Eduard,
A tree diagram is constrained to show the structure of the sentence with
the word order the speaker/writer has used. If one works
derivationally, then word order can change, but movement rules of the
sort that were used in 60s and early 70s generative grammar were far too
powerful to be of much theoretical use and had to be constrained in a
variety of ways. I don't know how a GB, P&P, Minimalist, or later
grammarian would handle the problem because I don't do that sort of
theory any more. One of the differences between a tree diagram, by
which I mean a phrase structure tree, and a Reed-Kellogg diagram is that
the RK will shift word order in some cases so that constituents are in a
more canonical order. Tree diagrams don't do this.
But you may be referring to a tree-drawing convention that I'm not
familiar with.
Herb
Dear Herb:
The sentence "Running from the back of his skull down to the front is
a patch of white hair that opens up into his lip" is an example a
sentence where syntactic means are employed for expressing focus and
emphasis. The expression of focus and emphasis is achieved in this
sentence through *marked word order,* that is, "the movement of a
constituent into a position in the sentence where we whould not
ordinarily expect to find it."
Specifically, as Johanna stated, this is a case of "preposing"
or "fronting," of a *present participle,* as in the example:
"Sitting at the kitchen table was our missing uncle."
In our case, the preposed present participle is *running from the
back of his skull down to the front.*
The question is if this case of preposing can be treated in a similar
way to the WH-fronting, that is, in a double tree structure which
would indicate a subject-operator inversion shown in a tree movement.
I searched, but I haven't found any information on this matter
concerning "present participle fronting" in the textbooks I searched.
My personal perspective is that because the propositional meaning of
the sentence does not change with the preposing the tree does not
need to show movement, but needs to follow the basic English sentence
order, SVO. A tree diagram, should therefore begin with the the noun
phrase which functions as a subject and continue with the predicate,
all subcomponents falling under the major parts according to their
functions in the sentence.
I would be interested to know what Johanna thinks about this matter.
Eduard
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>Here's another post from Johanna that's well worth reading. As I
told =
>her, I pretty much gave up on theoretical syntax back in the mid 70s
=
>when I couldn't wrap existing theory around the serial verb =
>constructions I was working on in West African languages at the
time. =
>It's hard within any version of MIT-rooted syntactic theory to deal
with =
>sentences that have multiple verbs in a single clause with no =
>coordination or complementation involved.
>
>Herb
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Johanna Rubba [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Tue 3/14/2006 3:34 PM
>To: Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
>Cc: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>Subject: Re: What Is This? Herb's Analysis
>=20
>Herb,
>
>Again I'd ask you to post this.
>
>As to the matter of existential sentences, an alternative name for
them=20
>is _presentative_ sentences, since their purpose is to "present"
the=20
>existence of the subject as news. This avoids the ambiguity of
using=20
>"existential" to name two different kinds of sentence.
>
>I think I have a good proof for the idea that the sentence in
question=20
>is presentative. I tried the tag-question test to find the subject
of=20
>the sentence, but I got a presentative result:
>
>1. Running from the back of his skull down to the front is a patch
of=20
>white hair that opens up into his lips, isnt there? vs.
>2. Running from the back of his skull down to the front is a patch
of=20
>white hair that opens up into his lips, isn't it?
>
>Although both sound bad (it's often hard to make tags for
questions=20
>with initial phrases other than the subject), I think the first
sounds=20
>much better, relatively speaking. Creating presentative sentences
is=20
>one of the major uses of "there." Such sentences have "there" in
the=20
>tag:
>
>3. There's a fly in your soup, isn't there?
>
>Non-presentative sentences put a pronoun in the tag that agrees
with=20
>the subject:
>
>4. The girl is in the school band, isn't she?
>
>It is also clear that, even though 2 is awful, we would still
interpret=20
>the "it" as having "a patch of white hair (etc.)" as antecedent.
>
>Going over this discussion in my mind, along with past ones that
have=20
>gone on a bit, with different analyses of a sentence, I can
understand=20
>why a lot of list subscribers find such discussions more
mystifying=20
>than helpful. There are unambiguously correct syntactic analyses
of=20
>many sentences, esp. if you adhere to the most conventional
definitions=20
>of terms among linguists (Ed Vavra, please don't start up again
about=20
>the definition of "main clause"). There is only one correct
syntactic=20
>analysis for the sentence in question. "Running from the back of
his=20
>skull down to the front" is a preposed subject complement
(predicate=20
>adjective in traditional terms); "a patch of white hair that opens
up=20
>into his lips" is the subject. It would be nice if subscribers who
have=20
>posted other syntactic analyses would acknowledge this. If they
are=20
>using definitions and interpretations that are not in common use
among=20
>linguists, this should be made clear; they can still prefer their
own=20
>analysis, but at least other subscribers would understand why and
how=20
>there can be disagreement. I think I always make a point of saying=20
>whether my analyses come from Cognitive Grammar, for instance.
>
>As to drawing a tree for this sentence, you would have to start
with=20
>the version of the sentence that does not prepose the "running"
phrase:
>
>5. A patch of white hair that opens up into his lips is running
from=20
>the back of his skull down to the front.
>
>Then, if one does this with a tree at all, another tree is needed
for=20
>the "running"-initial version, and that tree would have to show
the=20
>"movement" (I don't believe in movement, myself). Ignoring updated=20
>versions of generative grammar that include things like a C-node
and=20
>INFL (or whatever the current practice is), an old-style tree
would=20
>reflect the following phrase structure rules for the non-preposing=20
>sentence:
>
>S -> NP VP
>NP =3D A patch of white hair that opens up into his lips
>VP =3D is running from the back of his skull down to the front
>
>VP -> V AP
>V =3D is
>AP =3D running from the back of his skull down to the front
>
>The old style of tree diagramming did not use trees to show
transformed=20
>structures. At that time, there was no X-bar syntax, no CP or C
nodes,=20
>and no IP nodes. Even if we have those at hand, I don't think it
would=20
>be correct to put the "running" phrase under the C node. You would
also=20
>have to get the subject into the IP, which seems incoherent. Maybe=20
>someone who is better-versed in the current generative theory can
tell=20
>us how (and whether) one can draw a tree for the preposed
sentence.=20
>It's important to realize that (so far as I know) generative syntax
has=20
>not abandoned the practice of starting with some kind
of "underlying"=20
>structure and then operating on it. Maybe Optimality Theory doesn't
do=20
>this, but I have not investigated Optimality as applied to syntax.
>
>Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
>Linguistics Minor Advisor
>English Department
>California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>Tel.: 805.756.2184
>Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
>Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
>URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
