18 Phrase Structure: VP
Dr. Jaba Kusum Singh
Content
- Phrase Structure: VP at a Glance
- Introduction
- Aspects of Phrase Structure: VP
- Forms of Verb
- Some interesting points
- Kinds of Formations
- Verb Patterns
- Summary
- Self-assessment: Test Your Knowledge (Multiple Choice Questions)
- Self-assessment: Answer the questions.
- Bibliography /Web Links
The present chapter discusses the different types of Verb Patterns thereby highlighting the verb phrases. It shall render information about finite and non-finite verbs. It shall also explain sighting examples. Exercises for practice shall help the students to gain expertise in the subject. The module shall consist of multiple-choice question to enable the readers to practice. It shall also contain detailed questions on VP. Bibliography shall act as a pinch of salt in food to enhance the knowledge of the learner about Verb Phrase and Verb Patterns.
Phrase Structure: VP at a Glance:
In the traditional explanation of the structure of a sentence, we find a distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs. A transitive verb is one that occurs with an object as in The girl ate an apple. An intransitive verb is one that does not in the context occur with an object as in The girl ran fast. We say the two forms transitive and intransitive are the sub categories of ‘verb’. Here we say that verbs in English are sub-categorized concerning the function of taking or rejecting ‘direct object. A detailed look into the structure of English Verb Phrase shows that English verbs can be sub- categorized into a large variety of functions which enter into the structure of verb phrase, such as place (The boys kept the book there) manner ( The player played well) duration ( The baby slept for a long time) and so on. Each of these functions is said to sub-categorize the category of verb. These sub-categorizations of verbs govern the construction of Verb Phrases in a language. The sub-categories which are usually posited do not form water tight compartments because it happens that there are overlaps or more technically what is known as an intersection of sub categories when for instance the same verb will function as transitive on one hand and intransitive on the other ( He reads/ He reads a book).
Introduction
The 1950s brought about a worth mentioning change in the world of language studies as it introduced a new conception of studies in linguistics. This was the decade when the famous linguist Noam Chomsky pioneered transformational grammar and brought about a new way of looking into the grammatical studies. This theory of transformational grammar later on developed as generative grammar.
It is a linguistic theory that considers grammar as a system of rules that generates exactly those combinations of words, which form grammatical sentences in a given language. This term generative grammar originally used in relation to the theoretical linguistics of grammar, was developed by Noam Chomsky who has focused on the study of syntax, but has also addressed other aspects of a language’s structure, including morphology and phonology.
The most recent is the Minimalist Program, from which Chomsky and other generativists have argued that many of the properties of a generative grammar arise from a universal grammar which is innate to the human brain, rather than being learned from the environment.
There are a number of versions of generative grammar currently practiced within linguistics. A contrasting approach is that of constraint-based grammars. Where a generative grammar attempts to list all the rules that result in all well-formed sentences, constraint-based grammars allow anything that is not otherwise constrained. Constraint-based grammars that have been proposed include certain versions of dependency grammar, head-driven phrase structure grammar, lexical functional grammar, categorial grammar, relational grammar, link grammar, and tree-adjoining grammar. In stochastic grammar, grammatical correctness is taken as a probabilistic variable, rather than a discrete (yes vs. no) property.
In this connection when Chomsky and his followers talked of phrase structure or in other words rewriting of rules they suppose that:
If A is a sentence then it can be further separated into two sub constituents B and C. To clarify it further:
A Sentence consists of an NP (noun phrase) followed by a VP (verb phrase).
Again it can be sub-divided into A noun phrase consisting of an optional Det (determiner) followed by an N (noun).
This but it also not only means that an N (Noun) can be preceded by an optional AP (Adjective Phrase)and followed by an optional PP(Prepositional Phrase)
Beginning with the sentence symbol S, and applying the phrase structure rules successively, finally applying replacement rules to substitute actual words for the abstract symbols, it is possible to generate many proper sentences of English.
Thus it is clear that a single sentence have more than one syntactic unit and Verb Phrase is one of many such units. It is a syntactic unit composed of at least one verb and its dependents—objects, complements and other modifiers—but not always including the subject. Thus, in the sentence, A tall woman put the ring hurriedly in the box, the words put the ring hurriedly in the box are a verb phrase; it consists of the verb put and its dependents, but not the subject a tall woman. A verb phrase is thus a predicate of a sentence as per the traditional grammatical studies.
Important Aspects of Phrase structure: VP
As sighted above we can thus say that the notion of sub- categorization functions as the chief principle of the underlying structure of a sentence. It is from the notion of sub-categorization that we enter into the notion of phrases as constituents which naturally go together in terms of their function. This leads us to what is known as Immediate Constituent Analysis to find out the constituent element of phrases. The principle of IC analysis is taken up in the transformational generative grammar and developed into what we know as phrase structure grammar. The content of these treatments is the structure of the basic phrases ie noun and verb phrase. In phrase as a set of rules which govern the grouping of the Noun Phrase and the Verb Phrase in a sentence, we make use of labeled brackets (or phrase markers) to express the grouping of the phrase. For example a past tense construction will receive a labeled bracketing of the following kind:
The woman went to shopping mall. [s{NP}1(vp [V-past]prep.{NP}2)vp]s
The enclosed bracket indicates the structure of the NP and the VP, which constitute the whole sentence.
The same construction receives a Tree Diagram in the following kind:
The phrase structure representing groups constituents which are subcategories of a particular head as well as groups together those constituents which together manifest a particular function. In other words the phrase structure as a sequence of slots oriented to yielding ‘the abstract deep structure sentence’ consists of an organization of syntactic rules which generate the deep level sentence. The string of NP and VP provides the S( the sentence) and the strings further take most elementary constituents are represented. In the generative grammar, these rules are known as ‘expansion’ or ‘rewrite’ rules. (As already explained in the introductory note of this module) The tree above generates the following phrase structure rules:
1. S —-NP+VP
2. NP1 —- Det+N
3. VP——V-Past+Prep.+NP2
4. NP2 —- N.
The four rules above generate one tree or a labeled bracketing.
Forms of Verb:
There is no particular definition of the word verb. It is , however, generally distinguished between finite and non-finite. The non-finites verbs are the infinitive (present and perfect, with or without to), the present and past participles, and the gerund (or verbal noun).
The finites are those forms other than the non-finites. For example the non-finites of be are: (to) be, (to) have been, being and been, and the finites are am, is, are, was, were. The non-finites of see are: (to) see, (to) have seen, seeing and seen, and the finites are see, sees and saw.
When an infinitive is used with to (like in I want to eat, I ought to have eaten) it is called the to-infinitive. When used without to (as in I must eat, I should have eaten) it is called the bare infinitive.
It is also to be noted that present participle and the gerund are identical in form. In the sentences:
The boys are running. (running is present participle.) Whereas
The boys like running. (running is the gerund.)
Let us now discuss auxiliary. It is used for a number of verbs, which have a variety of functions.
This is important to note that the finites of do are used as operating verbs for the formation of the interrogative and negative.
On the other hand the finites of be are used to form the progressive (or continuous) tenses and the passive voice.
The finites will/would, shall/should, can/could, may/might, must, ought, need, dare and used (with to), are called auxiliaries, but they are well-known as modal auxiliaries.
Auxiliary Verbs
The finites of these auxiliary verbs are called anomalous finite.
There is another kind of verb which is known as defective verb; they are those verbs of which some parts are missing. For example, must it has no infinitive and no participles; again Will, shall, can, may and ought come under this category.
We also have irregular verbs which do not have the suffix -ed for the past tense/participle, eg. go/went/gone; begin/ began/begun; take/took/taken; mean/meant/meant; put/put/put.
The most obvious feature of anomalous finites is that they can be joined to the contracted form of not, eg. isn’t, weren’t, haven’t, don’t, didn’t, can’t, shouldn’t, oughtn’t. That means the word anomalous is restricted to those finites, which combine with not in this way.
Likewise, have is anomalous in I haven’t time to learn it now . But have is not anomalous in
I have dinner at nine p.m.. (Here have is an ordinary, or non-anomalous, finite, and the negative is:
I don’t have dinner at nine p.m., not I haven’t dinner at nine p.m.)
The 24 anomalous finite sighted above are not always auxiliary.
This is also for our study that the finites of be are linking verbs, not auxiliary, in:
Ruby is an athlete.
The finites of have are not auxiliary in:
Have you any money? Or
Radha has two sisters.
These finites have many functions and we may divide them into two categories.
First, they are important as structural words. They are used to operate the negative and interrogative. They are also used to avoid repetition, for eg. in short answers and in disjunctive (or ‘tag’) questions.
Another important function of these words is that they decide the positions of certain classes of adverbs by the occurrence or nonoccurrence in sentences.
Secondly, they are used to form moods for which English has no inflected forms. When used in this way they may be termed modal verbs or modal auxiliaries.
Some Interesting Facts:
When these finites are not auxiliaries, they are sometimes anomalous and sometimes non-anomalous. There are differences between British and American usage. There are differences in British usage depending on the meaning of the verb.
Have is used to indicate possession or ownership. When used in this sense, the finites of have are anomalous.
In informal style, British English, have got is a preferred alternative. In ordinary American usage, these finites are not anomalous.
Like: How many pens do you have?
In British usage, the finites, when used in this way, are anomalous. In colloquial style, the perfect tenses with got are often used.
In American usage, the finites are non-anomalous
How many pockets does your jacket have?
When have is used with such meanings as take/ receive and experience, the finites are non-anomalous in both British and American Usage.
A distinction is made in British English between the use of have for reference to what is habitual, general or usual and for reference to a particular occasion. This distinction is not typical of American usage. When the reference is to what is general or usual, the finites of have are not anomalous. When the reference is to a particular occasion, the finites of have are, in British usage, anomalous, or the present perfect tense of get may be used. The use of the past perfect had got is less usual.
Have is used to indicate obligation. Some, but not all, British speakers make the distinction between the use of have for what is general or habitual, and for a particular occasion.
The finites of are anomalous only when they are auxiliaries (or operators) in the formation of the negative and interrogative, and in the emphatic affirmative. When do is a full verb, the finites are non-anomalous.
The model auxiliaries are shall/should, will; would, can/could, may/ might, must, ought, needy dare and used (to). These are fixates of defective verbs. Shall/should, will/would, can/could, may. might and must are always anomalous. Ought, always with to, is anomalous in good usage, but non-anomalous in sub-standard English.
Need is used as a modal auxiliary, anomalous, without to. It has no past tense form but is used with perfect infinitives. The form for the third person singular is also need. It occurs chiefly in the negative and interrogative, occasionally in the affirmative.
Need is also a full (or lexical) verb which is regular in every way. It has the inflection for the third person singular present tense (he needs) and the finites are non-anomalous.
Like need, dare is used both as a regular (or lexical) verb and as a modal auxiliary, anomalous. The third person singular present tense in the anomalous use is dare, not dares.
Anomalous dare is used with a bare infinitive (i e without to). It is used chiefly in the interrogative and negative, and is frequent after how. Anomalous daren’t is used for present, past and future time:
The phrase used to is pronounced /ju:stu: /or /ju:stu/ and the negative use(d)n’t to is pronounced/ju:sntu:/or/ ju:snto/. It is to be distinguished from the past tense of the verb use /ju:z/ which has the same spelling, used, but is pronounced/ jiuzd/ . It must also be distinguished from used (pronounced /ju:st/) meaning ‘accustomed’,.
Used to always refers to past time and takes an infinitive. It was anomalous in older usage and is still anomalous in formal style. It is non-anomalous in modem colloquial style, especially in tag- questions and responses.
Kinds of Formations:
Formation of the Negative
A finite verb is made negative by the use of not. In modern English only the 24 Anomalous Finite(AF) are made negative by simply adding not after the finite.
He is tired – He is not/He’s not/He isn’t tired.
But Non-AF require the helping verb do.
Hari wants it. (Hari does want it.)
Hari doesn’t want it.
Likewise
Hari wanted it. (Hari did want it.) Hari didn’t want it.
In spoken English and informal written English (e g. social correspondence), the contracted negative forms are used: isn’t, aren’t, didn’t, can’t, wouldn’t.
The use of not with non-AF was usual in older English (eg. Shakespeare, the Authorized Version of the Bible):
Lure not a distressed man.
Whereas now it is said like this:
Don’t lure a distressed man.
The Formation of the Interrogative
The interrogative is formed by inversion of the subject and the finite, which must be one of the 24 AF.
She can ride Can she ride?
The auxiliary do is used if the finite is non-anomalous:
Ravi went away. (Ravi did go away.) Did Ravi go away?
There are other forms of questions (eg. What, Who, etc, or using intonation).
The Interrogative-Negative
This is formed by placing not after the subject in formal written style, or by the use of the contracted negative forms in spoken English and often in informal written style:
Did they write ? Did they not write ? (or) Didn’t they write?
Inversion of the subject and the finite verb (always one of the 24 AF ) occurs after a front-shifted negative (including such semi negatives as hardly, scarcely, little, seldom, rarely).
Little did she knows that .. . (= She little knew that . .)
Avoidance of Repetition
The 24AF are used in short answers to questions. There is a fall in pitch on the `Yes’ or ‘No’ and on the finite verb.
Did you, get it? ‘Yes, I ‘did. (or) ‘No, I ‘didn’t.
These finites are also used to avoid repetition of a verb in a subsequent statement, eg. in a co- ordinate clause.
She didn’t often complain, and when she \did, no one paid much notice.
Adverb Position
Mid-position adverbs precede non-AF and follow AF (unless these are stressed)
The sun always rises in the east.
With AF:
We shall soon be there.
With a stressed AF:
We’ve never refused to go.
Verb Patterns-
We shall now concentrate our study on the different patterns of verb, because in order to learn and gain competence in the usage of verb in English language it is essential for all students of English language to have knowledge of verb patterns.
Here it is also necessary to clarify the following:
A transitive verb is a verb that can take a direct object. In other words, it is done to someone or something. Most verbs are transitive. A transitive verb contrasts with an intransitive verb.
In contrast to transitive verbs, some verbs take zero objects. Verbs that do not require an object are called intransitive verbs. An example in English is the verb to eat. Verbs that can be used in both intransitive or transitive way are called ambitransitive verbs.
For eg.
He reads a book.
(Read (from to read) is a transitive verb. In this example, the direct object is a book. To read is transitive because you can read something. You can read a poem, a story, a face, a horoscope, etc.)
Here is an example of an intransitive verb:
He snores. (Snores (from to snore) is an intransitive verb. It has no direct object. You cannot snore something.)
Thus direct Object follows a transitive verb. Direct objects can be nouns, pronouns, phrases, or clauses.
Indirect Object of a sentence is the recipient of the direct object. For eg.
Rita passed her brother the parcel.( Rita is Direct object and brother is the indirect object) The grammarians and linguist have cited the following verb Patterns:
Summary of Verb Patterns
Patterns 1-5 are of verbs used intransitively. Patterns 6-25 are of verbs used transitively.
Abbreviations used; S= subject; vi — intransitive verb; vt = transitive verb; DO = direct object; IO = indirect object
Summary:
Thus to conclude verb phrases consists those elements that are considered as strictly verbal , which, accordingly, would consist only of main and auxiliary verbs, plus infinitive or participle constructions. For example, in the following sentences we can see that the words in italics make verb phrases:
Rita has given her friend a book.
The tourists were being eaten alive by the maneater.
The crowd kept screaming like a maniac.
The functionalist frameworks and traditional European reference grammars often agree to this constricted definition of verb phrase. It is irreconcilable with the phrase structure model, because the strings in bold are not constituents under that analysis. However, dependency grammars and other grammars view the verb chain as the fundamental unit of syntactic structure, as opposed to the constituent. It is also to be noted here that the verbal elements in bold are syntactic units consistent with the understanding of predicates in the tradition of predicate calculus.
| you can view video on Phrase Structure: VP | |
Reference
- Akmajian, A. and F. Heny. 1980. An introduction to the principle of transformational syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
- Allen,W.Stannard.2012.Living English Structure. Fifth Edition.Noida,DorlingKindersley.
- Finch, G. 2000. Linguistic Terms and Concepts. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
- Gleason, H.A.(Jr.) 1968. An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. Indian Edition. New Delhi, Oxford &IBHPublishing Co.Pvt.Ltd.
- Hornby,A.S.1988. Guide to Patterns and Usage in English. Second Edition. Delhi, OUP.
- ∙https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
- https://english.wisc.edu/rfyoung/324/
- Klammer, T. and M. Schulz. 1996. Analyzing English Grammar. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
- Kroeger, P. 2004. Analyzing Syntax: A Lexical-Functional Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Matthews, P. 2007. Syntactic Relations: A Critical Survey. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Miller, J. 2011. A Critical Introduction to Syntax. London: continuum.
- Mukalel,JosephC.1998. Linguistics for the Teacher. New Delhi, Discovery Publishing House
- Osborne, T., M. Putnam, and T. Groß 2011. Bare Phrase Structure, Label-Less Structures, and Specifier-Less Syntax: Is Minimalism Becoming a Dependency Grammar? The Linguistic Review 28: 315–364.
- Palmer,Frank.1984. Grammar. Second Edition. London, Penguin Books.
- Sobin, N. 2011. Syntactic Analysis: The Basics. Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell.
- Tesnière, Lucien 1959. Éleménts de Syntaxe Structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
- van Valin, R. 2001. An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- web.mit.edu/norvin/www/24.902