Universidad de Valladolid

Departamento de Filología Inglesa

ENGLISH LANGUAGE: DESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR III. Syntax [41699]

Raquel Fernández Fuertes [A]
Sonja Mujcinovic [B]

The organization of the clause

1. The components of the clause
1.1. The subject: the external argument
1.1.1. Subject formal types
1.1.2. Subject referentiality: binding theory and control theory
1.2. The verb and its internal arguments
1.2.1. The lexical and the functional levels: VP, IP, CP
1.2.2. The typology of internal arguments: objects, complements and adjuncts
1.3. Sentential patterns: the verb and its arguments
2. How the sentence is organized
2.1. Thematic theory
2.2. Case theory

1. THE COMPONENTS OF THE CLAUSE

1.1. THE SUBJECT: THE EXTERNAL ARGUMENT

1.1.1. Subject formal types

 double typology
FIGURE 1. Formal typology of subjects
 (1) my T-shirt has faded

(2) a. _ lions are dangerous animals

b. _ Amy is happy

(3) the _ young at heart would be the ones in charge

(4) a. those dark red ugly T-shirts have faded

b. those red T-shirts you bought in Italy have faded
c. the daughter of the butcher is coming to the party

(5) a. they have faded; they are dangerous

b. she is happy

(6) a. none knows the answer

b. something should come out of all this

(7) a. the car which came first was driven by a very old man
b. this is the girl who played the piano at the concert

(8) a. who saw you?

b. what is happening?

(9) what he said yesterday is not true

(10) telling the truth can be a complicated business

(11) a. they want _ to go to the movies

b. _ went to the movies last night (ABBREVIATED STYLE)

(12) a. it will rain tonight

b. it would surprise me if Louise abandoned her job

(13) there were three students very sick

- referential versus non-referential

- overt versus null
 the empty category principle (ECP): non-overt elements must be licensed and
identified
 no phonological form BUT grammatically motivated
(14) a. where did all the money go? A lot _ was spent on travel
b. what happened to the protesters? A lot _ were arrested

English grammar III-A & B, handout 2

2
1.1.2. Subject referentiality: binding theory and control theory
(Chomsky 1980, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1988, Haegeman 1994, Carnie 2002)

 BINDING THEORY: module of grammar that is responsible for assigning an

appropriate interpretation to DPs in the sentence

 DP types and correferentiality

- full DPs: Fred, the guitar player R-expression
- personal pronouns: he, him gender/number features
- reflexive elements: himself gender/number features

(15a) Fred admires him non-correferential

(15b) Fred hurt himself correferential

 correferentiality of DPs and clause-type

PRONOUNS
(15c) Fred said that he felt rather ill correferential
(15d) Fred expected him to feel a little better non-correferential

FULL DPS
(15e) he expected Fred to feel a little better non-correferential
(15f) he said that Fred felt a little better non-correferential

 binding theory: the principles

- PRINCIPLE A: interpretationof referentially dependent elements (reflexives);

bound by a DP within the binding domain
(15b) Fred hurt himself

- PRINCIPLE B: interpretation of pronouns; not bound within the binding domain

(15a) Fred admires him
(15b) Fred hurt himself

- PRINCIPLE C: interpretation of R-expressions; never bound

(15e) he expected Fred to feel a little better

3
 the notion of binding domain
 binding theory, DP types and their defining features (Chomsky 1982, 78-89)
(16) DP types N features
A reciprocals and reflexives [+anaphor], [-pronominal]
B pronouns [-anaphor], [+pronominal] overt DPs
C R-expressions [-anaphor], [-pronominal]
??? [+anaphor], [+pronominal]

 control theory: the [+anaphor, +pronominal] category

- a fourth category within the DP typology: PRO
(17) NULL DP: PRO [+anaphor], [+pronominal]
 [+ anaphor]: bound within its binding domain
 [+ pronominal]: free within its binding domain
 element that lacks a binding domain (no principles A & B)

- syntactically active BUT no overt manifestation (Giorgi & Longobardi 1991,

Haegeman & Guéron 1999)
(18) a. [ PRO to abandon the investigation ] would be regrettable
b. [ PRO to identify oneself here ] would be wrong

- PRO and control: specific referent or arbitrary reading

(19) a. Fredi is considering [ whether PROi to abandon the investigation ]
b. Fredi needed a lot of courage [ PROi to abandon the investigation ]
c. Fredi was glad [ PROi to abandon the investigation ]

d. [ PROarb to abandon the investigation ] would be regrettable

e. [ PROarb to identify oneself here ] would be wrong

TABLE 1. Distribution and interpretation of DP types in clauses

BINDING THEORY
overt  anaphors [+anaphor], [-pronominal] principle A
(reflexives & reciprocals)
 pronouns [-anaphor], [+pronominal] principle B
 R-expressions [-anaphor], [-pronominal] principle C
CONTROL THEORY
null  PRO [+anaphor], [+pronominal]
English grammar III-A & B, handout 2
4
1.2. THE VERB AND ITS INTERNAL ARGUMENTS

1.2.1. The lexical and the functional levels: VP, IP, CP

 1 lexical level: VP
 2 functional levels:
- IP: in charge of internal relationships within the clause (e.g. S-V agreement)
- CP: in charge of external relationships of the clause with the rest of the
linguistic context (e.g. emphasis, wh-movement)

(20)
CP

C IP

I VP
spec V’

V (…)

[+/- wh] [3rd ps] he wore (a tie that he bought in Italy)

[+/- focus] [past]

1.2.2. The typology of internal arguments (objects, complements & adjuncts)

 subject obligatory
 verb obligatory
- direct and indirect object with transitive VV; non-correferential with SU
- subject and object complement with copular or linking VV; correferential with SU
- adverbial/adjunct obligatory or (optional)

1.3. SENTENTIAL PATTERNS: THE VERB AND ITS ARGUMENTS

 copulative patterns SVC, SVA
 intransitive pattern SV
 transitive patterns - mono-transitive SVO
- di-transitive SVOO
[- complex-transitive SVOA, SVOC] SVOSC
 the form-function interface
- SU DP, PP, AdjP, AdvP, finite & nonfinite clauses (with or without a SU of its own)
- Oi DP, PP, wh-clause
- adjuncts AdvPs, PPs, DP, finite & nonfinite clauses (with or without a SU of its own)
5
 PATTERN
(21) linguistics is an interesting subject
(22) Ballack took the last penalty
(23) the teacher gave the students a homework assignment
(24) he is a student of English and looks tired this morning
(25) they left the door open
(26) Sheena went to Turkey with two of her friends last year
(27) they will be in the airport in 10 minutes
(28) the children in the park put the book on the bench
(29) the butcher cut the meat
(30) Mary beat the metal flat

2. HOW THE SENTENCE IS ORGANIZED: THEMATIC THEORY AND CASE THEORY

 thematic roles and syntactic cases

- thematic roles (theta-roles; θ-roles): semantic relations
- syntactic cases: syntactic relations

- theta-roles and case assigners: Vs and Ps theta-mark and Case-mark DPs

- theta-roles and case receivers: DPs are theta-marked and Case-marked by Vs or Ps

- locality and adjacency: relationship between a head and its specifier or its
complement (spec-head agreement or government)
- theta-roles and cases are assigned under locality/adjacency conditions:
assigners & receivers have to be close

2.1. THETA-THEORY
 pioneering work: Gruber (1965), Fillmore (1968) and Jackendoff (1972)
 terminology: semantic roles, thematic roles or theta-roles (-roles)
 -criterion: each argument bears one and only one -role, and each -role is
assigned to one and only one argument (Chomsky 1981: 36)
English grammar III-A & B, handout 2
6
 - agent: the animate initiator or 'doer' of some action or event who is capable
of acting with volition
(31) a. we played football in the park
b. they were welcomed by their friends

- experiencer: the animate being inwardly affected by an action or event but

who is not in control of it
(32) a. he felt ill
b. he annoys me with his questions

- recipient/beneficiary: the role which an object receives or for which an

action is performed
(33) a. I baked her a cake
b. he gave me a letter for Hilda

- patient = animate / theme = inanimate: the being or thing that is affected

by the action or event or that is simply present in it
(34) a. lightning hit the boy
b. I gave her the knife
c. I hit the robber with a hammer

- force/cause: things or forces that are considered to initiate actions, such as

hitting, running or driving, but which, unlike animals and humans, have no
volition
(35) a. lightning struck the boy
b. his questions annoy me

- instrument: the means by which something is done, most explicitly, the

thing used to achieve some end
(36) a. I hit the robber with a hammer
b. this key opens the door

- source: the place or direction from which something moves

(37) I walked home from the stadium

- path: the route by which something goes

(38) I walked home from the stadium along the river

- goal: the direction to which something goes

(39) a. I walked home
b. he carried the bag to the car

- location: the place in which something is situated or takes place

(40) a. they sat at home
b. the house smells funny
7
 - temporal time (point or period): when an action or event takes place
(41) we went home from the party late at night

- possessor: a special kind of locative relation

(42) a. the car belongs to him
b. a man with a yellow sports car
(Callies 2003)

 -roles and the semantic properties of VV

(43) a. Mary fell over
b. they hit John
c. Anne felt happy
d. Anne got Martha a present
e. Mary went home

 DPs with no -role: expletives or pleonastics

(44) a. it rained
b. it snowed
c. it hailed
d. it is likely that Bob left

2.2. CASE-THEORY (Chomsky 1980, Belletti 1988, Haegeman 1994, Haegeman & Guéron 1999)
 the Case filter: an overt DP can only be interpreted if it is identified by Case
(45) a. *John is envious Mary
b. John is envious of Mary
A FOUR-WAY CLASSIFICATION
 syntactic Cases [1/4]
- nominative
(46) Mary/she stayed a week at the seaside
- accusative
(47) Mary resembles her mother/her
- genitive
(48) Mary’s/her daughter married Paul
- dative
(49) I gave some to him
- ablative
(50) They went home
- partitive
(51) there could have been an accident
English grammar III-A & B, handout 2
8
  syntactic Cases and syntactic function
- subject of finite sentences
(52) a. he attacked the robber

- subject of non-finite sentences

(52) b. for him to attack the robber would be surprising

 morphological Case and abstract Case [2/4]

- pronouns
(53) a. I / me / my
b. who / who(m) / whose
- nouns and the Saxon genitive
(54) a. Marc / Marc / Marc’s
b. the man / the man / the man’s

 objective versus oblique Case: Vs versus Ps [3/4]

(55) a. fetch him!
b. fetch one for him
c. for the butler to attach the robber would be surprising

 inherent Case and structural Case: the double object construction [4/4]
accusative Case: structural Case (lost under passivization)
inherent Case (not lost under passivization)
(56) a. I gave John a book [2 DPs]
Acc Acc
structural inherent
b. John was given a book
Nom Acc

AND … IN SEARCH FOR CASE … MOVEMENT THEORY!

9
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aarts, B. 1992 Small clauses in English. Mouton.
Aarts, B. 2001 English syntax and argumentation. Palgrave Macmillan.
Aarts, B. and A. McMahon 2006 The handbook of English linguistics. Blackwell.
Ballard, K. 2001 The frameworks of English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Biber, D. et al. 1999 Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
Borsley, R. 1999 Syntactic theory. Arnold.
Boskovic, Z. and H. Lasnik 2007 Minimalist syntax. Blackwell.
Brown, K. and J. Miller 1991 Syntax: a linguistic introduction to sentence structure.
HarperCollins.
Carnie, A. 2007 Syntax. A generative introduction. Blackwell.
Carter, R. et al. 2000 Exploring grammar in context. CUP.
Contreras, H. 1987 Small clauses in English and Spanish. Natural language and
linguistic theory. 5. 225-243.
Contreras, H. 1991 On the position of subjects. Syntax and semantics. 25. 63-79.
Finch, G. 1999 Linguistics terms and concepts. Palgrave Macmillan.
Finch, G., J. Peck and M. Coyle 2003 How to study linguistics. Palgrave Macmillan.
Garrudo Carabias, F. 1991/1996 Diccionario sintáctico del verbo inglés. Ariel.
Giorgi, A. and G. Longobardi 1991 The syntax of noun phrases. CUP.
Haegeman, L. and J. Guéron 2002 English grammar: a generative perspective. Blackwell.
Huddleston, R. and G.K. Pullum 2002 The Cambridge grammar of the English language.
CUP.
Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche 1991 The position of subjects. Lingua. 85. 211-
258.
Lambrecht, K. 1994 Information structure and sentence form. CUP.
Longacre, R. 1985 Sentences as combinations of clauses. T. Shopen (ed.) Language
typology and syntactic description: complex constructions. Vol. II. CUP.
McCawley, J. 1998 The syntactic phenomena of English. University of Chicago Press.
Quirk, R. et al. 1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
Radford, A. 1988 Transformational grammar: a first course. CUP.
Radford, A. 1999 Linguistics. An introduction. CUP.
Seppänen, A., S. Granath and J. Herriman 1995 On the so-called “formal”
subjects/objects and “real” subjects/objects. Studia neophilologica. 67. 11-19.
Sornicola, R. 1996 Topic, focus and word order. K. Brown and J. Miller (eds.)
Concise encyclopedia of syntactic theories. Pergamon.
Trask, R. 1998 Key concepts in language and linguistics. Routledge.
Valin, R. van 2001 An introduction to syntax. CUP.
Verspoor, M. and K. Sauter 2000 English sentence analysis. An introductory course. John
Benjamins.
Wardhaugh, R. 1997 Understanding English grammar. A linguistic approach. Blackwell.
Williams, E. 1994 Thematic structure in syntax. MIT Press.

English grammar III-A & B, handout 2

10