties of language are inconsistently
produced and often get deleted in the early stages of learning a
second language. Only later, and at more mature and sophisticated
levels of L2 (second language) formal learning, do speakers eventually
master (at close to 90% mastery) the usage of such functional elements.
In addition, the same course of development occurs with respect
to Pidgin Languages--although, many pidgin speakers may actually
fossilize and remain at an immature lexical stage and never grow
into the proper functional stage of the L2 grammar. If you listen
carefully enough to such (foreign) pidgin speakers, you would discover
that indeed it is the functional elements that go missing--notwithstanding
other lexical deficits which may enter into the mix such as poor
accent and vocabulary usage, etc. (Pidgin example: 'Him a di
uona. Him tek dem an put dem an dis wie' (= He is their owner.
He takes them and puts them on the right path (Romaine 1994, p.
175)). Alongside such functional deficits, main lexical stems are
always produced rendering that basic form of communication that
is so essential in basic daily discourse. In additional to Pidgin,
some forms of Black Vernacular English (BVE) would be very similar:
e.g. She go make some grocery. He done bust his lip. He be sick.
My brother sick. I's/They's/We's sick. etc.
0.2 Structure vs. Form Class: &How
do you do?&
In additional to the Lexical vs. Functional category distinction
at the morphological-inflection level, the same distinction holds
at the word level: the distinction is labeled (i)
vs. (ii) . One way of observing this lexical vs.
functional distinction at the word-level is by considering the token
interrogative sentence &How do you do?&, where
the obvious double usage of the word &do& should
stand out. In fact, in some of my years of teaching abroad, I have
even had the question posed to me in the following manner--&What
does the second &do& mean and why do we have
to repeat it so&? The question stands to an extent only insofar
as it depends on the misunderstanding that--if the two words have
identical meaning, then how come the repetitive nature of the phrase.
As we shall see later on in this text, the two &do's&
are indeed not one in the same (notwithstanding the perceived identical
pronunciations). Herein lies the confusion: The first &do&
is actually functional, containing no meaning whatsoever and only
serves some abstract functional purpose--here, it specifically serves
to form the grammar of a question (interrogative) sentence (See
(ex. 110) and following regarding the Auxiliary Verb and it functional
role in grammar). It is only the second &do&
which is lexical and thus contains very general generic verb meaning
(as in the verbs go or feel in the greetings &How's
it going?, How do you feel?, etc.). One simple way to uncover
this distinction between lexical &do& and functional
&do& is to evoke the substitution test--a
beloved test of linguists which often helps to get a better handle
on the nature and distribution of a particular class or category
of words. Consider the substitution test below in (3) where we can
see the selective distribution between (i) the first Functional
Auxiliary-Verb &do& (Verb1) and (ii)
the second Lexical Main-Verb &do&
(3) Table: The Substitution Test
Wh-Q + Verb1 + Subject
a. How do you
* f. How know you
* g. How speak you
* h. How feel you
* i. How do you
@j. How & you
(* marks ungrammatical
sentence, @ acceptable in reduced speech, ex. j)
Surely, &*
How speak you do?& (3g) is an improper, ungrammatical
interrogative sentence. This distinction goes to the heart of the
issue as discussed above. By misplacing the verbs into the opposing
slots, we shatter the syntax and thus the overall meaning of the
sentence. More specifically, the lexical &do&
(which is always positioned in the Verb-2 slot with regards to interrogative
sentences) is the main verb and carries the substantive meaning
of the verb, whereas the functional &do& (Verb-1)--sometimes
referred to as the &Dummy-'do' insert&--is merely
an Auxiliary verb (void of any verbal meaning) and is inserted between
the Wh-Question and the Subject in the capacity of an abstract interrogative
marker. (See Form Class vs. Structure Class). This is precisely
why sentences 3f-i are ungrammatical--namely, where we ought to
have a substantive main verb carrying out its full verbal meaning
in the appropriate slot, we have instead a 'Dummy-do' auxiliary
verb void of any potential meaning. Returning then to the original
question which spawned the above substitution test, we now see that
indeed the two seemingly identical &do's& are
not alike--whereas they may be alike on a phonological level /du:
/, they are two very different items at a morpho-syntactic/grammatical
level. (Note that in fast pronunciation, the first Aux &do&
gets reduced to /hau-y-du/ (IPA) (=How & you do?).
0.3 Categories and Features
The natural first steps in attempting to systematically categorize
language (in general) would be to (i) establish a natural class
of word types (e.g., Nouns and Verbs) and (ii) define such word
types as containing common word-level and distributional features.
Much of this information regarding &word types& is already
in the minds of speakers--it's part of our endowed linguistic knowledge
given to us (free) at birth. However, one major contention surrounding
this assumed innate source of language knowledge is the hypothesis
that the brain, therefore, must house, in isolation, some special
(built-in/native) autonomous module for language, disconnected and
disassociated from all other modules in the brain which might lead
back to general cognitive skills, etc. This school of thought is
known as Special Nativism (as opposed to General Nativism
which assumes a Piaget-style language learning process tethered
to more general cognitive development). (Return to my language schema
diagram in (2)). Let's take a quick peek into such &built-in&
knowledge by considering how native speakers can manipulate novel
words in the following sentences below. Consider how a novel word
&Sib& (Brown, 1957) (a newly created word not
part of our English input) takes on appropriate syntactic categorical
(4) Table: Word Category & Rule
Token Sentence using &Sib&
a. The sib is red.
sib = Noun
b. The &sibbing& car has broken down again!!
sibbing = Adjective
[Det+Adj+N]
c. Stop (the) sibbing on your pencil!
d. John is sibbing on his paper.
e. Mary often sibs at night.
sibbing = Noun/Gerund
sibbing =Verb/Progressive
3pres/sing/pres{s}
[Be+V+ing]
Verb [V + {s]
f. John & Mary have sibbed twice.
g. The sibbishly dressed man was late.
sibbed=Verb
sibbishly = Adverb
Perfect [Have+Verb+Pp]
[Adverb+adjective+N]
h. Does Sib like Pizza?
i. Sib the door quietly!
Sib=Proper Noun
Question [Do+S+V(O)]
Imperative [& V+(O)]
Of course, on a Semantic
level (or word meaning-level) you don't know what the word sibbing
actually means (e.g., This 'sibbing'/'F'-ing car!!!) (we
can leave telepathy to work here and so any number of suggestions
is open to the floor). However, due to sib's syntactic
and grammatical distributional properties, one can (i) infer some
amount of meaning while (ii) attributing a categorical status simply
by tracking the word through the overall sequence of the sentence.
In other words, on a basic level of discussion, one could say that
we arrive at word meaning via its placement (where it sits in contrast
to other words in a sentence). This placement is syntax, and this
approach to lexical/word learning is known as Syntactic Bootstrapping.
It is not too far fetched to assume that the word class to which
we have attributed &sib& is specified in that
word's lexical entry: [+/-N, +/-Adj].
A grammatical category
is thus a class of words which have a common set of grammatical
features. The traditional &category& basis for defining
words as &parts-of-speech&--namely, Verb/Adverb, Noun/Adjective,
Preposition--has been fundamental throughout linguistics. Verbs
and Nouns are the two highest profile categories which enter into
a wide range of grammatical relations: viz., most Nouns
enter into a grammatical relationship showing e.g., (i) Definiteness
distinction (A book vs. The book), (ii) Number
distinction (Singular vs. Plural) (A/The Car, *A/The Car-s),
etc., while Verbs enter into a full range of forms termed Inflection
(or Tense/Agreement):
(5) Table: Verb Forms: Inflection & Grammar
Forms of Verbs
Inflection
i. John play-s
3rd singular/present
ii. I play-&
{&} zero allomorph
1st sing/pres
iii. I play-ed
Regular Past Tense
iv. John is play-ing
[Be+Verb+ing] Progressive 3rd/sing/pres
a. I have play-ed
b. She had spok-en
a. irregular {ed}
b. regular {en} participle
[Have+Verb+Past participle]: Perfect 1st/sing/pres Perfect
3rd/sing/past
a. These two guitars were play-ed (by John).
b. John was see-n.
a. {ed}participle
b. {en}participle
[Be+Verb+Past Participle+by]:
a. Passive 3rd/plural/past
b. Passive 3rd/sing/past
Let us then take as a basic starting point the following criteria
for determining a Noun from a verb: the one essential defining and
distinguishing factor between, say noun vs. verb is that nouns can
take-on plural {-s} (and not verbs), while verbs can take-on past
tense {-ed} (and not nouns). This is of course oversimplified, but
for the time being it should serve us well.
In addition to the full range of forms Nouns and Verbs receive,
at the isolated word level, there are other differences which appear
at higher syntactic levels: e.g., (i)
introduce Nouns, and (ii)
introduce main Verbs. The aspects of functional categories--in this
case Determiners and Auxiliary/Modals--specifically addresses this
notion of a Lexical vs. Functional relationship. All Lexical Nouns
and Verbs which convey semantic/substantive meaning are &helped&
in maintaining their abstract (functional) grammaticality by their
own counterpart functional co-host: Nouns by Determiners, and Verbs
by Auxiliary/modals. (Note that auxiliary verbs &Do-Be-Have&,
which must work in conjunction with main lexical verbs, are often
called &helping verbs&). Recall, that if lexical categories
contain only mere semantic material, and little if any grammatical
material, then in order for them to enter into a true grammatical
arrangement (syntax), they need to take-on abstract grammatical
features derived from their functional counterparts. This duality
between Lexical & Functional categories goes to the heart of
how abstract grammar emerges (recall the schema in (2)).
While the full range of Functional Features will be spelled out
in the ensuing sections, let's briefly introduce the notion here.
Let it suffice for now to say that it's the Functional Determiner
The that renders the Noun book specific--as opposed
to the generic A book. This distinction being played out
here relates to a specific functional feature that has to do with
Def(initeness): namely, a [+Def] Feature carried by the Determiner
and thus affecting the counterpart Noun: e.g., The book vs.
A book. (See (48) below for Def-features). Here, it is the
binary realization of either a [+/- Def] Feature which can be attributed
to the distributions of Definite [+Def] vs. Indefinite [-Def] Determiners
(The vs. A respectively). Consider in (6) below the syntax
between lexical nouns & verbs in how they enter into functional
relationships between determiners & auxiliary/modals (respectively).
Table: The Syntactic Range of Nouns and Verbs
Determiners Introduce Nouns: [Det+(Adjective)+Noun]
Auxiliary Verbs/Modals Introduce Main Verbs: [Aux
&Do-Have-Be&]
Det+N: A book, That class,
The teacher,
Det+(adj)/N: My own work,
A red shoe, One small kiss
Modals: I can't read a book.
We should take the class.
They may fire this teacher.
pass the tests?
They might do well.
We could be alone.
Gerunds: Verbs =& Nouns
run/walk/dance/jump/fall...
running/walking/dancing/ cooking/washing/visiting...
Aux/Question: Do you like Math?
Have you washed?
Are you going?
Has she seen him?
Aux/Negation: I do not (don't) like math.
She doesn't play.
I am not going.
We were not talking.
They haven't seen her
A category based
model of language classifies words according to parts-of-speech.
For example, note that a word such as joke would take a
plural {s} (forming the conjunct joke-s) =& word category
[+Noun/-Verb] (because only nouns can incorporate the plural {s}
inflection), but not the word e.g., jokingly (*jokingly-s) (asterisks
* marking ungrammaticality). Whereas the former word joke
is categorized as [+Noun], the latter word jokingly is
categorized as [-Noun, +Adverb]. Such basic categorization is well
and good at one le however, as we shall see
below, such over-simplified labeling based on pure categorization
becomes insufficient and problematic when faced with more subtle
distributional properties that accompany words. Although this basic
model of representing words (via parts-of-speech) intuitively assumed
that there had to be something in the internal make-up of the lexical
items (per se) that either allowed or disallowed certain types of
inflections, no real attempt was made to account for differing behaviors
and distributions of particular words of the same class. In other
words, while a category-based model provided a broad description
of the bundle of words which made-up a category (N, V, Adj, Adv),
it provided no outlet for describing crucial differences found between
words within the same category: e.g., traditional notions of Count
vs. Non-Count (Mass) Nouns (Two book-s /teacher-s/
home-s/ *furniture-s). Here, the word furniture surely
is grouped and classified as [+Noun] nevertheless,
it doesn't take the plural {s} inflection. There seems to be no
way to handle the distinction of the two types of nouns short of
separating them into a separate dual-category (e.g., [+/-Mass]
vs. [+/-Count]). While this &dual-category approach&
would certainly capture this refined difference between the two
nouns, it would do so as the expense of abandoning their larger
and more important categorical &[+Noun]& class similarity.
What seems to be needed in this case are finer grained models which
(i) divert lexical analyses somewhat away from the actual
word-class item itself (but not at the expense of the class), and
rather (ii) examine the possible arrangement of the precise
lexical internal features (i.e., sub-categorical features) which
factor in such differences between words of the same class.
On the heels of such
analyses, a methodological paradigm shift has occurred which defines
&Word-bundles& as &Feature-bundles&--using binary
notation to express the full range of properties (and feature-matrices)
inherent in a given word. This new approach couples (i)
the traditional category-based model which sets out to define general
parts-of-speech with (ii) the more subtle feature descriptive
model. (For further reading on Features, see the paper Non-count
Noun Determiners: Where's the feature?& posted on my web
site). (NB. Having said this, it is also important to note that
this &Reductionist& view--that traditional syntactic categories
can be broken down into smaller parts--shouldn't imply that the
&labeled& category is now made redundant. The traditional
category, as we have always known it, remains and is not replaced
by say a bundle of features. It is perhaps better put by saying
that the two go hand and hand.
Both feature classifications--(i)
Category-Features which seek to maintain some coherency with
the traditional &parts-of speech&, as well as their more
subtle counterpart (ii) Subcategory-Features--are typically
represented in enclosed brackets [ ] and may be expressed in binary
notation [+/-F] (with (F) indicating the specified feature). For
example, a Noun category may be defined by a binary expression denoting
intrinsic category features on the one hand--such as [+N, -V], as
well as subcategory-features [+Count] on the other. The above notations
state that the lexical category Noun has an intrinsic plus N-feature
and minus Verb-feature, in addition to having fine-grained functional
sub-category plus count-features (number). This now nicely captures
the distributional differences found among the words *furniture-s
vs. book-s as witnessed above--with the former being notated
as [+N/-Count] and the latter [+N/+Count]. (It is worth noting that
this functional distinction between Count and Mass Nouns are not
fully appreciated by children who may be just entering their Functional-Stage
of language development (approx. 2-3 years of age): it's been well
documented over the years that children both (i) combine
indefinite determiners with mass nouns (e.g., a dirt, a
sand) as well as (ii) over-generate plural {s} on mass
nouns (e.g. I have two furniture-s, three sugar-s,
etc. and that some children continue to make such errors of over-generalization
up until eight years of age. (see Brown and Bellugi, 1964, Slobin
1966 for an overview).
At the basic level,
the four traditional parts-of-speech categories can be
represented by the following binary notations:
Sub-categorical Features: Binary Notation
b. Adjectival
[+V, +N] (=Adjective [+N], Adverb [+V]).
c. Preposition
In addition to these inherent categorical features, their inherent
Lexical vs. Functional status might also be notated in a similar
way (as shown in (15).
Lexical Categories
Lexical Words
have specific and idiosyncratic meaning. These words are content-based
and can either be readily conceptualized in the mind of the speaker
(i.e., semantically-based as with Nouns & Verbs) or can come
to be manipulate upon in logical terms (i.e., logical no,
and , and if/or) and/or potentially take-on opposite
meanings (e.g. Adjective cold&hot, Adverb slow&fast,
Verbs sleep&wake, etc.) The list of lexical categories
is given in the table below:
Table: Lexical Categories
Lexical Categories:
oNouns &&oAdjective oVerbs&&&&
oAdverbs oPreposition
These categories are expressions of lexical items--&Lexical&
here simply means &Word& (as would be found in a dictionary
with an assigned substantive-meaning definition). All lexical words
share a common property of being content driven--that is, the word
is anchored by some substantive meaning. In this sense, the speaker
should be able to conceptualize the properties of a given lexical
word--whether it be Noun (adjective) or Verb (adverb) (and to some
extent Prepositions contain meaning albeit via a relatively positional
relationship). (But see Preposition as Functional Category in &2.4
(161) below). In other words, the speaker should be able to construct
some form of a mental image of say, folder, mailbox, ball ,
etc. (for nouns), or a mental action of say, dance, run, eat,
etc. (for verbs). In a basic sense, we could assign some sort of
meaningful iconic representation to the sound-meaning associations
in the following nouns in (9). (Although verbs are to a large degree
less salient in concrete terms (tangibles, etc.), they nevertheless
contain meaningful conceptual information that is related to states
or actions).
Notwithstanding the abstract and less salient nature of Main Verbs
as expressed above--viz., the traditional notion that Nouns represent
more readily accessible conceptual notions of person/place/thing--out
of all the lexical categories, the Preposition Class is
perhaps the most abstract when attempting to form a stable mental
image. However, its substantive nature does make itself available
to us via location and manner. Clearly, words
such as between, below, in, with, under, etc. have some
conceptual value in relation to structural, locative meaning. (See
&2.4 regarding functional features of Prepositions.
Another interesting aspect of lexical category words is that they
are the first type of words to be spoken by children in their earliest
stages of speech. This stage-1 is typically referred to as the lexical-stage
of language development. (See relevant papers on language acquisition
posted on my web site).
Form Class Words
Lexical words are often defined as Form Class Words.
Lexical Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives, Adverbs are labeled as
Form Class words because members of each class (parts-of-speech)
share the ability to change their forms--either by (i) Derivational
Morphology, or by (ii) Inflectional Morphology. (The
term 'Form' simply refers to the shape of the word. For example,
if we start with a verb, say &go&, we would say
that the form of the verb changes once we add the inflection [3person/present/singular
+{s}] to the verb stem yielding &go-es&). We
can extend this same analogy to the full range of Form-class words.
So, as part of our working definition, we can say that 'Lexical
words' are also Form-class words because their forms can be manipulated
and changed. This clearly contrasts with functional Structure-class
words such as Determiners (the/my...) and Aux/Modals (can/should...)
which are strictly prohibited from changing forms via an inflection--e.g.,
*She can-s / should-ed or *The-s / my-s (see &0.3.2
below). (Again, there are plenty of data in child first language
acquisition showing that children do not initially get this class
distinction right).
Consider the examples in Table (10) below of how the word-stem
forms of our four main lexical categories change via Inflectional
and Derivational Morphology:
(10) Table: Form Class Lexical Words: Inflection
& Derivation
Form Class / Lexical Words:
Inflection
Derivation:
book, friend, table
[Plural +{s}]:book-s, friend-s, table-s
=& Adjective
{ish}: book-ish,
{ly}: friend-ly
=& Verb {be-}: befriend,
study, teach, speak
[3pres/sing {s}]: stud-i-es, teach-es, speak-s
=& Adjective
{ous}: stud-i-ous
{wise}: stud-i-wise
{er}: teach-er, speak-er
Adjective:
red, sick, sharp
[superlative {est}]: red-est, sick-est, sharp-est
=& Adjective
{ish, ly,}: red-ish, sick-ly,
=& Adverb {ly}: sharp-ly
=& Noun [Plural{s}]: &the red-s&
quick-ly, best, well
comparative {er}]: quick-er bett-er,
quick-ness,
=& Adjective
[# change]: good
For further exercise, analyze the English derivation morphology
in the following words in Table (11) below. Try to identify the
root-stem lexical word, along with the function of each derivational
affix (creating the derived word):
(11) Table: Exercise in English Derivational
Morphology
counterexample
defamation
employment
generative
grammarian
Protestant
Protestant
Vietnamese
(Examples taken from Radford et al. 1999, p. 177) What will
be of interest to us in the following sections is the idea that
Form-class Lexical words can take-on inflection whereas
Structure-class Functional words cannot (see &0.3.2
and (157) on Modals). This distinction will later become a major
theme in our overall grammar--in the sense that in order for &meaningful&
lexical words to contain more &abstract& levels of grammar,
they must allow their forms to change and be affected via Functional
Inflection--this Inflectional Process, which is so much a part of
what we understand (functional) grammar to be, will be more fully
fleshed out in subsequent sections and chapters.
0.3.2 Functional Categories
In contrast to lexical categories, which contain meaning, Functional
Categories (or features) are a class of Words (or inflections)
which have no substantive meaning, and are thus inserted into a
sentence not to transmit tangible information, but rather to serve
some abstract grammatical purpose--functional words or items (inflection)
are usually utilized in some capacity to form a grammatical relationship
with a counterpart lexical item. (For example, go to the DP (Determiner
Phrase) example to see how a Functional Determiner &The&
might work alongside a Lexical Noun &car&: ).
In a sense, what we shall later see is that functional categories
assist lexical categories in carrying out grammar.
A list of the major Functional Categories is as follows:
(12) Table: Functional Categories
Functional Categories:
Determiner (D)
Pronouns (Prn)
Auxiliary (Aux)
Modals (M)
Infinitive (Inf)
Complementizer (C)
Qualifiers (Q)
Morphology: Agreement (Agr)
Case: Nom (subject) Acc (object)
Nominative (e.g. I, He, She) Accusative (e.g. me, him, her)
Showing the contrast between the two categories, we could say that
lexical categories have descriptive content, whereas functional
categories have no descriptive content. For instance, whereas the
noun &dog& (in the phrase The dog) can be easily
conceptualized in the mind of a speaker, the determiner &The&
cannot be so readily conceptualized. In fact, there is actually
no meaningful content to the word the. For instance, just
try to make an image in your mind of what the might look
like (shape, size, color, action, etc.)--as you quickly discover,
it is an empty search. This is because lexical words are stored
in your mental-lexicon (a sort of memory file of words) in such
as way as being labeled, associated and indexed to meaning--this
is what is behind the notion of a 1-to-1 association (sound-to-meaning
association or indexing (cf. Skinner).
Though we shall more closely examine the roles of the major categories
in later sections, let's briefly look at two main functional categories
as listed above: D & Aux. The Determiner (D) class is a functional
(or Structure Class) group of words which specifically work in conjunction
with counterpart Nouns. Such prototypical members include: Articles
(a, an, & the), Demonstratives (this,
that, these, those), Possessive or Genitives
(my, your, his, her, our, their, its), Indefinites
(some, any, no, many), Cardinal Numbers
(one, two , three...), and Ordinal Numbers
(first, second, third...). What is important here to capture is
that all the above words work in conjunction with Nouns--forming
a functional/lexical relationship: e.g., [D A/The/This/My/One]
+ [N car]. Whereas all determiners share in this common
relationship (D+N), specific determiner words also maintain their
own special properties. The most common property of all is that
(D)-words serve to introduce Nouns--plainly speaking, Determiners
signal that a Noun is fast approaching within the phrase. In fact,
except for very special grammatical conditions where it is possible
to dispense with the Determiner--e.g., when the noun contains general,
generic information as in the sentence & Girls just want
to have fun& showing no overt sign of a D-word (&)
to introduce the plural general class noun Girls--it is
seldom possible to have a noun without a D-word introduction: e.g.,
*I like car/She is friend/Where are toys/This is not book/How do
you like weather?/You need to study for test, etc. etc. (*
marks ungrammaticality). And more to the point, it is never possible
to have a D-word without a Noun: e.g., *I like the/She is my/Where
are these?/This is not a/How do you like our ?/You need to study
for your , etc. etc. (NB. There is a class of 'Determiner-like'
counterparts that serve as pronominals and must
stand alone. For example, consider the following possessive-determiner/(pre)pro-nominal
paradigm: my/mine, your/yours, her/hers/, our/ours. For
example, contrast the following--This is my book, This is mine
& vs. *This is my &, *This is mine book. Those
are our books, Those are ours & vs. *Those are our
&. *Those are ours books. The D-words my/our
here are considered to be prenominal in that they
are required to come before nouns, while their counterparts mine/our
are pronominal (non-determiners) and thus must be used in the manner
of a (Pro)noun). If we wish to maintain the condition pronounced
earlier that Determiners hold a structure dependency in that they
must introduce Nouns, then such Pronominals as cited above can't
be classified as Determiners--their distributional properties, as
well as their syntactic behavior, hold the status of [+Pronoun]).
Returning to their special properties, consider the determiner
&my&. Not only does this D-word (my)
signal the presence of an ensuing Noun [My + N], it also expresses
a special grammatical property of ownership or possession: as in
the possessor + possession relation [D My] + [N car] (respectively)--&Hey,
that car belongs to me--my car!& (as opposed to a generic,
proto-class reference to &car& (e.g., &The/A/Some
car&). So, it's easy to see the contrast between the two determiners
my & the--although, on one level, they both introduce nouns,
their grammatical properties are indeed very different. We will
more closely examine the full range of specific features related
to determines below. For the moment, the most important aspect of
the D-word is that it works hand-in-hand with nouns. One trivial
way to put it would be to say that the (oddball) determiner is to
the (common) noun what &Dr. Jeckle& was to &Mr. Hyde&--in
a sense, both are two sides of the same coin.
Consider the diagram of a [D+N] below:
(=Determiner Phrase)
a) Article
b) *Possessive
c) Demonstrative
d) Cardinal number
e) Indefinite
(* Using binary notation, the possessive D-word could be specified
by a finer-grained [+Gen] feature that resides in the overall Determiner
category rendering a (Gen)itive Possessive Determiner. See &2.1
(57) on Genitive Determiners).
Structure Class Words
Similar to the determiner, the Auxiliary (Aux) functional
word (or Aux-word) introduces the Main Verb in a sentence. Likewise--as
discussed above regarding Determiners--whereas you may have a main
verb without an (overt) Aux-word present, (as in the sentence &She
likes candy&), an Aux-word can never be present without
a Main Verb: as seen in the ill-formed &*How do you &?&
question presented earlier in Table 3 ex. j) or with such examples
&*She can the car/*I will the book/*We should the jacket,
etc. Similarly, since functional words are defined as 'structure-class'
words which can't change forms, all inflection is banned from surfacing
on functional stems--e.g., *She can-s/can-ed, *The-s/My-s cars.
etc. (See also Modals (157) as structure-class words). The Aux-word
or Modal renders the Main Verb replete with abstract grammatical
properties. Then in a like-minded fashion, the Aux-word/Modal does
for the Verb what the D-word does for the Noun--viz., both functional
category words D & Aux provide their lexical counterparts N
& V (respectively) with essential grammatical properties. The
specific task of spelling out the full range of functional features
to lexical words will come in later sections. For the time being,
it is enough to understand that Aux/Modals work in conjunction with
Main verbs. Consider the tree diagram below:
&&&&MVP&&&&&&&
(Main Verb Phrase)
&&&Grammar:
&&&&&&&Rule: &&&&&&&&&&&&&Sentence:
&&&modal-ability&&&&
[modal+ V] &&&&&She can speak.
&&&modal-future&&&&
[modal+ V]&&&&&& I will speak.
&&&request &&&&&&&&&&&&&[Do+V]&&&&&&&&&&&
Do speak softly.
&&&progressive&&&&&&&[Be
+V +ing]&&&& I am speaking
&&&perfect &&&&&&&&&&&&&[Have+V+{en]
&I have spoken.
Feature Recap
As introduced above, the entire range of lexical and functional
categories can (more or less) be presented by a binary notation
in which specific sub-categorical features and properties are indicated.
The feature [+/-N] serves to cross-classify categories in a similar
way--it implies that all [+N]-words (nouns) share a common property
and thus form a super-category or class called Noun which
differentiates the class from say [-N] words (such as Verbs, Prepositions).
Likewise, we can use this same notation to account for the intricate
Functional-to-Lexical inter-relations as noted above. It was noted
that each Functional category closely works alongside a corresponding
Lexical category: e.g., Determiner + Noun, and Aux/Modal +Verb.
Consider the notation of the functional categories below where [+F]
shows (Functional category).
(15) Table: Word Category & Features
a. Determiner (D)
[+N, -V, +F]
: the book
b. Auxiliary (Aux)
[-N, +V, +F]
Aux+V (+Main Verb)
: has studi-ed
c. Modal (M)
[-N, +V, +F]
M+V (+Main Verb)
: can study
d. Noun (N)
e. Verb (V)
[+N, -V, -F]
[-N, +V, -F]
(non-main verb)
: (to) read books
f. Adjective (Adj)
g. Adverb(Adv)
h. Preposition (P)
[+N, -V, -F]
[-N, +V, -F]
[-N, -V, -F]
studied P+[D+N]
: linguistic book
: carefully
: with the book
Recall that determiners may indeed precede a Verb--hence turning
it into a Noun (=Gerund) (as shown in (16) below):
(16) Table: Gerund Constructions
=& Noun via [D+N]
=& The walk was fun.
=& The study has been reviewed.
=& The write-up was copied.
Gerunds [V+ing]: =&
Noun via [D+N] (d) The walking around the campus
(e) The studying for the grammar exam was tiring.
(f) The writing was carefully proof-read.
Gerund's particular use of {+ing} forms may create Noun counterparts
to DP-Subjects/Objects, as well as modifying Adjectives as in e.g.,
sleeping/white cat is fine. As stated above,
the lexical/substantive categories--which provide meaning--have
a functional categorical counterpart. The diagrams below help to
illustrate this specific inter-relationship between the categories
of three fundamental phrases: (DP, MVP, PP):
(17) DP, MVP, and PP Phrase Diagrams
a). Determiner + Nouns =& Determiner Phrase (DP)
b). Auxiliary + Verb =& Auxiliary, or Main Verb Phrase
c). Preposition + [DP] =& Preposition Phrase (PP)
d). Determiner + Pronoun =& Determiner
Phrase (DP)
[D= &, N (Pro-Noun) = I]
As was mentioned earlier, the preposition (PP= Prepositional Phrase)
seems to be a lexical category in the sense that it contains substantive
meaning regarding the situation (Place & Manner) of an object.
However, a caveat is in order here. The preposition also contains
more abstract functional categorical features in the following way:
(i). First, similar to the determiner class, prepositions too
share in the capacity to function as a structure-class word--whereas
Determiners serve to introduce Nouns (D+N), Prepositions serve
to introduce Determiner Phrases (P+DP). This notion that prepositions
signal the subsequent appearance of a DP is tantamount to saying
that some functional relationship will hold between the (P) and
the subsequent (N) which is embedded in the DP. One fall out from
this functional structure-class distinction of the preposition
is the established prescriptive rule banning preposition standing--that
is, leaving a preposition at the end of a sentence without its
required introduction of a DP (e.g., *Who(m) does she want
to speak to? (=prep standing), & To whom does she
want to speak?).
(ii) Second, Prepositions may contain at least on @link Functional
Feature regarding @link Case--viz.,
DPs that follow (transitive) PPs require Accusative (Acc) (Oblique)
[-Nom] Case. This requirement of Case is an aspect of functional
and not lexical grammar. For the time being, simply consider the
Case marking differences regarding the objects (*he vs. him)
within the two PPs below:
(18) Case & Prepositions
Example. John wants to go...*[PP with he] / [PP with
The specific features associated with the given functional / structure-class
words and phrases will be more fully fleshed out in subsequent sections.
What is important to understand here is the inter-relationship between
lexical and functional categories--namely, that functional categories
provide their lexical counter-parts with abstract grammatical material:
(e.g., D-to- N, Aux/Modal-to-V, P-to-N, etc.). (Note that within
our adopted binary notation of Case, [-Nom] (minus nominative),
by default, automatically equates to [+Acc] Accusative Case).
(19) Table: The &Four Parts-of-Speech&
Categories--Lexical vs. Functional Status
Adjective / Adverb
Preposition
[+N] Adjective [+V] Adverb
all class of main nouns
all class of main verbs
a lexical category
----------
Functional
Pronouns: I, You, S/he, We, They, etc.
Determiners: a/the, this, my, his, some,
one, many, etc
Auxiliary: be, have, do
Modals: can, will, might, should, etc.
----------
0.5 Summary
Grammar is sub-divided into two inter-related studies: Morphology
and Syntax.
Morphology is the study of how words are formed
from out of smaller units (called morphemes). For example, the
word &book-s& here would have two morphemes--(i) the
root/stem &book&, and (ii) the inflectional morpheme
{s} showing number [+Plural]. Morphemes that must attach to the
main verb stem are referred to as being Bound Morphemes
(e.g., {-s}, {-en}, {-ed}, {-ing} {-er}) whereas Free
Morphemes such as e.g., {act} in {re}-{en}-act-{ment}
can stand alone .
Syntax is the broader study of how words are
strung together to form (Partial) Phrases, Clauses, and
(full) Sentences. For example, as presented above, the
Determiner Phrase (DP) is formed from out of the string D+N.
Lexical vs. Functional Grammar defines and
separates by category what is content-driven from what is abstract.
The lexical categories (or Form Class words) come to
include: Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives, and Adverbs (with some discussion
of how prepositions might straddle the functional category), while
functional categories (or Structure Class words) come
to include Determiners, Auxiliary/Modals, Pronouns, Complementizers,
and Qualifiers.
The Lexical vs. Functional distinction was illustrated by our
&Sally Experiment& which showed a disparity between
omitted functional /S/s and salient lexical /S/s--the
latter is crucial for word recognition and meaning whereas the
former's non-salient quality is brought about by abstract, functional
properties.
Super-categorical features were presented: e.g., Noun = [+N,
-V], Verb= [-N, +V] etc. showing a binary notation of features
Basic phrases were introduced showing a basic lexical to functional
relationship.
By definition, the term 'sentence' denotes a free standing
which is not contained within some larger expression. In other words,
the term 'sentence' denotes nothing more than an independent syntactic
expression with its full meaning being self contained--i.e., a complete
and independent thought. We noted earlier that regarding morphology,
the word is the most easiest recognizable unit. Well, regarding
syntax, a larger unit of linguistic expression, the sentence is
the most recognizable unit. It is perhaps best to conceptualize
the sentence in terms of its structure. At the sentence level, the
largest units which can be easily divided into two--and thus maintain
Binary Structure--are called the Subject and
Predicate. This simple binary structure of subject
+ predicate is the basic template from which all sentences are generated.
In fact, English, like all languages, can provide a potentially
infinite number of sentences. The simple fact that we can even come
to speak/understand the vast amount of sentences never spoken/heard
before is a testament to the fact that they are all based and generated
from a commonly perceived template: the subject + predicate template.
For instance, consider the sentences below:
a. Yesterday, I saw a pink and yellow elephant roller-skating down
flower lane.
b. Tomorrow, we might visit the home of the jolly-green-giant if
we are not first gobbled-up by his pet gold fish.
(22) (Lexical gibberish with syntactic meaning)
a. =& Today, I toslaked a blevish zimperstopen manikoning
down flower lane.
b. English parse:
(i) toslaked =& main verb [+Tense], past tense inflection
(ii) blevish =& adjective, inflection {-ish}
(iii) manikoning =& verb [-Tense], participle inflection
These non-sense words could easily be syntactically slotted and
thus spun into English counterpart parts-of-speech: toslaked
(=saw), blevish (=pink), zimperstopen (=elephant),
manikoning (=skating), etc.etc.
Today, I saw a pink elephant skating down flower
The two sentences in (21a, b) are correct English
expressions I have never spoken/heard before. The completely made-up
sentence in (22) is also correct on pure syntactic grounds even
though the individual words have no lexical sound-to-meaning relation
in English. I doubt you have heard either of the sentences in (21a,
b) uttered before in this exact wording--not to mention the completely
gibberish sentence in (22) above. Nevertheless, I believe we can
all agree that (21a, b) are indeed English sentences which project
a certain meaning--albeit a meaning that might be better served
in a fairy-tale novel. The fact that the gibberish in (22) can likewise
be syntactically parsed as a possible English sentence immediately
begs the following question: What is it exactly that allows one
to process and perceive a given sentence? Just think about it--a
sentence never heard/spoken before can instantly be comprehended
without difficulty. Well, the magic of it all generally has to do
with the sentence structure template and the ability of such a template
to string certain words of word-classes together (Noun, Verb, Adjective,
etc.) to form the subject & predicate. The fact that I can creatively
generate these random sentences--seemingly stringing one word after
another and with full comprehension on your part--is based on the
fact that they are buttressed by an underlying common structure.
It is owing to this structure that we come to an accepted comprehension--perhaps
even more so the structure than the actual individual words that
make-up its structure. So, returning to the issue of language providing
a potentially infinite set of sentences (by which an infinite amount
of words can be randomly shifted), we are in fact merely noting
the myriad of possible word combinations: The term 'sentence' is
more than just the total added value of the string of words put
together, but rather something much more. (The sum is greater than
the parts). A sentence is a very specific 'arrangement' of linguistic
structure--the individual words simply serve to fill in the 'slots'
(so to speak) of this structure.
If--as earlier schools of thought might have had us
believe (viz., Behaviorism)--grammar analyses relied on a simple
collection of all possible sentence configurations, including all
token sentence types with all possible word arrangements, etc. (sifting
correct from incorrect types), just the task of simply sorting through
the memorized data itself would have brought a break-down in our
mental abilities. Such a heavy burden would leave very little computational
room (mental capacity) for the actual subsequent processing of the
arrived sentence. In fact, trying to process (parse) language word-by-word
would put such a strain on short term memory that we would ultimately
never be able to comprehend those more abstract or complex sentence.
We can understand the sentences above because the overall structure
is consistent with English sentence structure/grammar and the words
themselves (although 'fairy-tale-like' or nonsensical ) are positioned
in the appropriate 'slots'. If, on the other hand, we were to arrange
the same words in (21a), say in any random order, then the slots
would not map onto the accepted fixed structure and the sentence--even
with the identical words--would not make any sense to us.
Consider the new rendition of the 'elephant sentence'
in (23) below now with an altered arrangement of the very same twelve
(23) * Pink yellow and yesterday lane I flower a saw
elephant down roller-skating.
As we see, the expression makes no sense: even the
gibberish but parsed sentence in (22) makes more sense to us. Having
now convinced you ( I hope) that general Sentence and Phrase structure
counts, let's now consider what the exact structure looks like--carrying
over the labor of dividing and subdividing Sentence and Phrase Structure
onto the remaining relevant sections of the text. (See Phrase
for a full phrase analysis of the 'elephant sentence' (43)). The
first thing we must understand is that the 'elephant sentence'--like
any English sentence--is divided into two larger segments: (i)
the subject and (ii) the predicate.
Subject-Predicate
Before we can even begin our discussion of the simple sentence and
the range of different sentence types, we must first flesh out the
very heart of what makes up a sentence. While some of the more detailed
aspects of this topic will be postponed to latter sections dealing
with Sentence Structure, it is incumbent upon us to understand
actually what formulates a basic sentence structure. It is now clear,
after a number of psychological and linguistic investigations, that
we process speech input streams by chunks or constituents rather
than by individual words one at a time. This style of linguistic
processing (termed parsing) suggests that we divide information
first into larger meaningful parts, and then consequently into smaller
segments. This hierarchical processing reflects what we believe
to be a species-specific, (Human) endowed syntactic module in the
brain of the type that allows one to conceptualize and compartmentalize
language by syntactic rules and not by mere memory: (hence, a kind
of scaffolding is involved). The very nature of binary division
is said to be reflected in much of biology. Furthermore, the linguistic
division of information into two parts seems likewise to reflect
a universal property in human perception--generically speaking,
the two parts are composed of 'the thing' & 'the action' of
the discourse. Thus, much of our segmenting will be done in the
form of binary branching--i.e., where segments tend to
be broken down into two parts. At the very largest sentence level,
this binary divide occurs between the (i) Subject
(Topic) and (ii) Predicate (Comment).
The working definitions here are quite straight forward and seem
to represent what is an innate and universal trait of human perception:
the Subject is composed of a Determiner (Article) + Noun
sequence (=DP) which states the topic of the sentence. This is typically
the event, thing corresponding to the Who/What of the discourse.
In additional to this essential Subject/Topic of the discourse,
some further information must ensue which allows us to comment on
the topic by way of rich description--typically asking the follow-up
question: &so what about the topic&? In other words, it
just isn't not enough to provide noun material by saying &[The
boy in the yard]& without this innate inquisitive follow-up
question which natural leads to verb material &so what
about the boy in the yard& =& Subject/Noun:&[The
boy in the yard] + Predicate/Verb [is playing]&
(S=&&The boy in the yard is playing& ) . Regarding
the segmental processing discussed above, we know that the subject
equates to the whole string &The boy in the yard& because
we can apply what linguists call the substitution test and substitute
the whole string with the pronoun &He&: e.g.,
The boy in the yardi--Hei is my friend (where the co-indexing
of He relates back to The boy in the yard). It
is this natural inclination to secure additional information about
the topic that is termed Predicate/Comment. The most important aspect
of the predicate is that it must include a Finite [+Tensed] Verb.
Without such a verb, there can be no sentence. Consider the Subject
+ Predicate structure of the basic SV (subject + verb) sentences
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&S
(=& sentence)
Rule: S =& Noun/DP + Verb/VP
Subject/Topic
Predicate/Comment
Token Examples
Noun material
Main Verb: Tense
a. [S John] [V sleeps]
b. [S Elephant] [V roller-skates]
On the topic of &Sentence&, what we also
must recognize is that there is an order of different Sentence
Types--all of which preserve the overall essence of &sentence&
(per se, as a class type), but an order which also bears
to light some fundamental differences regarding more subtle Features
of structure. (Regarding features, one could say that the &selectional
requirements& for a V(erb) &x& to select a specific type
of Object &y& or a Non-object &z& in its predicate is
determined by the verb's feature setting: e.g., [V: +/-object]).
The sections below spell-out the major sentence types of English.
The Latter sections (&&. 3, 4) will deal with matters
regarding Complex Sentence, Sentence Structure and Movement.
1.1 Intransitive Sentence
The first type of sentence, and most basic type, is
the Intransitive Sentence. This Type of sentence structure contains
a certain class of Main Verb (MV) that doesn't necessarily need
to have an accompanying Object (in the predicate) to serve as its
complement. As we shall see in the latter examples, it's the Main
Verb that delegates and projects whatever type of information is
required for the predicate: e.g., whether or not one object, two
objects or no objects are required. Consider the following examples
(25) Table: Intransitive Sentences
Main Verb:
b). A telephone
d). The customer
is ringing.
snores loudly.
complained persistently.
must have enrolled early.
study /swim/snore/complain/enroll...
What's important to note here with regards to the
above sentences is that the mere projection of (i) a Subject and
(ii) a Main Verb is sufficient in satisfying the requirements for
a properly formed sentence: these requirements for a well formed
sentence are governed by the semantic properties of the Intransitive
Verb. Although we may wish at anytime to combine additional (Adverbial)
material to the predicate--such as in the sentence e.g., &(Fish
swim (fast/ under the sea))& etc.,--what is important
to understand is that this additional material, here, taking the
forms of an (i) Adverbial and (ii) Prepositional Phrase (respectively),
is not an essential requirement of the verb. In other words, the
verb &swim&, being an Intransitive Verb,
doesn't look leftward to its predicate (or complement) seeking assistance
in maintaining the meaning of the expression--the verb is able to
stand alone contributing 100% of its predicate (semantic) information
directly back to the subject &Fish&. Clearly,
there is no aspect whatsoever of the semantics of &swim&
which could refer to anything but the subject &Fish&.
We could expression this Intransitive property in the following
logical expression: swim(Fish). When we say &Fish swim&,
100% of all meaningful material is associated right back to the
subject. In our example in (20a) above, &I (can) study
[with the book]&, the main verb &study&
directly links back 100% to the subject without seeking out any
additional support from an object. As stated above, the fact that
we do have additional predicate material--in the form of a Prepositional
Phrase (PP)--is superfluous to the nature of the verb &study&,
and is simply affording us with extra linguistic material that could
otherwise be forgone. Of course, we could very well stop with the
sentence &I study& without jeopardizing the verb's
integrity.
Another example of Intransitivity would be the verb
&sleep&--as in John sleeps. No sense can be derived
from *John sleeps Mary (=SVO). This malformed sentence arises because
the verb 'sleep' must contribute 100% of its total meaning back
onto its subject--i.e., the verb's meaning has absolutely nothing
to say about any possible interceding object. However, note the
well formed counter-example The general bedded the soldiers
('to bed' here meaning to supply bedding). The nature of the
verb 'bed' requires an object--one receiving bedding.
Consider how (25) above would look (and be diagrammed)
without such extra material in its predicate:
These simplest sentence structures are considered
&Intransitive& and consist of a Subject (DP) followed
by a Predicate in which only a Main Verb Phrase (MVP) is required
(followed by optional adverbial information). The name for such
verbs which can stand alone in its predicate is technically termed
&Intransitive&. While such sentence types can rest with
a prosaic Subject and Main Verb, they may optionally combine additional
Adverbial material in their predicates. Consider how an Intransitive
type structure would be Tree-Diagramed below:
1.2 Transitive Sentence:
Copular Linking Verbs
In contrast to what we have observed above with Intransitive
type sentences, Transitive Copular sentences do require additional
Adverbial information in the shape of either e.g., a Prepositional
or an Adverbial/Adjectival Phrase (to is left in the predicate)
in order to keep the meaning of the copular verb stable. Consider
the following type of sentences below:
(28) Table: Copular Transitive Sentences
Copular Verb &Be&
b). Her job interviews
c). Mary's notebook d). The party
is outside
were yesterday
must have been on the desk
will be in the yard
must be a teacher
Pres/Perfect
Future/modal
By looking at the separate predicate constituents
of the sentences above, you will see that they contain not only
a main verb (=copular &Be&), but that they also must contain
some kind of an obligatory Adverbial Phrase. What we mean
by &Adverbial& is that the phrase supplies essential additional
information to the verb (modifying the copular verb so to speak)--and
so the label adverbial. The obligatory adverbial complement information
is the following: outside, yesterday, on the desk, in the yard,
a teacher, tired (respectively). Note that we are referring
to the Prepositional Phrases (PP) here (on the desk, etc.)
as being somewhat adverbial in nature. In the above sense, such
PPs are not optional (as in Intransitive structures), but rather
are required. In other words, if the adverbial complement were dropped,
the copular transitive verb would not be stable enough to transmit
meaning. Consider how such ill-formed copular structures would look
without their adverbial complements: (*John is & /Her
job interviews were &/ Mary's notebook must have been &/
The part will be &). As you quickly discover, the copular
verb &Be& cannot stand alone in the predicate but must
be supported by other adverbial material. Such supporting adverbial
complements provide information regarding Place, Time or Manner/Mode:
e.g., John is... in the class/late/tired (respectively).
These copular verbs {Be--is/are/was/were} are called Linking
Verbs due to the fact that they directly link-up the adverbial
information to the subject: [Subject + Linking Verb]--i.e., 100%
of the adverbial material directly reflects back to the Subject
(Noun), making all such (linking) adverbial material in the predicate
quasi-adjectival in nature. To a certain degree, linking verbs function
in a quasi adjectival manner--describing or modifying the nominal
(Noun) subject. When one says &Johni
is a teacheri& (John=teacher), the DP-object [a teacher]
directly co-indexes and refers back to the DP-subject [John] (as
indicated by the subscript index 'i' )--much in the same way as
a adjective reflects back onto the Noun its modifying. Such Linking
verb constructs with co-indexed complement are often termed &Nominal
Subject Complements&. (See (31) below for structure). This
is because the complement/object functions as a quasi-reflexive
in conjunction with the nominal/subject. In fact, this modifying
quality of the copular &Be& becomes even more apparent
when copular structures are inverted as an Adjective Phrase:
a). Pat is a postman:
[DP [D&] [N Pat] ] is the postman =&
b). Postman Pat is here:
[ [DP & ] [AdjP [Adj Postman] [N Pat]]] is here,
(NB. This verb form of nominal modification will become
important when we come to examine how copular linking verbs of sense
are modified not as verbs (par excellence), but rather
as nouns). (See section (33) below).
Consider the Copular &Be& tree structures
below showing adverbial material in the complement slot positions:
Token Sentences (30e, c) above capture this generic
Adverbial material--the object of the copular verb--by either projecting
a more accurate Prepositional Phrase (ex. c) or a Determiner Phrase
(ex. e) in the adverbial complement slots of the verb. Consider
the revised complement phrasal projections below:
Let's now turn to the issue of how other (copular) linking verbs function
as quasi nouns--in terms of how they get modified. Verbs of sense
are frequently used as linking verbs as in the following examples:
What is interesting about the sentences above is that
the typical adverb modification of a verb--i.e., the grammatical
structure of [Verb + Adverb], has become replaced by the structure
[Verb + Adjective]. Note that the adverbial counterparts to the
modification are incorrect: e.g., *The milk tastes sweetly
is something you would never say on an intuitive basis. What we
are suggesting here is that both copular &Be& verbs as
well as Linking Verbs of the Senses take on a certain amount of
Nominal (noun) qualities--so much so that when they enter into a
modification structure, it is the adjective (a noun modifier) which
wins out over the adverb (a verb modifier). The overall structure
of modification suggests that copular as well as linking verbs get
their lexical/substantive properties directly from the Subject (Noun)--hence,
the notion of &linking&: verbs that directly &link&
the Subject to the Predicate (Object or Modifier). (See also (153)
Copular/Main Verb &Be& vs. Auxiliary &Be&
for further discussion).