Patricia Hernández Rodríguez Modelos y Paradigmas.

TESTS FOR CONSTITUENCY:

Use the constituency tests from Van Valin’s paper ‘Constituent Structures’ to show whether
the elements underlined are (not) constituents.

(a) My new neighbour has very strange habits

Substitution: *He very strange habits. There is no single pro-form that can replace the
combination of noun and verb phrases that occurs within the proposed constituent. You could
use a pro-form to replace the NP my new neighbour, like he, which suggests that it is indeed a
constituent. However, you couldn’t replace the single verb has in the same way: you would
have to replace the verb plus its complements, that is, the entire VP: My new neighbour did.

Permutation: If we reformulate the sentence with a cleft structure, it would render an

ungrammatical result: *It was my new neighbour has who very strange habits. Interestingly,
preposing the noun would make the elements of the constituent appear adjacent to each other:
Very strange habits are the ones my new neighbour has. But that doesn’t mean that they are
necessarily a constituent.

Coordination: *My new neighbour has and her older cousin gives.

Having failed all three tests, we can determine that this is not a constituent. Interestingly
enough, it seems to pass the stand-alone test: Who has weird habits? My new neighbour has.
This is why Van Valin recommends running all possible constituency tests on potential
constituents, since using just one may render false results like the previous one.

(b) I needed to complain about our working conditions

Substitution: I needed that.

Permutation: To complain about our working conditions is what I needed.

Coordination: I needed to complain about our working conditions and to make sure we
reached an agreement.

The proposed constituent is indeed valid, since it passes all three tests by Van Valin.
Additionally, it also passes the stand-alone test: Why did you go to the o ce for? To complain
about our working conditions.

x
ffi