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/