PROVING UNGRAMMATICALITY

THROUGH BRACKETING

OBJECTIVE: To enable students to

prove sentence faults through
bracketing

Tuesday, November 21, 2023

-Fourth Written Test... GROUP 01 GROUP 02

…….20%...........01/12/2023………01/12/2023

-Homework Assignments/Pop Quizzes/ In-class

activities.....20%.....04/12/2023…..04/12/2023
Diagnostic Test
 Sentence Fragments

A statement that begins with a capital

letter and ends with a period is a
fragment if it does not have a subject
and/or a finite(main) verb.

[S [NPØ][VP]] [.]
[S [NP][VP]] [.]
→
[S [NP ][VPØ]] [.]
Margaret missing the first bus.

[S [NP ][VP]] [.] → [S [NP][VPØ]] [.]

[S [NP Margaret [PPP missing [NP the

first bus]]] [VP Ø ]] [.]

[S [NP Margaret] [VP is missing [NP the

first bus]]] [.]
[S [NP Margaret] [VP missed [NP the first
bus]]] [End mark.]

[S [NP Margaret] [VP will miss [NP the

first bus]]] [End mark.]

[S [NP Margaret] [VP has missed [NP the

first bus]]] [End mark.]

[S [NP Margaret] [VP is going to miss [NP

the first bus]]] [End mark.]
 When he is nervous.

[SubC [SubConj [S [NP] [VP]]] [.] → [S [NP] [VP]] [.]

[SubC [SubConj When] [S [NP he] [VP is

[AdjP nervous]]]] [End mark.]

[S [NP He] [VP is [AdjP nervous]]] [End

mark.]
Where are Riff and Raff those cats won’t
come when I call them.

Where are Riff and Raff? Those cats

won’t come when I call them.
Riff

are

and

W
Raff

he
(Ø)

r e
cats will come
no
tho

t
se

I call
w
he
n
Riff

are

and

W
Raff

he
(Ø)

er
cats will come
no
tho

wh
t
se

en
I call
[S [S [NP [NP Riff] [Conj and] [NP Raff]] [VP
are [Adv Where]]] [End mark Ø] [S [NP those
cats][VP will [Adv not] come [SubC
[SubConj] [S [NP I] [VP call [NP them]]]]]]] [.]

Every sentence should begin with a

capital letter and should be
followed by an end mark.

End marks → [.], [!], [?]

[S [NP [NP Riff] [Conj and] [NP Raff]]
[VP are [Adv Where]]] [End mark ?]
[S [NP Those cats] [VP will [Adv not]
come [SubC [SubConj when] [S [NP
I] [VP call [NP them]]]]]] [End mark.]

Sentences should never be run

together without the proper
punctuation.
 Riff

are

and

W
Raff

he
r e
SEPARATE
SENTENCES

cats will come

Th

no
os

wh
en
e

I call them
 COMMA SPLICE

Last year we spent our vacation in

Pennsylvania, this summer we plan to
drive through the Southwest.
 Last year we spent our vacation in
Pennsylvania, this summer we plan to
drive through the Southwest.

we spent vacation

ou
in
year Pennsylvania

r
,
La
st

to drive

th r
ou
Southwest
gh

th
we plan

e
summer
th
is
Last year we spent our vacation in
Pennsylvania, this summer we plan to
drive through the Southwest.

[S [S [NP we] [VP spent [NP our vacation]

[NP Last year] [PP in [NP Pennsylvania]]]]
[Conj ,] [S [NP we] [VP plan [InfP to drive
[PP through [NP the Southwest]]] [NP this
summer]]]] [End mark .] (COMMA
SPLICE)

The comma should never take the place of

an end mark.
[S [NP we] [VP spent [NP our vacation]
[NP Last year] [PP in [NP Pennsylvania]]]]
[End mark .] [S [NP We] [VP plan [InfP to
drive [PP through [NP the Southwest]]]
[NP this summer]]] [End mark .]

[S [S [NP we][VP spent [NP our vacation]

[NP Last year][PP in [NP Pennsylvania]]]]
[Conj ;] [S [NP we] [VP plan [InfP to drive
[PP through [NP the Southwest]]] [NP this
summer]]]] [End mark .]
[S [S [NP we] [VP spent [NP our vacation]
[NP Last year] [PP in [NP Pennsylvania]]]]
[Comma ,] [CC but [S [NP we] [VP plan [InfP
to drive [PP through [NP the Southwest]]]
[NP this summer]]]] [End mark .]

[S [S [NP we] [VP spent [NP our vacation]

[NP Last year] [PP in [NP Pennsylvania]]]]
[Semicolon ;] [ConjAdv however] [Comma
,] [S [NP we] [VP plan [InfP to drive [PP
through [NP the Southwest]]] [NP this
summer]]]] [End mark .]
[S [NP we] [VP spent [NP our vacation]
[NP Last year] [PP in [NP Pennsylvania]]]]
[Period .] [ConjAdv However] [Comma ,] [S
[NP we] [VP plan [InfP to drive [PP through
[NP the Southwest]]] [NP this summer]]]
[End mark .]
 Misplaced Modifiers

We listened to the bird on our windowsill that chirp merrily.

We listened to the bird on our windowsill that chirp merrily.

[S [NP We] [VP listened [PP to [NP the bird [PP on [NP our
windowsill [S [NP that] [VP chirped [AdvP merrily]]]]]]]] [.]
+Noun
+Common
-Animate
Prepositional phrase (Adv) preposing/
fronting TR
[S [PP On [NP our windowsill]], [NP we] VP
listened [PP to [NP the bird [S [NP that] [VP
chirped [AdvP merrily]]]]]] +Noun
+Common
+Animate
-Human

The verb “chirp” requires a [+Animate]

and [-Human] subject.
 Dangling Modifiers

Dialing Sylvia’s number, the last digit escaped my memory.

Dialing Sylvia’s number, the last digit escaped my memory.

-Stative +Noun
+Durative +Common
+telic -Animate
+Voluntary
[S [NP [PPP Dialing [NP Sylvia’s number]],
the last digit]] [VP escaped [NP my
memory]]] [End mark .]

-Stative
+Durative
+telic
+Voluntary

[S [NP [PPP Dialing [NP Sylvia’s number]], I][VP

forgot [NP the last digit]]] [End mark .] +Noun
+Common
+Animate
+human
 ADVANCED GRAMMAR

Friday, December 11, 2020

Group 01
Group 02

OBJECTIVE: To enable students to prove

sentence faults through bracketing
 Squinting Modifiers

Reading often relaxes me.

Reading often relaxes me.

[S [GerP Reading [AdvP often]] [VP relaxes [NP me]]] [.]

[S [GerP Reading] [VP [AdvP often] relaxes [NP me]]] [.]

 Adverb fronting
Transformation Rule

[S [AdvP Often][,] [GerP Reading] [VP relaxes [NP me]]] [.]

[S [AdvP Often] [,] [GerP Reading] VP relaxes [NP me]]] [.]

[S [NP It] [VP relaxes [NP me] [InfP to jog [AdvP often]]]] [.]
 Lack of Parallelism

Either they obey the manager or get fired.

Either they obey the manager or get fired.

 [S [CConj Either] [S [NP they] [VP obey [NP the
manager]]] [CConj or] [VP get [AdjP fired]]] [.]

Either … or …

[S [NP they] [VP obey [VP get [AdjP fired]]]

[NP the manager]]]
[S [CorConj Either] [S [NP they] [VP obey [NP
the manager]]] [CorConj or] [S [NP they] [VP
get [AdjP fired]]]] [.]

[S [NP They] [VP [CorConj either] [VP obey

[NP the manager]] [CorConj or] [VP get [AdjP
fired]]]] [.]
they obey manager

th
e
Independent

Eit
Clause
he
r…
or

they get fired

Independent
Clause
 obey manager

th
e
either
They

or get fired

Compound
predicate
Joel was determined in his mind to lose
weight.

[S [NP Joel] [VP was [AdjP determined [PP in

[NP his mind]] [InfP to lose [NP weight]]]]] [.]

[PP in [NP his mind]→ Ø Unnecessary

words
deleted

[S [NP Joel] [VP was [AdjP determined [InfP

to lose [NP weight]]]]] [.]
 Joel was determined in his mind to lose
weight. (Wordy)

Joel was determinedØto lose weight.

(Concise)

Definition of determined
1 : having reached a decision : firmly
resolved
//was determined to become a pilot
//is determined not to let it happen again
 Every student in favor of the legalization of
marijuana was asked to write their names
on a master ditto sheet. [Shift in number]

[S [NP Every student [PP in [NP favor [PP of

[NP the legalization [PP of [NP marijuana]]]]]]]
[VP was asked [InfP to write [NP their names]
[PP in [NP a ditto sheet]]]]] [.]

he + -‘s → his
Every student his or her
she + -‘s → her
[S [NP All students [PP in [NP favor [PP of [NP
the legalization [PP of [NP marijuana]]]]]]]
[VP were asked [InfP to write [NP their
names] [PP in [NP a ditto sheet]]]]] [.]

All students → they + ‘s (r) → their

In theoretical linguistics, a speaker's
judgement on the well-formedness of a
linguistic utterance — called
a grammaticality judgement — is based on
whether the sentence is produced and
interpreted in accordance with the rules
and constraints of the relevant grammar.
If the rules and constraints of the particular
language are followed then the sentence is
considered to be grammatical. In contrast, an
ungrammatical sentence is one that violates
the rules of the given language.
 Criteria that determine grammaticality:

According to Chomsky, a speaker's

grammaticality judgement is based on two
factors:

1. A speaker's linguistic competence, which is the

knowledge that they have of their language,
allows them to easily judge whether a sentence is
grammatical or ungrammatical based
on intuitive introspection. For this reason, such
judgments are sometimes called introspective
grammaticality judgments.

2. The context in which the sentence was

uttered.
 Criteria that don't determine grammaticality:

In his study of grammaticality in the 1950s,

Chomsky identified three criteria which cannot be
used to determine whether or not a sentence is
grammatical.

1. Whether or not the sentence is included in

a corpus

2. Whether or not the sentence is meaningful

3. Whether or not the sentence is statistically

probable
To illustrate this point, Chomsky created the
nonsensical sentence in (1), which does not occur
in any corpus, is not meaningful, and is not
statistically probable. However, the form of this
sentence is judged to be grammatical by many
native speakers of English.
Such grammaticality judgments reflect the fact
that the structure of sentence (1) obeys the rules
of English grammar. This can be seen by
comparing sentence (1) with sentence (2). Both
sentences have the same structure, and both are
grammatically well-formed.

(1) Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. (Chomsky

1957: 17)
(2) Harmless young children sleep quietly.
 grammatical
ungrammatical acceptable

Acceptability is different from

grammaticality.
 “Grammaticality” or “acceptability” judgments?

The notion “acceptable” is not to be

confused with “grammatical.” Acceptability
is a concept that belongs to the study of
performance, whereas grammaticalness
belongs to the study of competence

(Chomsky 1965: 11)

41
It is assumed that a native speaker’s grammar
generates grammatical strings and that the
speaker also has the ability to judge whether this
string is acceptable in that language.

Lyons 1968 defines grammaticality as "that part of

the acceptability of utterances which can be
accounted for in terms of the rules," a criterion
that complements acceptability
for semantic soundness.
Grammaticality is defined by what a particular

grammar can have as its output, while

acceptability is speaker-oriented and depends

upon what speakers will consider appropriate.

However, there are still modern linguists who side
with the more traditional categorical interpretation
of grammaticality, such as Sprouse
(2007). Speakers' judgments of the well-
formedness of sentences form a continuous
spectrum.

While many grammaticality judgments are

categorical — with a given sentence judged as
either 'grammatical' or 'ungrammatical'—there are
a large number of sentences that fall in a grey area

of partial acceptability.
According to Jon Sprouse (2007) the difference
between grammaticality and acceptability is just
that: grammatical knowledge is categorical,
whereas acceptability is a gradient scale.

The acceptability of a sentence is often reported

in a variety of terms including acceptable,
marginally acceptable, unacceptable.
 Frequency affects acceptability:

Acceptability is about the performance of

speakers, that is, the actual use of her language in
concrete situations.

As stressed by Chomsky, acceptability does not

mean grammaticality: while an acceptable
sentence must be grammatical, a grammatical
sentence does not need to be acceptable.
 Gradient Grammaticality

Early on in the history of transformational-

generative grammar, Chomsky (1961) gave a
possible account of the issue of gradient
grammaticality in terms of a categorial hierarchy.
At the top of this hierarchy is the
all-encompassing category which Word (top)
might be called Word.

A second level would contain N and V

preterminal categories such as
N and V, …

…while a third could contain

subcategories like Nacc or
Nacc or Vtrans
Vtrans.
According to Chomsky’s account, a sentence’s
“degree of grammaticalness” corresponds to
the lowest level in this hierarchy at which the
sentence could be represented (where full
grammaticality would be the bottom-most level
and full ungrammaticality the top-most).
For instance, consider the following sentences
with their corresponding levels of representation
(assuming a hierarchy like that described here):

1) a. She loves him. [Nnom Vtrans Nacc]

b. *She loves he. [N V N]
c. **She loves the. [Word Word Word]

(1a) is a perfectly normal English sentence, in

which a transitive verb is preceded by a
nominative-marked noun and followed by an
accusative-marked noun.
When the accusative noun is replaced by a
nominative one in (1b), however, we find an
unacceptable word order for an English
sentence, [Nnom Vtrans Nnom], and need to
abstract up one level in the hierarchy, giving
the representation [N V N].

b. *She loves he. [N V N]

Since [N V N] is an acceptable pattern for an
English sentence, this sentence is
representable at the second level of the
hierarchy and might be said to have a single
degree of ungrammaticality (indicated here
by one star).

b. *She loves he. [N V N]

With a determiner in place of the latter noun, (1c)
is still worse; even its second-level
representation, [N V D], is unacceptable. Thus
the only acceptable way of representing this
sentence is at the top-most level, as [Word Word
Word].

c. **She loves the. [Word Word Word]

• Unfortunately, this approach not only demands a
questionable extension to the grammatical
formalism, but it is also unsatisfying.

With only the simple sentences in (1), one can

already think of variations at levels other than that
described above: ‘Her love he.’ is worse than (1b)
but still representable as [N V N].

‘The the the.’ is worst of all but shares the [Word

Word Word] representation of (1c), and so on.
 [Trans Ex For example], [S [NP [NP me*]
[Conj and] [NP my friend [NP Jack*]]]
[VPwent [PP into [NP a local supermarket]]
[IP to get [NP refreshments [PP for [NP a
party]]]] [NP last Saturday]]] [.]

a. WW → N V → Nacc Vi

b. [NP [NP₁ I] [Conj and] [NP₂ my friend [NP₃ jack]]]

→[NP [NP₂ my friend [NP₃ jack]] [Conj and] [NP₁ I]]

c. [NP₂ my friend [NP₃ jack*]

[NP₃ jack*] = [-Common]→ [NP₃ Jack*]
REFERENCES

Maclin, A. (2001). Reference Guide to English A Handbook of English as a Second Language.

En Reference Guide to English A Handbook of English as a Second Language.
Washington DC.
QITMAN TROYKA, L., & NUDELMAN, J. (1986). STEPS IN COMPOSITION. En STEPS IN
COMPOSITION. NEW YORK: PRENTICE HALL.
Laurel J. Brinton. (1984). The Structure of Modern English. John Benjamins
Publishing Company. University of Columbia.