Syntax and Semantics of the English Verb Phrase 9783110909050, 9789027907455

Citation preview

SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF THE ENGLISH VERB PHRASE

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA edenda curat

C. H. VAN S C H O O N E V E L D INDIANA UNIVERSITY

S E R I E S PRACTICA 112

1970

MOUTON THE HAGUE • PARIS

SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF THE ENGLISH VERB PHRASE by

MICHAEL GRADY

1970

MOUTON THE HAGUE • PARIS

© Copyright 1970 in The Netherlands. Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague. No part of this booh may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

L I B R A R Y OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD N U M B E R : 76-118277

PRINTED IN HUNGARY

PREFACE

This present work was first completed as a monograph and submitted to the publishers, Mouton and Co., the Hague. Later, and with the knowledge presented of its genesis, it was offered as a dissertation for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy in linguistics at Stanford University. I wish to express my thanks to Charles Ferguson, Chairman of the Committee on Linguistics at Stanford, and to the Committee itself, for making the latter submission possible. The members of my Reading Committee at Stanford, Robert W. Ackerman, Joseph H. Greenberg, and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, offered valuable advice in the preparation of the dissertation form, some incorporated herein, and where the present version is lacking, they must not be assumed to be responsible; my errors are my own. I dedicate the work most of all to my wife, Naomi, for her patience in reading proofs of our other volumes while I labored on the doctorate — and for reassuring our children, Sean and Anne, that Poppa would be able to play with them again some day. To my parents, Mr. and Mrs. C. W. Grady, and to my Aunt, Mrs. Pauline Brassfield, I owe special thanks, for various kinds of support and encouragement.

CONTENTS

Preface

5

1. Introduction

9

2. Infinitive Meta-Verbs

18

3. -ing Meta-Verbs

23

4. -en Meta-Verbs

29

5. Complex Forms

36

6. Summary Grammar

and Conclusions

Concerning

English

'Verb-Phrase' 39

7. 'Verb-Phrase' Semantics

41

8. The Order of 'Orders' and Their Glosses

45

9. The Order of Grammatical Classes

47

10. Descriptive Grid of Semantic Verb-Phrases

49

11. Grammar-Semantic Equivalences

58

12. Semantic-Grammar Equivalences

64

13. Derivational Rules for '/-subject' Semantic Verb-Phrases Absolute Phrases

and 69

14. Suggested Semantic Transforms

74

15. Conclusion

76

Terminological Index

80

Bibliography

82

1 INTRODUCTION

The chief concern of this paper is with the verb phrase in English. The work reanalyzes the verb phrase and shows that in it two systems are at work, the semantic and the syntactic (or grammatical), whose interrelation has been insufficiently understood. As a result of the reanalysis, we see that the infinitive and participial forms of the 'verb' are NOT verbal in their external function; elements other than the tense-bearer in what are presently called 'verb' phrases are best seen as standing in the position of object or complement to the true verb (the tense-bearer). We see also that the external grammar of the non-finite part of the auxiliary-verb construction (infinitives and participles) is nominal, as the result of nominalizations of partial strings; that the concept 'verb' in English is best restricted to the tense-bearer alone; and t h a t modals, be, and have are best seen as verbs, not as separate formclasses. These concepts, by use of the technique of labeled bracketing, may be illustrated as follows:

1.01

Xj X 2 x3 x4 I may have been talking

1.02

Sentence [

Ns I

V N0bj V N0bj V N"comp V Sentence may [ have [ been [ talking ]]] ]

We consider X x (may) as the sole true verb as to external function, with its object being the nominalized set X 2 - X 3 - X 4 (have been talking). The argument is that the headword of the set (have) is infinitive, and that an infinitive is a nominalization; this same argument will hold for -en and -ing participial forms: that they are nominalizations. Within the set (have been talking), (been talking) functions as the object to the pre-nominalized verbal function of (have). Within the set (been talking), (talking) is a nominalization, functioning as the complement of the, pre-nominalized, verbal function of (been).

10

INTRODUCTION 1.1

The basis underlying the above concepts is first, that a semantic SYSTEM is an element of language, and that although such a system is closely related to the syntactic system and the morphological system of language, it may be treated as separate for the purpose of analyzing specific forms. Second, that the transformational notation (i.e., rewrite rules and transformational rules) introduced by Noam Chomsky in Syntactic Structures1 and later extended and modified by him and others, may be used to present a point of view that differs from that of the so-called 'M.I.T. School'.2 This point may seem essentially trivial to some, but it is not so. For this present paper is in a sense largely concerned with what some current transformationalists might call 'surface grammar', as opposed to the now-current 'deep-level' grammar of works such as Lakoff, 3 Katz and Postal, 4 Chomsky,5 etc. To the extent, then, that this present work is 'transformational' it is so in utilizing the notation conventions of Syntactic Structures to express interrelationships of a sort that are not classifiable under the rubric 'deep level'. The reason why we are not here concerned with 'deep-level' relations in the verb phrase is simple: the surface grammar of these phrases has been misunderstood or misanalyzed enough that some effort should be spent on clarifying that surface before moving on to the more general and abstracts units which underlie it. Indeed, it may be argued that unless we have a reasonable grasp of surface relationships to begin with, any attempt to discover deep underlying structure may be impossible, or subject to confusion. Of course later work on deep-level semantics, within the system I propose, may well change the surface'mappings' here. One must start somewhere, however, and I choose to start on the 'surface'. It is important to return to the concept of the semantic SYSTEM of language. The present author takes the view that there is such an entity, and that it may be more than a mere lexicon to be projected onto basic syntactic structures. The sort of study I propose, of the semantic SYSTEM, might well be called SEMANTAX or SEMANTACTICS, a blending of 'semantics' with the formants -tax or -tactics meaning 'arrangement(s)'. Before the author introduces his

I

The Hague, 1964. I believe that this term has been in some contexts used derisively, but I do not intend its use in that sense here. I t merely refers to the body of linguistic work largely instituted and influenced by N o a m Chomsky and his colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the development of similar ideas elsewhere. 3 George Lakoff, On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity (Cambridge, Mass., 1964). 4 Jerrold J. Katz and Paul M. Postal, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions (Cambridge, Mass., 1964). 6 N o a m Chomsky. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, Mass., 1965). • I

INTRODUCTION

11

own viewpoint, however, it is perhaps relevant to sketch for the general reader the assumptions of the M.I.T. School about the semantic component of language.® 1.2 The Semantic Component—The M.I.T.

School

In his Philosophy of Language (1966) Katz states:7 . . . the phonological and semantic components are purely interpretive systems which operate on the output of the syntactic component . . . These sets of abstracts structures are formal objects which are uninterpreted in terms of sound and meaning until the phonological and semantic components have worked on them. 8

What Katz, and most of the others in the M.I.T. School argue for is a model of language in which the syntactic component is basic, its structures being realized semantically and phonologically. In the book from which the above quotation is taken, Katz presents a diagram of the model (p. 150):

The syntactic component in such a model consists of a lexicon and projection rules (possibly only one) which assign 'readings', or semantic interpretations, to the base syntactic forms. One may roughly think of the system thus: the syntactic component generates the 'slots', and the lexicon presents the 'slot-fillers'. The actual operation of such a grammar, however, is a great deal more sophisticated and complex than this recourse to Descriptive terminology suggests. A lexical entry, for example, is structured in such a way that the 'slots' it may fill are a great deal more specified than in a normal Descriptive sentence-pattern privilege-of-occurrence frame. 6 The reader wishing to turn to the original sources should look at the works of Lakoff, Katz and Postal, Chomsky and Halle, cited above, together with the work by Katz cited below. 7 Jerrold J. Katz, The Philosophy of Language (New York, 1966). By permission of the publishers, here and following. Harper and Row. ' It is of course true that for Katz and Postal, the syntactic component phrase-markers include certain semantic notions such as S U B J E C T , COMPLEMENT, etc. But these notions are not stressed in their presentation, while a major portion of the present work is concerned with a taxonomy of semantics that interrelates with the syntactic system. Also, more recent works are not so lexically oriented as Katz and Postal.

12

INTRODUCTION

The normal form is as follows: first, the phonological (or orthographical) representation of the word, then an arrow, then a set of syntactic markers, and finally, n strings of symbols, which we call L E X I C A L R E A D I N G S . Each reading will consist of a set of symbols which we call S E M A N T I C M A R K E R S , and a complex symbol which we call a S E L E C T I O N RESTRICTION . . .

(p.

154)

bachelor -«- N, N1

Nk;

(i) (Physical Object), (Living), (Human), (Male), (Adult), (Never Married); . (ii) (Physical Object), (Living), (Human), (Young), (Knight), (Serving under the standard of another);

. (iii) (Physical academic years of (iv) (Physical (Without

Object), (Living), (Human), (Having the degree for the completion of the first four college); • to -(- run -f aux -{- be + fun (will result in (2.601) above) I +

aux +

like +

SOMETHING ( + SOMETHING -f- aux +

be +

t o -f- r u n )

=>• I + aux -f- like + to + run (will result in (2.602) above) I +

a u x + tell +

HIM + SOMETHING ( + SOMETHING -F a u x -F- be -F t o

+

go) => I -f aux -f- tell + hi m + to -f- go (will result in (2.603) above) If we care to omit "SOMETHING", we can establish a more general formula: 2.61 N , ( + Noo + aux + be + to + X ) =* to +

X

In other words, is void until the actual infinitive is embedded from the constituent. The symbol N M is itself the 'place-holder' instead of the equally arbitrary, but perhaps less flexible and more vague 'SOMETHING'. Of course any other 'dummy' symbol would work as well here, but N „ recalls the argument we are concerned with, that infinitives are essentially external nominals.

2.7 External grammar of infinitive phrases 2.701 I told him to go to town 2.702 She told him to leave her alone 2.703 He asked her to send him a letter To develop these sentences, we have to hypothesize that the external grammar of verb phrases may be nominalized by the casting of the phrase into the infinitive form. 2.71 X + be + N „ ( + Y + V + Z ) = > X + be + io + V + Z

INFINITIVE META-VERBS

21

Thus: I + aux + tell -f him + N„ ( + N „ + aux + be + N„ ( + Y -f aux + go + to + town)) => I + aux + tell + him + N . ( + N „ + aux -f- be + to -j- go + to + town) =>• I + aux -f- tell + him -f to + go + to -f- town (will result in (2.701) above) She -f aux + tell + him + N« ( + N « + aux + be + N . ( + Y + aux + leave + her -(- alone)) =• She -f- aux + tell -f him -)- N„ (-f-N„ -f- aux -f- be + to + leave + her -j- alone) => She + aux + tell him -(- to + leave -)- her -f- alone (will result in (2.702) above) He + aux -f ask + her + N„ ( + N „ + aux + be + N „ ( + Y + aux + send + him + a + letter) ) => He + aux + ask + her -)- N „ ( + N«, -f aux + be -)- to -f- send -fhim + a + letter) => He -(- aux + ask -f her -)- to -)- send + him -(- a + letter 2.8

The concepts expressed in (2.61) and (2.71) can be expressed unitarily as: 2.81 N „ ( + N„ + aux + be + N„ ( + X + V ( + Y) ) ) =• (to) + V ( + Y) In other words, a verb or verb phrase is nominalized by the dropping of X (which, of course, includes tense), the resultant structure embedded by a species of the general embedding method. To is made optional, in the general formula, to allow for both marked and unmarked infinitives (especially as would occur after the certain such modals as discussed in (2.1) above). Also, Y is made optional, to allow either a verb or verb phrase to be seen as being nominalized by the headword being cast into infinitive form. Thus

(e.g.):

I + aux + may + N«, ( + N„ + aux + be + N„ ( + X + go)) =>• I -f- aux -f may + g° or: I + aux + be + N„ ( + X + go) => I -f aux -f- be -f~ to -f- go

22

INFINITIVE META-VERBS

2.9 Argument If we assume that infinitives are nomináis in external grammar, in all cases, then we are able to develop a general formula (2.81) which accounts for the occurrence of all such cases through a specific process, embedding, already known and accepted. When the formula is used to examine the hypothesis that meta-modal infinitives are nomináis in external grammar, we find that it proves them so. Thus, as for all such general statements, the formula is 'proved' by applying it against the facts that generated it. The result, of course, is to change our interpretation of one sort of 'verbphrase'. Sequences of MODAL (or, for that matter, have, do, and be) -{- infinitive are no longer to be seen as sequences of 'auxiliary' -f- MV, but rather as a sequence of V -f- N«,. The infinitive in English is not a verb externally, but rather a nominal.

I I I Etc.

V may V shall V ought

N. V [go] No» V Det N ] [dance -f a + dance N „ to V Adv. [ to leave + quietly]

3 -ING META-VERBS

Again, we shall assume here that meta-verbal -ing forms are essentially nominal, or resultants of nominalizations1. Such was the case historically, and we shall see the effect of so considering the external grammar of present day forms. 3.1 Modals -ing forms have null occurrence directly following modals. 3.2 Have -ing forms have null occurrence directly following forms of have. 3.3 Do -ing forms may occur after do. 3.31 I do washing 3.32 / did some singing However, these -ing forms are clear nomináis, aa marked by the some in (3.32) above, and by the fact that a passive transformation is possible for both. =>• Washing is done by me => Some singing was done 3.4 Be Be followed by an -ing form is the so-called English 'progressive' or 'durative'. In transformational terms, the sequence (be + ing) is an optional part of the auxiliary. 1

See the quotation from Jespersen, source cited in chapter 1, f.n. 12, above. See further my "On the Essential Nominalizing Function of English -ing", Linguistics 34. pp. 5 — 11.

24

-ING META-VERBS

N P + Aux I + pres

+ V -+- dance ->• I dance

N P + Aux I + pres

+ V -(- be + ing + dance —>- I am dancing

Under present grammars, then, a close relation is expressed between be and a following form with an -ing ending. The two are considered as one verbal unit, and allowance is made for expressing such unity in PS rules. However, if we change our emphasis slightly, we can see t h a t the real relationship, grammatically, is between subject and the element following be. Instead of analyzing I am dancing as: 3.41 N P + Aux + V we should analyze it rather as: 3.42 N P + Aux + be + N. i n g What is implied here is that among the classes of nominal which follow be is included that of morphs ending in ing. Immediately, be loses part of its 'special' status as an 'auxiliary' and its function becomes closer to its 'norm', that of being a linking verb. The subject is seen to be linked with the meta-verbal noun, ending in -ing, and be is — simply a verb. 3.43 External grammar of meta-verbal -ing phrases. — The above argument (3.42 et. seq.) appears incomplete if we examine sentences of the following sorts. 3.431 I am going to see the doctor 3.432 He was teaching

English

I have discussed this matter more exhaustively elsewhere (see f.n. 1), so I shall simplify the argument here. The external grammar of going to see the doctor and teaching English is nominal; indeed, the mere presence of -ing shows that essential nominality. The INTERNAL grammar of the phrases, however, varies from sentence to sentence. In (3.431), the internal grammar of the phrase is derived from a base, constituent sentence of the sort: 3.433 I go to see the doctor I n (3.432), the internal grammar of the phrase derives from a base, constituent sentence of the sort: 3.434 He taught

English

-ING META-VERBS

25

The following SCHEMA may aid in the understanding of the phenomenon, nom. V (3.431) I am

adv.

[going [to see the doctor] ]

nom. V (3.432) He was [teaching

nom. [English] ]

In other words, a frame exists in English for nominalizations by -ing similar to that presented in (2.71) above for nominalizations by infinitive-creation. 3.435 N + aux + be + N. ing ( + X + V + Y ) =• N + aux + be ( + X ) + -ing + V ( + Y ) Again, the symbol N. ing is void, as was the N „ , until after the embedding. Note the analogy between (3.435) and (2.71) also in that for the latter, the element to must be supplied in most cases as a general nominalizing marker, while in the former, the element -ing serves the function. Note also that the argument for -ing forms as nominals is strengthened by the fact that a species of passive can be made from be -f- -ing in at least some dialects of English. Active I am washing here She is dancing

Passive Washing is done here Dancing is done

The superficial sequence is probably something like the following: N P -(- tense + be + -ing + (morph) =*• -ing -+- (morph) -f tense + be + en ( + by + N P ) => -ing -f- (morph) + tense + be -f- en -f- do Note here that be is not grammatically linked directly with the -ing -f- (morph) sequence, because to create the passive, it is not necessary to supply (be + -en). The be is already present, on its own, as it were, and all that is demanded is the addition of -en. This causes a species of 'floating', and is corrected, as always, by the insertion of do. The phenomenon of this species of passive involving 'activity* verbs deserves further investigation, but even as it stands, it bolsters the argument that the so-called 'progressive' is simply be followed by a sub-class of nominal, a sub-class characterized by the historically (and presently) nominalizing ending, -ing. 3.44 External grammar of single-word -ing modifiers. — An apparent problem occurs in regularizing the grammar, however, when one considers the phrases:

26

-ING META-VERBS

3.441 a pleasing table 3.442 a rotting table 3.443 a dining table2

The -ing forms in each are presently considered, respectively, adjectival, a present-participle modifier, a noun. In actuality, all the -ing forms are equivalent in that each may follow be. (3.441) a pleasing table < the table is pleasing3 (3.442) a rotting table < the table is rotting4 (3.443) a dining table ( the table is for dining5

What is probable is that the -ing forms above are embedded, then shifted to the 'normal' English modifying position before the modified morph. The + table ( + the + table + aux + be + 2

pleasing rotting for dining

) +

Examples from: W. Nelson Francis, The Structure of American English (New York, 1958), p. 303. By permission of the publishers: Ronald Press Company, New York. 3 Note t h a t the table is pleasing is ambiguous; it could be a derivation from either the table is pleasing me (is in the act of pleasing me) or the table is pleasing to me (seems pleasing to me). The latter example involves a species of medio-passive, akin to the pure passive I am pleased by the table, both probably derived from the table pleases me. For a further, though tentative, note on the English medio-passive, see m y : "The MedioPassive Voice in Modern English" Word, X X I , 2 (August, 1965) 270—272. 4 Note t h a t in seeking the source of rotting table, we find it more natural to consider rotting a descriptive of table: table—rotting rather than to consider rotting table to a derivable: the table rots > the table is rotting > a rotting table. The rotting is not a process b u t is rather a result op process. 5 The preposition here is annoying. One may assume t h a t the external grammar of the prepositional phrase is nominalized by the addition of -ing to the headword dine (that prepositional phrases may be nominals is demonstrable by the famous "over the fence is out"). However, this begs the question : W h a t is dine doing as the object of for ? Perhaps for is simply a marker inserted to avoid the ludicrous possibility of *the table is dining, and hence as a marker is not exactly a preposition, but is rather a participant in a verb-particle construction. Alternately, we could generalize the formula given in (2.71) above to read: N -faux + be + N i n g ( ( + pre-morph(s)) + morph + (meta-morph(s))) =• N -f- aux + be + (pre-morph(s)) # -ing + morph # (+meta-morph(s)) If we do so, we still explain embeddings of portions of any ( # S # ), including phrases. A third possibility is t h a t the construction is ultimately seen as derivable from something like the table is for to dine. Here the for would be a marker, akin to t h a t hypothesized above, elst a 'real' prepostion followed by a marked infinitive. The for and to then are analyzed as mere prepositions, and the latter is dropped, but *for dine is still non-grammatical, so an -ing ending is supplied obligatorily. Thus, the din- element may be doubly nominalized by a species of popular etymology.

-TNG META-VERBS

=> The + table +

=> The +

pleasing rotting dining

pleasing rotting dining

+ •• •

27

[by embedding]

-f- table + • • •

[by position-shift]

Such a hypothecation allows the creation of meta-modifiers such as the 'poetic': 3.444 a table pleasing 3.445 a table rotting Position-shift, normally obligatory for English, has not taken place after the embedding of these forms. 3.45 External grammar of -ing phrase modifiers and 'absolute' constructions. — Some -ing phrases may occur as modifiers or in 'absolute' constructions. 3.451 Running the race, John fell 3.452 John, running the race, fell 3.453 John running the race, the crowd was excited The first two can be explained as resulting from embedding of phrases that are themselves externally nominalized by the addition of -ing to their headword. In (3.451), position-shift has occurred; in (3.452), position-shift has not occurred. John ( + John + tense + be + race) ) + tense + fall => John ( + John + tense + be + =>• John -ing + r u n + the + (will give rise to (3.452) above) or: =>• -ing run -f- the + race (will give rise to (3.451) above)

N. ing ( + John -f tense -(- run -f- the + -ing + run the + race) -(- tense + fall race -f- tense -)- fall + John -(- tense -(- fall [position-shift]

The last example, John running the race, the crowd was excited, is obviously the result of compounding two strings: 3.454 John was running the race 3.455 The crowd was excited6 6

For the derivation of the crowd was excited, as to grammatical form, see the discussion on the passive, (4.41) ff.

28

-ING META-VERBS

The string underlying (3.454) is: John + tense -f- be + N.|ng (+ John -f tense -)- run + the + race) =>• John + tense -(— be —j—ing -f- run + the + race The tense + be are deleted as part of the compounding to yield: John + -ing + run -f- the +

race

[John running the race]7

Thus, -ing phrase modifiers are understood as being nominal modifiers as are single-word -ing's. The so-called absolute exists as the result of a deletioncompounding mechanism. 3.46 Argument. — If seen as a nominalizing ending, according to the process here outlined, the function of English -ing becomes more readily understandable, and false distinctions among {-ing1}, {-ing2}, and {-ing3} no longer need trouble linguists. In addition, the simplifying of analysis of the auxiliary, begun in (2.) above is continued, and be is well on its way to regaining its true position as simply 'another' verb.

7 A sentence such as John's running the race excited the crowd is derivable from: "John's SOMETHING (SOMETHING + aux. + be + rtinning the race) excited the crowd." This and similar structures are easily explicable granted the process here envisioned.

4 -EN META-VERBS

We shall assume that grammatically -en forms are nominal in external function. 4.1 Modals -en forms have null occurrence directly following modals. 4.2 Have -en forms may follow the tenses of have, to form the so-called 'perfects' — present and past. There is no need to discuss each 'perfect' separately, the only grammatical difference between them lying in the tense difference of the have forms. Under present analysis, 'perfects' are seen as a sequence: N P 1 -f aux + have + -en + V + X thus: I -f près -f have -f- -en + dance or: She + pas + have -f- -en -f sing Indeed, the sequence (have -F- -en) is often classified as ASPECT, along with the sequence (be -{- -ing). As we have seen that (be + -ing) is not a, verbal unity, we are led to at least hypothesize that (have -f- -en), a fellow member of 'aspect' is not such a unity either; that as the -ing is not essentially linked to be, so the -en is not essentially linked to have. Following such an analogy, then, we would assign to -en a nominalizing function: 4.21 NP 1 + aux +

have +

N. en

In effect, this states that in the class nominal is thé sub-class of nouns ending in -en, and that such occur after have. This statement parallels the statement of (3.42) above: (3.42) N + aux + be + N".,,

30

-EN META-VERBS

4.22 External grammar of meta-verbal -en phrases. — To pursue our topic, we must allow for such sentences as: 4.221 He has danced the dance 4.222 She had sung before crowned heads In a manner analogous to that discussed in (3.43) above, we can state that (4.221) and (4.222) result from embeddings, the nominalization of the word or headword of the constituent S by the addition of -en, which nominalizes the whole. The general transform would be something of the sort: 4.23 N P + aux + have + N_en (X + V + Y) =• N P + aux + have + -en ( + X ) + V ( + Y ) This, however, is a temporary solution, and the ultimate source of N. e n 's will be discussed in (4.41) below. As it stands, however, it allows the generation of the sentences of (4.221) and (4.222): He + pres -)- have + N. e n (-f- he + a u x + dance -j- the -)- dance) =• He -)- pres -)- have -f- -en + dance + the dance She -f- pas + have + N. en ( + She + aux -j- sing + before + crowned + heads) => She -+- pas + have

-en -f sing -f- before + crowned -f heads

Graphically, we have: nominal-obj (4.221) He has [

(4.222) She had

V nominal-obj danced [the dance] ]

nominal-obj V adverbial [ sung [before crowned heads] ]

Notice too that while it is not possible to make a passive from the sequence [have + N.en]» it is possible in some poetic contexts to have an -en form serving in subject position after a series of transforms: The race exhausted him He was exhausted by the race Exhausted was he by the race Of course, it might be argued that this last sequence is merely 'stylistic inversion', but after all, what is 'style' but morphemes in grammatical position. However, even if we disallow this curiosity, it does not vitiate our argument,

-EN

META-VERBS

31

for if we accept that infinitives are a species of nominal, we find that no passives are possible for them either: 1 I -+- pres -+- may -)- go -#>* go + pres -f may -f be -f- -en + by + me I -f- pres -f- be -f to -f sing *to + sing -f- pres -f be + be -f -en + by + me 4.24 External grammar of single-word -en modifiers. — -en modifiers can be developed from a species of embedding and position shift analogous to that discussed in (3.44) above. 4.241 a pleased man 4.242 a rotted table 4.243 a dined man However, these are probably best seen as derived from a passive, and so discussion will be postponed until (4.42) below. 4.25 External grammar of -en phrase-modifiers and of 'absolute' constructions. — Again, these structures can be developed in a manner similar to that of (3.45) above, but best as after a passive, as discussed in (4.43) below. 4.3 Do -en forms have null occurrence directly after do forms. 4.4 Be -en forms may occur after forms of be to yield the passive construction. 4.41 The passive. — Present analysis considers the sequence be -f en, a verbal unit, to be the passive. But we already consider be + -ing and possibly have + -en to be mis-analyses, so following the patterns of re-analysis already set up, we shall hypothesize that -en forms after be are nominals also. Thus, I am seen is now analyzed: 4.411 N P 2 + pres + be + -en + V While it should be analyzed, provisionally, as: 4.412 N P 2 -f pres + 1

be +

N. en

Also, meta-verbals in medio-passives and after some linking verbs cannot form

passives;

e.g., She seems a good girl, He remained a pedagogue, N o one would accuse girl

or pedagogue as being other than nouns, however.

32

-EN META-VERBS

Note that such an analysis completely clears up the 'peculiarites' of be. It is demoted to a linking verb, which it is, Unking many sub-classes of N to the sentences' subjects; among the sub-classes of N are N „ , N_ing, and N. en The interpretation thus is not: N 2 verbal I [am seen] but: N2 I

V am

N. e n [seen]

or: 1 = [seen]2 Note should be taken here of a structure where the form is N P + aux + be + N. en but which does not show clear semantic relationship to a structure of the form: N P + aux + V + X Thus, I was gone (e.g., when he arrived, I was gone) is superficially passive (be + N . e n ) , but actually expresses only an identity (I — gone), with no semantically corresponding 'active' structure of the form *NP + aux + go -f me Indeed, the only clear example of the phenomenon that I can find involves the single word go. The mechanism of the development of this form is not clear, but perhaps it is a mere second-level analogic creation, with go fit in the frame: N P + aux + be + N. e n ( + I + aux + V), without grammatical concern for the lack of 'active-passive' relationship in the instance. 4.42 Eocternal grammar of single-word -en modifiers. — Having now established as a hypothesis that the -en forms after be are nouns, we may go on to consider the origin of those phrases cited in (4.24) above. 2

For a comparison in which forms like this and indeed all 'statives' are derived from the passive, see: "Passive - Interrogative - Imperative" (Sept. 7. 1967) of: Working Papers UCLA — Air Force English Syntax Conference.

•EN META-VERBS

33'

(4.241) a pleased man (4.242) a rotted table (4.243) a dined man3 These may be seen as embedded from constituent 'passives'. a + man (-)- a + man + aux -f- be -(- pleased) + X => a -f- man -f pleased Then by position shift: => a -f pleased +

man

Formulaically, the process is similar to that discussed in (2.71) and (3.434) above. 4.421 X + be + ]Sr.en ( + Y + V + Z) =• X + be + -en (Y) -f V (Z) So that what was discussed above is more specifically seen as: (4.241) a 4- man ( + a + man + aux + be + N. e n ( + Y + please + Z)) =»• a + man -)- -en -f- please Then, by position shift: => a + -en + please + man (4.242) a + table ( + a + table + aux + be + N. e n ( + Y + rot -f Z)) => a + table + -en -f rot Then, by position shift: =>• a + -en + rot -f table (4.243) a -f man ( + a + man -f aux -f be + N. e n ( + Y + dine + Z)) =>• a + man + " e n + dine Then, by position shift: =>• a 4" ~ en + dine -f - man Notice t h a t the relationship of the 'active' to the 'passive' must also be restated. In fact, the deep-level grammar of the 'passive' involves more than one, comparatively simple transform, and is probably something like: 4.423 N P 1 4- aux + V 4- NP 2 (1) NP 2 4- aux 4- be 4- N. e n (4- N P 1 + aux + V -p'NP 2 ) (4-by + NP 1 ) (2) =• NP 2 4- aux 4- be # -en 4- V # (4-by 4- NP 1 ) 3 Admittedly, a man was dined (e.g., by his friends) is colloquial, though not impossible, However, though possible, a dined man is equally colloquial, if not arch-poetic. The grammatical process to achieve colloquiality is, nonetheless, that suggested below.

34

-EN META-VERBS

The + dog + a u x + bit + the + (1) =>• The -j- postman + a u x + be bit -f- the postman ( + by + (2) =>• The -f- postman + aux -f- be dog)

postman + N. en ( + the + dog -f aux -jthe + dog)) # -en -j- bit =#= ( + by + the -+-

Perhaps the double-shafted arrow should be replaced by a different symbol in such representations, or else be defined as 'is notionally equivalent to' rather than as 'becomes'. For in at least one sense, an 'active' does not 'become' a passive, or indeed any other element does not 'become' something else. It would be more justifiable to write the arrow as -• John (-j- John aux + be # -en -f exhaust # by + the + race) + aux + fall =»• John # -en + exhaust # by + the -(- race + aux -)- fall (essentially, 4.432) With position-shift: ^ # - e n + exhaust # by -f the + race + John -)- aux + fall (essentially 4.431) Of course the 'passive' constituent of the above is itself the result of an equivalence-relationship derivation from: (the + race -f aux -f exhaust + John); the reader may start from: John ( + the -(- race + aux -f- exhaust -f John) -j- aux + fall, apply (4.423) to the constituent, and derive the above strings in a more formally developmental manner, if he cares to deal with multi-factorial problems. The example and presentation given here should serve to illustrate the process sufficiently for clarity, however. The last two examples are results of compounding of a special sort. An active string is made passive, then the be form is deleted; this string is then compounded with a second.

35

-EN META-VERBS

John -)- aux -f read + the + book =• the + book + aux + be # -en + r e a d * =>• the + book # -en + r e a d #

(by 4.423) (by deletion)

Essentially, the first part of: The book read, John went to bed, (4.433) above. John -f- aux + run + the -f- race =»• the -f race + be # -en -f run # =>• the -j- race # -en + run #

(by 4.423) (by deletion)

Essentially, the first part of The race run, John collapsed (4.434) above. 4.44 'Have' reconsidered. — We tentatively gave a formula to account for the occurance of -en forms after have. (4.21) N P 1 +

aux +

have +

N. e n

To be consistent, we should allow the N. e n to be an embedding following the models sketched in (2.71) and (3.45) above; thus: 4.441 N P 1 + aux + have + N. e n ( + X + be + N. e n ( + Y + V + Z)) =• N P 1 + aux + have # -en + V # ( + Z ) W h a t in effect this restatement asserts is t h a t N. e n 's may follow have, and t h a t such N.en's are ultimately from (4.423) above. 4.45 Argument. — Consideration of -en forms as nominals leads to a deep understanding of English grammar, especially the grammar of 'passives' and 'perfects'. In addition, some 'absolutes' become more intelligible. Finally, we find that be and have lose much of their 'special' status. Be is more realistically seen as a simple linking verb in all cases, and have is seen as a verb that may be followed by N. en 's, among other nominals.

5 COMPLEX FORMS

Certain absolute forms have not been considered above. These may be seen as complex forms and are of the sort: 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04

Having achieved the victory, John smiled Being required to attend, John grimaced The race being won, John smiled The race having been won, John was happy

These sentences derive from compounds where the initial subject of the first string is identical with the subject of the second: (5.01) [John -f- a u x + have # -en -f achieve # a -f- victory] + aux + smile] (5.02) [John + aux + be # -en + require # to -f attend] -faux + grimmace] (5.03) [The -f- race -f aux + be # -en + win # ] + [John -f aux (5.04) [The + race + aux + have # -en -f- be # -en win # ] + aux -f be -f- happy]

[John -f[John -f+ smile] [John +

In the last three examples, of course, the passive has been applied to the source strings of the initial elements: -f- tense + require + John + to + attend John -f tense win -f the -f race John -f- tense -f- have # -en -j- win # the race SOMEONE

This species of compounding may be represented by the transform (here, the smaller square brackets enclose elements derived from separate # S's, and the larger indicate proportionate choice of elements within them across the transform boundary): 5.1

[NP 1 + tense + X [NP 2 + tense -f X + by + NP 1 ]

+ [NP 1 + aux + Y]

COMPLEX FORMS

[-ing + X ] [NP 2 + -ing +

X]

37

+ [NP 1 + aux + Y]

This is really an abbreviated way of saying that when the two subjects of a compound are identical, the first subject is deleted and the remaining elements are nominalized by the addition of -ing to the headword. The resultant structure must then be seen as standing in a structure of modification to the subject of the remaining sentence in the compound. Note, however, that if a passive has been applied to the first string, the passive subject may appear undeleted. If the passive string has as passive subject the same subject as that of the second string, nevertheless, the passive subject must be deleted (as in (5.02)).1 I t is interesting to note that such constructions as the above do not derive from the system hypothesized in ( 2 . - 4 . ) above. Insofar as these constructions do not so derive, we are led to suspect they are not 'natural' to the language, and indeed we know they are inherited from Anglo-Saxon imitations of Latin absolutes. 2

5.2 Some attention should be paid here to sequences now explained by PS rules of the VP. I shall use as examples those presented in (1.1) above. 5.21 I 5.22 I 5.23 I 5.24 I 5.25 I 5.26 I 5.27 I 5.28 I (5.21) (5.22)

1

dance may dance may have danced may have been dancing have danced have been dancing may be dancing am dancing is simply a sequence: N + V is a sequence: N + V + V N„ - obj I may [ dance ]

John having won the race, John smiled is not permissible; John having won the race, he smiled is probably ungrammatical — is at least ambiguous; the he does not of necessity refer to John. Probably the more natural form is: John, having won the race, smiled-, and that ia explained readily by the transform above, with an additional position-shift. 2 Jespersen, Growth and Structure, p. 131.

38

COMPLEX FORMS

(5.23) is a sequence: N + V + N„ + N_en V N „ — obj N -en -obj I may [have [danced] ] (5.24) is a sequence: N + V + N„ + N. en + N. ing V N„ — obj N_en -obj N.ing -complement I may [have [been [dancing ]]] (5.25) is a sequence: N + V + N. en V N. en -obj I have [danced ] (5.26) is a sequence: N -f V + N. en + N. ing V N.en -obj N. i n g -complement [dancing ]] I have [been (5.27) is a sequence: N + V + N„ + N. ing V N„ -obj N.jng -complement I may [be [dancing ]] (5.28) is a sequence: N + V + N. ing V N -ing -complement I am [dancing ] The rewrite rules stating formulaically the above are given in section (6.) following.

6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING ENGLISH 'VERB-PHRASE' GRAMMAR

6.1

From an examination of the history and present functions of the English infinitive, -ing, and -en forms, we are led to state the following: 6.11 Only tense-bearing elements are verbs in external grammatical function as well as in internal function. 6.12 Verbs, (and constructions which have a verb as headword) may be nominalized in external grammatical function with the replacement of tense by the infinitive, -ing, or -en nominalizing element. 6.2 Phrase structure rules The following is a brief revision of PS rules, as demanded by the facts summarized in (6.11) and (6.12) above. A more detailed revision would isolate the range of occurrence of the sub-classes: N„, N . i n g , and N. en . (Note: dashes indicate omissions of secondary material whose consideration is not significant for this exposition.) S S

NP + VP

NP

{ Det + N } personal noun N -» common noun grammatical11 common noun grammatical 2 ! N« grammatical2 N.ing (+ S) N_,

i

40

VP

SUMMARY A N D CONCLUSIONS

Verb +

NP

Verb —>- tense 4- verb tense

present 1 past J

verb ->- may, be, have, see . . 6.3 Transformational N . ( + X + Y + Y) = N. i n g ( + X + V + Y ) N. e „ ( + X + Y + Y ) 7 N P 1 + tense + X ] [ N P 2 + tense + X + b y

rules

(to) # 0 + V # ( + Y ) • # -ing + V # ( + Y ) • # -en + Y # ( + Y ) + NP1]

+ [ N P 1 + aux '-f- Y ]

[-[-ing + X ] [[NP* + -ing + X ] + [ N P 1 + aux + Y ]

7 'VERB-PHRASE' SEMANTICS

If we accept the arguments exposited in sections (2 — 6.), we still must allow for the fact that certain 'verb phrases' have been perceived for so long as unitary phenomena. I suspect t h a t what occurred was a species of psycho-linguistic transference. A unitary semantic concept was expressed conventionally by certain grammatical forms; and by a species of 'back-formation', the unity became attached to the forms, rather than to the concept embodied in them. Thus, the unitary semantic concept of 'completedness' is expressed by a form of have plus a following Nen- The grammatical forms, originally binary, become perceived as a unit since they express a SEMANTIC unity. So that first we had develop the concepts of 'present and past perfects' and later, one portion of 'aspect'. The cause of such interpretation is a mixing of linguistic levels. Insofar as sections ( 2 — 6 . ) have attempted to deal with the GRAMMAR of what are called 'verb phrases', and have separated that grammar from semantics, we are left with semantics itself as a topic. I t might be permissible to stop here, as the study of semantics is not a clearly defined sub-division of either the Descriptivist or the Transformationalist areas, but if we do stop, we leave a great deal obscured. If, as I suggested in the Introduction to this work, a semantic system parallels the grammatical system of L 1( then we ought to try to discover at least the outlines of the system, and to apply to it the methodologies of Descriptive and Transformational linguistics where appropriate. I t shall then be the purpose of the remainder of this work to attempt a codification and clarification of the semantics of the English verb 'phrase'. I n order to proceed, however, I must first offer the following definition: 7.01 An English semantic verb-phrase: notional unity, perceived as such by grammatical construction containing N N ing , N en , N, Adj, or Adv; or by Thus, from now on, I may refer to

A semantic verb-phrase in English is a a native speaker, expressed through a a tense-bearing verb, followed by an a combination of these.

SEMANTIC

verb-phrases, without either ac-

42

'VERB-PHRASE' SEMANTICS

cepting present terminology of 'verb-phrase' in general or confusing semantic verb-phrases with such. I n the following analysis of semantic verb-phrases in English, I shall deal with a quite limited corpus: my idiolect of the educated dialect of West-Coast America, specifically of California, where I have lived since birth. Further (and at the risk of seeming somewhat egotistical), I restrict the corpus to structures begun by the first person singular pronoun (I). I have absolutely no doubt t h a t a wider sampling of speakers and an inclusion of other forms as subject will cause the following statements to be modified or extended. Nevertheless, one must start somewhere, and from what corollary research I have been able to do, 1 it appears as if the following is adequate, at least in outline, for a PROLEGOMENON. I trust my colleagues will correct any faults I am too blind to see, if I do not discover them in later developments. Also, I shall note that I deal only with independent clauses. Again, the study of semantic verbphrases in dependent clauses will cause later modification of the system below. Thus, in the idiolect described, no distinction exists between (e.g.) I should go and I ought to go in independent clauses. But with some following dependent clauses, there is a restriction on occurrence. I should go, if I were you is possible, though literary; *I ought to go, if I were you is not possible. 7.1 The Origin of the 'Orders' The reader will see in the following exposition that I classify semantic verbphrases in a twofold manner: (1) as to grammatical form; and (2) as to categories of semantic notionality expressed. The reader might quite justifiably wonder whence the categories. I can give no clear answer. The were, alas, developed by trial and error as being those categories which best expressed unitary concepts in the idiolect. 2 The placement of the categories in sequence was again partially trial and error, aided somewhat by computer analysis. I t seems to me of little relevance to present all the steps in development here; the categories are explained in (8.0) below and through example and grammatical form-equivalents in the remaining sections. Those who disagree with the categories presented may wish to develop their own, for their own idiolects by combination, division, omission, or addition. Further research will, no doubt, clarify the structures in the semantic system, as sections ( 2 . - 6 . ) have clarified structures in the grammatical system. Such clarification is inevitable, once the system has been sketched to begin with. 1

See too: Madeline E. Ehrman, "The Meanings of the Modals in Present-day American English", Linguistics, 28 (The Hague, 1966). 2 See fn. 1. Also, I should note here that although several categories m a y be used to describe a particular grammatical sequence, the combination of the categories itself forms a high-level semantic unity. Thus, Categories [a], [b], [c], [. . . n ] are units, but combined, they form the unitary set of which they are members [a, b, c, . . . n].

' V E R B - P H R A S E ' SEMANTICS

7.2 Concerning a System for

43

Translations

Much of the problem in translating from one language into another lies, of course, in nuance. A choice piece of lightly burned dead cow, even in English, is not the 'same' as a fine, rare steak. I suggest that the cause of most bad translation (and I am thinking here especially of machine translation) is t h a t grammatical equivalence is programmed, for the most part, rather than semantic equivalence. I n the sections following, it will be seen that a particular speech item is identifiable by its position on two axes: a grammatical form axis and a semantic category axis. For an item to be a language form, it must carry units of both grammatical and semantic meaning. And on a grid of this sort (x, y axes) a point implies both co-ordinates. Or, in a different manner, a speech-form is defined by its grammar and semantics. Thus, if we have the form and its grammar, we also have by implication its semantics (granted, of course, t h a t we have a reasonably complete semantic system to form an axis of measurement). Now it might well be that in the long run, instead of attempting to draw equivalents between grammatical forms in L 1 and L 2 — with a frequency of errors in nuance and overtone — the reverse should hold. That is, if, as I hypothesize, a speech form is defined by its grammar and its semantics, and the one implies the other on a reference grid, what should be translated directly from one language to another is semantics, rather than grammar. For illustration, let me set up the following equivalences: pres be + to + past + be + to +

present future o past future

The elements to the left of the double-headed arrow are grammatical descriptions and the elements to the right are semantic descriptions. The two formulas would describe, for example, structure of the sort: I am to go I was to go In English, if one wishes to express the notional concept of 'present future' or 'past future' he MUST use the corresponding grammatical form. And if one uses a particular grammatical form, he has expressed a specific type of semantic form. Semantics and grammar are independent, but related closely. Thus, to translate from L x to L 2 , one deals with the SEMANTIC description of the phrase in L 1( making a preliminary translation, if you will, from grammatical into semantic categories. Then the semantic units of L x are matched with those in L 2 which in turn automatically 'select' the correct grammatical form of L a . The process may be symbolized:

'VERB-PHRASE' SEMANTICS

44

Phrase GL 1 Phrase SLX Phrase SL 2 Phrase GL 2 That is, a grammatical phrase in L 1 is coded as to its semantic component, which is then matched with the semantic component of L 2 , which then leads to the grammatical form of L 2 . One may speculate further and hypothesize a Universal Semantic: a collection of all semantic categories in all human languages. Granted the establishment of such a component or more practically, granted the establishment of a few Universal categories (e.g., Love) and corresponding modifying elements (e.g., More, Less; Young, Old, Puppy, etc.), one could reasonably expect to come up with a reliable Translator of the schematic formula: Phrase GLX

Phrase SLX XSU Phrase SL 2 o Phrase GL 2

where S u is the 'Universal Semantic system' and subscript z indicates the category of S u that links Phrase SL 1 and Phrase SL 2 . (If one wishes a tag name for this formula, I propose: The Universal Semantic Translator Arc.) I n other words, if attention is paid to separating the semantic and grammatical systems of natural languages, and if ENOUGH attention is paid, the direct machine translation from one language to the other should be made much more practically possible. Semantic, rather than grammatical, systems would be immediately compared for equivalence, through the Universal Semantic, with each semantic category in the target language automatically choosing the correct grammatical form in t h a t language. To some, this proposal may seem fanciful, but many respected linguists are again on the track of 'universal grammar'. 3 And certainly glottochronology owes its basis in part to the establishment of universals whose verbid descriptions change at measurable rates. And phonological and morphological 'universals-seeking' is highly respectable. The suggestion for the establishment of a universal semantic is thus not quite as fanciful as it may seem at first. Probably the greatest degree of 'fancifulness' is owing to the fact t h a t semantic systems are ill-perceived and -organized. Once a semantic system is perceived and isolated in any language, it will become as natural to compare it to other such systems as to compare phonological systems or morphological systems; all such comparisons, in order to establish Universals. I suggest, then, that enormous and perhaps unsuspected fields may be open for linguistics: Descriptive and Transformational semantics, and semantic typology. The remainder of this work shall deal with the preliminary establishment of descriptive and transformational semantics for English. 3

See: Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1966); Cartesian Linguistics (1966). The reader conversant with these works will recognize a certain similarity between Chomsky's theories and m y Universal Semantic Translator Arc; however the coincidence is by chance. I came to m y conclusions independently, before being acquainted with Chomsky's works.

8 T H E ORDER OF 'ORDERS' A M ) T H E I R GLOSSES

By analogy with the Turkish verb system, I have called the categories of English semantic verb-phrases 'Orders'. For these categories can be set up descriptively in a left to right manner that is similar to the order of inflectional morphemes for the Turkish verb. All English verb phrases, headed by a tense-bearing verb show TIME categorization: notional pastness, presentness, or futurity. I n addition, degrees of some categories are possible. Thus I have gone is PAST LESS PERFECTIVE in contrast to I had gone or PAST MORE PERFECTIVE. Or, at least rhetorically in the idiolect, there are degrees of futurity; shall and will, for the first person singular, are respectively LESS EMPHATIC FUTURE and MORE EMPHATIC FUTURE. I n brief, then, following is the list of semantic Orders for the idiolect, with glosses and appropriate examples. 8.01 Past. If the notionality of the phrase expresses past time, the designation is PAST. 1 8.02 Present. — If the notionality of the phrase expresses present time, the designation is PRESENT. 1 8.03 Less. — A category of relative degree, used only in conjunction with (8.05).2 8.04 More. (8.05).2

A category of relative degree, used only in conjunction with

8.05 Emphatic. — A category expressing more than normal semantic emphasis on futurity. Used in conjunction with (8.06). 8.06 Future. - If the notionality of the phrase expresses time-to-be, the designation is FUTURE. 1

Omissions in semantic verb-phrase description of Categories (8.01), (8.02), or (8.06) implies timeless phrases of the sort: running to tovm, etc. 2 In following descriptions involving degree, Category LESS is represented by "less" or "lesser"; Category MOBE is represented by "more" or "greater". No distinction exists between the forms used to represent respective categories. "More" or "greater"— or "less" or "lesser"— are chosen for euphony, not for the representation of sub-categories.

T H E O R D E R OF 'ORDERS' AND T H E I R

46

GLOSSES

8.07 Conditional. — This category expresses the concept that an act's completion is dependent on or hindered by some other condition. E.g., I would sing (if I were able). 8.08 Less. — A category of relative degree, used only with categories (8.10) ff., with restrictions as noted in Section (13.).2 8.09 More. — A category of relative degree, used only with categories (8.10) ff., with restrictions as noted in Section (13.).2 8.10 Possible. — This category expresses the concept that an act is capable of being completed, although it may not necessarily BE completed. E.g., I may go;

I might go.

8.11 Able. — This category expresses the competence of the actor to perform t h e act. E.g.,

I can

sing.

8.12 Expective. — This category expresses the relative expectation the actor has that an act will come about. Later investigation may show this to be a sub-category of (8.10), P O S S I B L E . E.g., I could have to go, F U T U R E L E S S E X PECTIVE

OBLIGATION.

8.13. Emphatic. — A category expressing more than normal semantic emphasis on a category. Used with (8.14) ff., with restrictions as noted in Section (13.). 8.14. Obligation. — This category expresses a felt obligation on the part of the actor to perform the act. E.g., I should go; I ought to go. 8.15 Desirative. — This category expresses a desire on the part of the actor that the act should take, or have taken, place. E.g., I ought to have a car. The act so designated is desirable, from the viewpoint of the speaker. 8.16 Perfective. — This order expresses the concept that an act be completed by a definite point in either the past or future, in relation to a definite point in past, present, or future. E.g., I have sung. 8.17 Possessive. — This order expresses simple possession; have as the only or last unit in a semantic verb-phrase.

grammatically,

8.18 Equivalence. — This order expresses the notional identifying function of be. E.g.,

I am a man;

She is

pretty.

8.19 Continuation. — This category expresses the notional concept of 'goingon-ness'. E.g.,

8.20 Passive. E.g.,

I am writing;

She was

singing.

— This category expresses the concept of subject-acted-on.

I was seen;

I am told.

9 T H E O R D E R OF GRAMMATICAL CLASSES

The Orders in (8.) form t h e z-axis of t h e chart in (10.). The y-axis is made of t h e following grammatical forms: 9.1 Semantic 9.11 Modals

+

verb-phrases begun by modals

N„

9.12 Modals + have 9.121 Modals + have + W 9.122 Modals + have + N'en 9.123 Modals + have + to + N „ 'N

9.124 Modals

+

9.125 Modals 9.126 Modals

+ +

have + been -f-

Adj Adv have + been + N in g have + been + N e n

9.13 Modals + be +

be+

N Adj Adv

+ be + IS ing + be + N e n 9.2 Semantic

verb-phrases begun by have

9.21 Have + N 9.22 Have + to + N„ 9.23 Have + been + N i n g 1

1 use this symbol (N) to stand for nominals which are not infinitive -en's, or -ing's — or structures headed by such.

48

THE ORDER OF GRAMMATICAL CLASSES

9.24 Have + been + 9.25 Have + Nen

Nen

9.3 Semantic 9.31 be

+

9.32 be 9.33 be 9.34 be

+ + +

verb-phrases begun by be

N Adj Adv to + N Ning Nen

9.4 Semantic verb-phrases begun by do 9.5 Semantic verb-phrases, complex forms

aAissBj

1

UOI^BtlUI^UOQ

Ì

9oaa[BAiribg[ QAISSaSKOJ

X X |

SAl^BJISaQ

i !

!

uoiijBSiiqo oi^Bqduig

1 i

X

X X |

aAi^OGdxg; ejqV 8[qtssoj

X X X X|

ajojf

X X X

X

ssa'j

X

X

X X

X 1

jrcuoiijpuoQ

X

X

X

X X X X X X X X X X oi^raqdmg;

X

9JOJ\[

X - j -

X

1

SS91

X

|

^UGsgjj

X X

5 o eS V t> c3

43

&b g, Ifc

«» §

must sing

ought to sing

could sing

can sing

would sing

will sing

should sing

might sing

shall sing

+

may sing

(9.1) Semantic verb-phrases begun by modals (9.11) Modals + KL (E.g., sing)

1

e _i_ * t » 1 a g T3

I

cS ® ®i> ® cö !> c*S 43

ÜC

DESCRIPTIVE GRID OF SEMANTIC VERB-PHRASES

s a i s s b j

|

|

uor}ranui}uoQ

MM

|

|

|

aouapsAmbg aAiBBassOcj

|

|

i

|

X X X X X X X X

GAi^oajjej

X X

uoi^BSijqo oi^Bqdrag

X

X X

X

X X

X X X|X|X

X X X

X

X

X

X

aAi^oadxg

X X X

eiqy ajqisso^

X X X

8JOJ\[

X

ssa'j

X

X X

X

X

X

X

xl

X| X

X

X

X

i

X

[

X X

X

X X

ijirasa.y

X X X

X

aJOj\[

X X X X X

X X X X X

T 3 O

t i

s H ^

I N

+ Tí a £ S

43

-a è J

I

43

3O •3 43 -sj oa tn

es 43

43 §

SS J

§o

52

DESCRIPTIVE GRID OF SEMANTIC VERB-PHRASES

8AISSBJ UOI^BtU l T^UOQ GOuajBAmbg; X X X 8AISS8SSOJ QAT^oajia^j X X X aAI^JIBaQ uopeSiiqo X op"Bt[draa X X QApoadxg

|

| |

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X —

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X

X X

x|

X X

aiqtssoj ajoj\[ X sBafj X X {"BUOI^piUOQ OJTun^ otcjBqdrag SJOJ\[ BS81 ^uasajj »"»a X X X

X X X X

X X X X

x|

1 X X X X

X X X

X X X

X X

X 1 X X

X X

X X X X X

X X

could have been a teacher ought to have been a teacher must have been a teacher

8«

£ + 8«

+

. .

+

s.

i5

00

Is r 'S M a s. > o

cS

+ 'S T3 o a

C D

cS

-a cS

a

DESCRIPTIVE GRID OF SEMANTIC VERB-PHRASES

XX

53

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X X

X

X X

X

X

X X X

x^

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

X X X X X

a

öCD a © ©

xi

©

fi © ©

CQ

fi ©

fi © ©

©

¡3

o

42 «

42 ©

fi

eä *o

fi © ©

co fi © ©

> 42 c3

42 > © > 43 cS S3 O 43 43 - P ©

43

43

OQ

«te fi © ©

-d ¡SD fi o

©

+ ©

43

•o +

42

+ cä

c3 O CO

1—1 OS

TJ O a

can be a teacher could be a teacher

CQ

§ fi ©

should be a teacher will be a teacher would be a teacher

fi © « 42 4) §

©

shall be a teacher

ID GO

may be a teacher might be a teacher

»

ought to be a teacher must be a teacher

X

|

i t X X X X X|X X X X X

X X X X

X X i

X X

X X Xi X X

X X X

1

X X X X

may be seen might be seen shall be seen should be seen will be seen would be seen can be seen

X X

(9.133) Modals + be + Ne„ (E.g., seen)

aAISSBJ uoi^BrrarjuoQ aou9|BAmba aAissassoj 9AI109JJ9J 9AI^BJI68Q uojiBSjiqo oi^oqdina QAtioadxg; aiqy aiqiesoj 8J0J\[ SB91 {•BUOppiUOQ amtn^ opoqdnig; 8JOJ£ ssaq;

(9.132) Modals + be + Nlng (E.g., singing) may be singing might be singing shall be singing should be singing will be singing would be singing can be singing could be singing ought to be singing must be singing

54 DESCRIPTIVE GRID OF SEMANTIC VERB-PHRASES

x|x|x

I

j X

X X

x!

1

X

X 1

x|x x|x

j i

i

i

X X X

x!

X X

1

1 X X X

1

X X

i X

X

X x x X x X X

X

?se

s 00 I

a

®

®

to 0) O A

bb H

s ®

a

© ®

8

§ 6f>

CO ®

bo GO 3 o s

f

+ I

1

"S e3 S ® 0Q ^ §

*

+

« e ftj — i—i

s

-8

"S

"S