скачать рефераты

скачать рефераты

 
 
скачать рефераты скачать рефераты

Меню

Verb phrases скачать рефераты

t is tempting to try to combine (4) and (6) and make it the defining property of verbs that they assign agent and theme theta-roles.3 This would be a mistake, however. First, if these particular thematic roles were built into the definition, one would have to be sure one could distinguish them from other thematic roles in a reliable way. This is a notoriously difficult enterprise, the thematic roles having clear central instances but fuzzy boundaries. More importantly, there are a few verbs that do not assign any thematic role to their specifier. Verbs like seem and appear are the clearest case; perhaps weather predicates are another.

But even though these verbs have no thematic role to assign to a specifier, they must still have a specifier, in the form of the pleonastic pronoun it:

(8) a He made [(it) seem/appear that he was happy]

b Sowing the clouds made [?(it) rain /snow]

This may seem like a peculiarity of English, since many languages do not require an overt pronoun with these verbs. However, this is simply because many languages never require overt pronouns, often because the person/number/gender features of the pronoun are adequately expressed in the verbal morphology, as in Spanish and Italian. Not surprisingly, the required subject of the verb shows up not as a pleonastic pronoun, but as a pleonastic subject agreement in these languages.

Auxiliary verbs also illustrate this same point. These are verbs that do not assign any thematic roles, but express only aspectual information, such as the progressive or the perfect:

a The box broke open

b The box has broken open.

c The box is breaking open.

The nominal the box is thematically related only to the verb break in these examples, and semantically the aspect has scope over the entire eventuality, including the subject. Therefore, on purely semantic grounds, one might expect the structures in (5).

(5) a has [VP the box [broken open]]

b is [VP the box [breaking open]]

But this is not what we find on the surface. Have and is are (nonprototypical) verbs, and as such they must have a specifier. In this case, they acquire one, not by theta-role assignment, nor by pleonastic insertion, but by NP-movement:

(6) a[VP the box has [VP [broken open]]

b [VP the box is [VP t[breaking open]]

Again, this is not a peculiarity of English. The semantically plausible Aux-Subject-Verb-Object order in (6) is not found in any SVO language, based on the data from 530 languages summarized in Julien (2000). Orders like (5) are found in the Celtic languages, but these are crucially VSO languages, where there is independent evidence that all verbs (not just auxiliaries) move to the left of their subjects.

The most challenging aspect of defending (1) is not to show that all verbs have specifiers, but to show that the other lexical categories cannot have them.

Nouns and adjectives certainly can appear without specifiers, as seen in (6)

(7) a Water is refreshing. (specifierless N)

b Cold water is refreshing. (specifierless A)

But they can also be used predicatively, in which case they seem to take subjects just as much as verbs do. I illustrated the subject-taking properties of various verbs in English by embedding them under the causative verb make, because make selects a bare VP complement (I assume), with no obvious functional head. Thus, in this context we can be relatively certain that it is the verb that requires a subject, not tense or some other functional head. But NPs and APs can also be embedded under make, in which case they too are preceded by a subject:

(8) a The chemist took a hydrogen and oxygen mixture and made [#(it) water].

b Then she put the water into the refrigerator to make [(it) cold].

This subtle contrast between verbs and other categories has no obvious connection to the superficial inflectional properties of verbs, but it does suggest that there is a structural difference between verbs and predicate nouns/adjectives. A theory that starts with the assumption that only verbs take subjects directly gives us immediate leverage on this paradigm.

So we encountered the different word classes of English and looked at the internal structure of words. In the following part we shall consider structures that are usually made up of more than one word, and look at how they are put together out of the word classes we have already examined. Here, then, we shall be considering the ways in which words are combined to make phrases, and investigate the structure of clauses, sentences and utterances.

2.3 Verb phrases. Their composition and functions

Alternative definitions of `verb phrase'

Verb phrase is that part of the predicate constituent that does not contain optional adverbials. (In many cases the predicate consists of a VP only.) We will stick to this definition in this work. However, it may be useful to know that some linguistic works use the term in a different sense.

Some use it in the sense of our `predicate (constituent)', i.e. to refer to the sum of all those constituents of the clause that do not belong to the subject NP. Others use the term in a much narrower sense, to denote no more than the main verb and any auxiliaries accompanying it. Thus seen, the VP of He may have been reading a book is may have been reading (rather than may have been reading a book). In the present work a string like may have been reading or will read will be referred to as a `verb form'. A verb form consists either of a verb (in the form of a participle or infinitive) plus one or more auxiliaries (e. g. will see, would have seen) or of a (usually inflected) verb only (as in They take drugs, John smokes).

The verb phrase is the pivotal phrase in English clauses. It fulfils the role of predicator in the clause and effectively introduces a process (action, event and so on). Unlike in the noun phrase, recursion is not possible in the verb phrase, and with only a small number of exceptions all verb phrases fit into a fairly predictable and clear pattern, as described in this section. It is important to note that some approaches, notably those deriving from generative theory, use the term verb phrase to refer to the whole of the predicate of the clause, that is, the verb and all that follows it. In the approach used here the term is used to describe only the verbal element of the clause, functioning as the predicator. To avoid confusion it is essential when reading other textbooks to establish which of these approaches is in use.

The first thing to note is that the simplest verb phrase will be a main lexical verb on its own. This is true of the vast majority of English verb phrases, and also of the clauses below, where the verb phrase is underlined:

She crumpled the letter in her hand [59, p.76]

Give them my love.[59, p.43]

Winifred recited the story of the pearls calmly. [59, p.33]

We have already examined the form of English verbs, so the above should be as examples of the past tense, the present third person singular and the present second person singular respectively. As English has no future tense and things such as voice (active and passive), perfective and progressive are not built into its morphology (unlike, for example, French and Spanish), there is a range of auxiliary verbs instead. These precede the main lexical verb and introduce all of the variations of meaning that some other languages include in the form of the verb itself.

The full form of the verb phrase is as shown in Table 4.1, though as we shall see it is rare for all of these potential places to be filled at once.

Table 4.1

Modal auxiliary

Perfective auxiliary

Continuous auxiliary

Passive

Main verb

might

have

been

being

followed

We shall consider each of the four auxiliary positions in turn. The modal auxiliaries in English are a subclass with at least the following members:

may, might, will, would, shall, should, can, could, ought (to)

There are other potential members of the modal class, including need and dare, but these are increasingly falling out of usage as modal verbs. Modality is an important semantic contribution to the interpretation of any text, and it is not found in modal verbs alone but here we shall mainly consider the structure of the English verb phrase, rather than detailed variations in meaning and usage. In general, then, modal verbs are responsible for bringing in the speaker's own opinion about the substance of the clause being uttered, by indicating either how true or how desirable or acceptable he or she considers the circumstance being described. The likelihood or truth of an utterance is called epistemic modality, and its desirability is known as deontic or boulomaic modality. These two aspects of modal meaning can be represented by the same modal verb, with the semantics and context enabling the hearer to distinguish between them.

He should have written to her, because and she had promised to answer. (she knows that he has plenty of time).[59, p.23]

He should have written to her, because and she had promised to answer. (It's not polite, because she is still waiting).[59, p.65]

The first example shows the use of should as an epistemic modal, with the speaker indicating some doubt about the truth of the statement. The second example demonstrates the deontic use of modals, whereby the speaker indicates what she or he thinks is the proper thing to happen. The modal verbs have no formal variation in morphology, and therefore they are always the same, irrespective of the person (first, second, third) or number (singular or plural) of the subject they follow:

I should go.

You should eat.

He/she/it should play.

We should sing.

They should leave.

More important, perhaps, is the fact that the modal verbs do not occur on their own, hence the inclusion of a range of lexical verbs in the examples given above. It is only when the lexical verb is completely predictable that the modal can stand in for the whole verb phrase. The following exchange provides an example:

A: Might they bring a present with them?

B: They might.

When a modal auxiliary is included in the verb phrase the subsequent verb form must be the infinitive form of the verb - one of the non-finite forms of the verb. In the above examples the lexical verbs follow the modal in infinitive forms - go, eat, play, sing, leave - but because the infinitive form is the same as other forms for many verbs, it is only clear that these are infinitives when the subsequent verb is one with a distinctive infinitive, such as the verb be: You should be . . .

Later we shall look at more complex cases, where some of the other auxiliary positions are also filled in. For now the significant points to remember are that modals do not change their own morphology but do influence the form of any subsequent verb, so that it is obliged to be an infinitive.

The second auxiliary position is the perfective auxiliary. This function is fulfilled by the auxiliary verb have which looks identical in all its forms to the lexical verb have, but must be kept separate for analytical purposes. The lexical verb have has a clear meaning or `semantic content', approximating to the notion of ownership, though this is sometimes more metaphorical than literal (for example I have a longing for a cool drink). The perfective auxiliary, by contrast, brings the idea of completion to the meaning of the verb phrase:

She has broken the glass.

I had cooked the dinner.

The perfective auxiliary, unlike the modal verbs, will agree with its subject as long as it is the first verb in the verb phrase. It can also take the present (has) or past (had) tense form, and this choice will differentiate between actions or processes completed in the immediate past and those completed at an earlier moment.

The other important feature of the perfective is its effect on the subsequent verb, whether that is another auxiliary or a main (lexical) verb. Those verbs which follow the perfective auxiliary have to take the -en form, which is another of the non-finite forms of the verb.

She has taken the dog. They had sold their house.

The -en form of many verbs is either irregular (for example sold ) or similar in form to the past tense -ed form (asked). Nevertheless, whenever the perfective auxiliary is followed by a verb for which a distinctive -en form is possible, this is the form that is used (for instance taken).

The next auxiliary position in the English verb phrase is the progressive auxiliary verb, be. Like the perfective it has the same range of forms as a very common lexical verb, but they should be considered as different verbs. The lexical meaning of be is hard to capture, but it can be summed up as to do with existence and equivalence:

Why is it necessary at all? Mother doesn't want to marry again.[59, p.27]

That's only to show you how impossible your father is![59, p.29]

The auxiliary verb, be, however, conveys the idea that the process being described by the utterance is in some sense continuous - either in the past or in the present:

Warmson is smiling faintly--in his opinion Val is a young limb.[59, p.30]

James' voice was sounding from the other end.[59, p.42]

In the first of these examples the verb phrase, was making, tells the hearer that the process is ongoing since the auxiliary is in the present tense. In the second example the process is in the past because the auxiliary is in the past, but there is a focus on the duration of the process that is lacking in a past tense or perfective version:

James' voice has sounded from the other end.[59, p.67]

These three versions all place the action in the past, and none of them evokes the length of time during which the prayer was being said, unlike the progressive version.

The final auxiliary to discuss is the passive auxiliary, which also takes the form of the verb be. Again this needs to be distinguished from the lexical verb be, and from the progressive auxiliary, which is formally identical to it. In fact the only way that we can tell the difference is by what follows it. In the case of the passive auxiliary, the subsequent verb has to be in the -en form rather than the -ing form, which follows the progressive.

Madame Lamotte was wearing black with touches of lilac colour (progressive).[59, p.11]

And suddenly he was certain as he was caught on the idea that there was no sentiment in either of them. (passive).[59, p.56]

The significant contribution of the passive voice to meaning is that it changes the relationship between the subject and the predicator. In all active (nonpassive) verb phrases, in some sense the subject is the doer of the process (even if the verb is a fairly inactive one, such as notice or fall). With passive verb phrases the subject is the goal of the process, and suffers the consequence of the process described, rather than being the initiator. This can be seen in the examples above, where Jessica is doing the throwing in the first sentence but is affected by it in the second. The passive auxiliary, like the perfective and the continuous, carries person/ number agreement and tense if it is the first auxiliary in the verb phrase:

Soames could not tell whether he was surprised of that knowledge or no.[59, p.56]

The fine reading-room was decorated in the Adam style.[59, p.75]

When the passive auxiliary is no longer the first auxiliary in the verb phrase the usual restrictions apply. Thus after a modal auxiliary its form will be an infinitive, after a perfective it will be -en and after a continuous it will have the -ing form.

We are now in a position to summarise the English verb phrase structure and the formal restrictions that the auxiliaries place on the subsequent verb.

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5