Chapter 5

REVISED GRAMMAR KEY

Introduction

In this chapter, I am going to be presenting a traditional grammar key which has been modified to account for some of the problems brought out in our examination of Ehrlich and Murphy. At the same time, since so many current teaching grammars use jargon from modern linguists, e.g. determiner and modal, I shall include them here as well. The key will not be complete nor will it go into half as much detail as the text. However, since these are model explanations, we have had to sacrifice clarity for completeness. But this key will be sufficient to allow us to do the general parsings I will discuss in the following chapter.

Again, I must remind you that if you have not examined Ehrlich and Murphy carefully and noted the many inconsistencies in their presentation, then a great many of these changes will not make sense. In addition, as we noted at the close of the Chapter 4, our key is intended to be used in conjunction with Ehrlich and Murphy, since many of their explanations and examples are useful. Hence, it isn't a matter of simply throwing the book away and going on to something better.

One of the primary reasons I have designed the course in this way is that many of you will become professional teachers, writers or editors where you may be required to use specifics texts or guides. So it will become important for you to know how to make the best use of what you have and not always rely on a single source to answer all your questions.

Lastly, I would like to remind you once again that natural languages are not linear systems and so it will always be difficult to deal with any one feature in isolation, which is what chapter-by-chapter linear sequencing tends to do. In addition, we also have to keep reminding ourselves that we are presenting model explanations. As such, they will not be perfect. However, this means you have the right to ask that what we do say is clear and leads to genuine understanding.

In this chapter, I will simply present the key and follow it up with brief explanations of each feature. In Chapter 6, I'll show you how to apply the key to a set of basic English sentence types. It is these that you will be tested on in the final. I'm assuming that you'll be able to use what you learn here to develop analyses of more complex structures on your own.

REVISED KEY

Parts of Speech

The following list includes traditional elements from Ehrlich and Murphy as well as several categories from empirical linguistics which have found their way into various contemporary elementary and secondary ‘traditional’ texts .

N = Noun

Pn = Pronoun

Exp = Expletive

Adj = Adjective

Det = Determiner

Adv = Adverb

V = Verb

BE = Linking Verb

Par = Particle

Aux = Auxiliary

Mod = Modal

Ger = Gerund

Part = Participle

Inf = Infinitive

P = Presposition

Cmp = Complementizer

C = Conjunction (co-ordinating only).

Caution

Before we begin, it is important to warn you that you may find some of the descriptions and definitions in the following section confusing. However, I simply want to promise that most of the confusing elements will be explained at some point in this text. As I've mentioned several times, traditional grammars are linear whereas language in action is, to use some tech jargon, an exceedingly complex multi-looping feedback system. What this means that when we are using language to communicate in real situations, even when reading or writing isolation, there are a hundred different things going on at once, most of which are interactive and most of which we are not even aware of.

Hence, when we try to talk about or examine these phenomena in real time, everything becomes muddled and distorted because of the limitations of the human mind. Our brains are not designed to conceptualize simultaneous occurrences except through abstraction and linearization, a process which naturally leads to distortion. However, as we have pointed out in Appendix 3, all models are distortions in one way or another. On the other hand, if we didn't have models, we wouldn't be able to think or talk about most of the things that are important to us.

Let me give you an example of how frustrating it is to try to keep language in separate little compartments, even for traditional grammarians who don't have to be concerned about consistency and other logical constraints. Most grammars attempt to maintain a clear distinction between grammatical parts of speech (noun, adjective, verb) and grammatical functions (subject, main verb, adverbial modifier). In principle, we should be able to look at a word and identify what part of speech it is and then be able to predict what grammatical functions it might have in actual sentences, e.g., if a word is a noun, then it can function as a subject, an object of a preposition, etc. The idea is that a word should be identifiable as a part of speech independently of its actual function in a specific sentence. For example, in the following sentence, Ehrlich and Murphy state that the noun, evenings, is being used as an adverbial of time because it tells us when Coleridge wrote.

Coleridge wrote evenings.

By the same token, California is remains a noun even though it is functioning as an adjectival modifier in this sentence:

I like California wines.

Their argument is that the form of the noun does not change simply because of the way it is used. In a similar fashion, bold and beautiful are adjectives, and they remain adjectives even though they might be used as nouns, e.g., ‘The Bold and the Beautiful.’

However, when we turn to verbals, we encounter some serious problems with the idea that labeling the grammatical form and labeling the function of a word are separate operations. Let's look at a specific example. The form of the present participle of run is running. If we look at running in isolation, we can't say anything more about it than that. Hence, we might predict that every time we see running in a sentence, it will simply be labeled ‘present participle.’ However, in traditional grammar, this is not always the case.

(1) Feinstein is running for Senate next year.

Some writers would call running a ‘present participle,’ but others would simply call it the ‘verb’ with is being an ‘auxiliary’ or ’helping verb.’ This is what that we would label it, since run is the main verb of the clause. Note that those who call running a ‘present participle’ would have to label is a ‘present singular‘ or something strange like that. And note also that ‘participle’ here cannot mean ‘verbal adjective.’

Now look at what happens when we try to analyze the following two sentences using a traditional grammar such as Ehrlich and Murphy. In (2), running is labeled a ‘gerund’ because it is functioning as the subject of is and only nouns (or verbal nouns) can be subjects of verbs. No traditional grammarian I am aware of would claim that a ‘present participle’ can be the subject of a sentence.

(2) Running for Senate is an expensive undertaking.

(3) Running for Senate, Feinstein will need the President's support.

In (3), it is called a ‘participle,’ because Ehrlich and Murphy would say that it is functioning as an adjective modifier of Feinstein. Here the label, ’participle,’ does not only indicate what running is as a part of speech, it points out its grammatical function as verbal modifier.

So while we adamantly maintain that California is a noun regardless of the function it plays in a sentence, the same does not hold for verbs and verbals. For we have to sneak a peek at its function before we can label is in (1) an auxiliary and running in (2) a gerund. Note that if I only saw the expression running for Senate, I could not label running until I found out what the rest of the sentence was and could determine its function.

(2) Running for Senate is an expensive undertaking.

(3) Running for Senate, Feinstein will need the President's support.

Grammars as Models

So the difference between a course that is taught right out of a text book and our approach does not lie in the models we use but in how we use the models. For one thing, we recognize the fact that all grammars are models and that they provide us, not with truth and fact, but with approximations of truth and fact. Even a sentence as simple as ‘The cat is on the mat’ is only a model of a sentence that could be used to say something about the real world. But it is not, in this paragraph, doing anything of the sort. It is only serving as a model of a simple English sentence.

What all of us have to do is mentally put all of these grammatical examples in hypothetical contexts and it is in terms of those contexts that we can make sense of them and relate them to what Ehrlich and Murphy are trying to prove or illustrate by using them. But it we can't put them into context, then they become confusing. Some students even have problems understanding what the authors are trying to prove due to differences in dialect. For example, very few of my students would ever use the following sentences, even in formal English, so they become intimidated or angry.

•His folly was matched by his overbearing pride.

•Gardens between houses are well-tended in my town.

•This one, which I have nurtured for many years, is not a particularly

attractive shrub.

You might recall that I said that normative grammarians generally set their own dialect up as the standard by which correctness and propriety are to be judged. However, these types of examples don't bother me because I don't feel any pressure to see them as models for morality and stylistic excellence, i.e., I don't believe that I have to write and speak like that to be considered educated.

What I guess I am trying to say is that imagination, creative guessing, a knowledge of the real world and a certain amount of self-confidence are essential tools for working with any kind of model, but they are particularly important in doing grammatical analysis. It is for this reason that Langendoen said that doing grammar was more like an art than a science.

Let me give you an example how all complex grammatical descriptions can be. We've pointed out in Chapter 4 that Ehrlich and Murphy's insistence that participles as modifiers are always adjectival results in inconsistencies. We have tried to correct this problem by simply saying that participles are verbal modifiers that can be either adjectival or adverbial depending upon what kind of information they provide. The problem then becomes how we determine which is which.

Again, we are not concerned about the cases that are clearly adjectival. Deriving a little insight from transformational analysis, we would like to assume that adjectival participles are derived from relative clauses modifying a noun:

1) Adored by millions, Marilyn Munroe died a premature death =

2) Marilyn Munroe, who was adored by millions, died a premature death.

whereas adverbial participles usually come from adverbial clauses which modify entire clauses:

3) Wearing her new high heels, she tripped =

4) She tripped because she was wearing her new high heels.

If we say that adjectives simply describe a noun whereas adverbials answer questions like how, why, where and when, then it would be reasonable to state that, in event that both an adverbial and an adjectival interpretation are possible, the adverbial meaning will dominate because it conveys more information.

So as a general rule of thumb, we always look for the adverbial meaning first. If there is no clear adverbial meaning, then we allow the adjectival meaning to stand.

But the information we need to make this judgement is not grammatical. For example, in the case of (1), we do not live in a world where adoring fans cause premature deaths. Hence, we opt for (2) and say that adored by many is simply additional information about Marilyn Munroe. On the other hand, because we all know how difficult it is to walk in new high heels, then we can causally relate wearing that type of shoe to tripping.

Suppose, however, you were from a culture that didn't have shoes but titanium boots that never slipped. You might read (3) over and over a hundred times and never see the adverbial meaning. On the other hand, suppose you lived in a world where celebrities who have more than a million fans die young. In this case, you could say:

5) Adored by millions, Marilyn Munroe died a premature death =

6) Marilyn Munroe died a premature death, because she was adored by millions.

This example is but one of many that shows how complex and yet down to earth and common sense grammatical analysis can be. So as you go through the following list of definitions and revisions, be aware of the fact that these are very general conceptual tools that need to be used with an inquiring and imaginative mind. They can be bent and shaped in any way that you need to help further your understanding of the language that you know much better than you might think you do.

Notes on Parts of Speech

Noun

The traditional definition of noun is that it is the name of a person, place, thing, quality, activity, concept or condition. Another way of putting this is that nouns have reference — they are used to point to objects, situations or abstractions, real or imaginary. They function as subjects or objects. Nouns can usually be further described or limited by adjectival modifiers of various kinds as well as determiners.

Pronoun

In this revised key, we use the term pronoun to refer only to those elements which take the place of specific nouns and have nominal functions. We are not including demonstratives, possessives and any other classes of words that need to be followed by a noun to complete its meaning. See expletives and determiners.

Expletive

Although some grammarians include a number of other elements in this class, we are just going to consider those elements which look like pronouns and have nominal functions but don’t take the place of specific nouns as all pronouns must do. In other words, these are words that hold the subject position but don't have any noun referents. Examples of expletives are: ‘IT is raining,’ ‘THERE is nothing I can do,’ ‘IT is too bad that you fell.’ Even though we are trying to keep our key short and simple, we really have to expand the Ehrlich and Murphy analysis here because these cases are much too common to ignore.

Adjective

Adjectives are words which describe a quality of the noun they modify, e.g. ‘the RED book,’ ‘the QUIET cat,’ ’a PROPER solution.’ They answer questions like which or what kind of when asked of the noun. We want to say that different adjectives change the size, shape, identity or otherwise refer to a feature or quality of the noun itself. Words which simply limit nouns and do not change their shape we are going to call deteminers.

Determiner

Words that are placed in front of the noun but do not change the shape or form of the referent of the noun we want to call determiners. The traditional articles, ‘a’ and ‘the’ are both determiners. But determiners also include demonstratives, e.g. ‘THAT woman,’ ‘THESE boys, possessives, e.g. JOHN'S jacket,’ ‘YOUR book,’ and other form, e.g. ‘The FIRST woman,’ ‘The NEXT boy,’ ‘TEN men.’ There are also multiple-word determiners, such as, ‘ALL OF the women.’ In all these cases, the noun remains unchanged.

Adverb

Words which modify verbs, verbals, adjectives, other adverbs and entire clauses. They can be classified as adverbs of manner, degree, time, place, cause or purpose or assertion. To simplify our key, we will call conjunctive adverbs and subordinating conjunctions adverbs, e.g. ‘therefore,’ ‘although,’ ‘because,’ ‘when,‘ ‘while’ are all classified as adverbs. Some adverbs can be more than one word, e.g. ‘even though.’ They can also be discontinuous, e.g. ‘as ... as’ in ‘I can throw AS far AS Bob.’

Verb

The text defines a verb as the ‘word or words that describe the action or state of being of a sentence or clause. The verb makes a statement about its subject.’ We would like to add that it is also the most important part of speech in a sentence, since the nature of the verb determines the structure of the sentence. As far as parts of speech are concerned, however, we are going to make a much more radical distinction between the verbs that are normally classified as transitive and intransitive, and copulative or linking verbs, what we are going to put in a separate category, BE-Verbs. The reasoning behind this modification will become evident when we start to apply these definitions to actual sentences. A further discussion of verbs and verb classes can also be found in Appendix 4.

BE-Verbs

This category includes ‘to be’ and all the traditional linking verbs. We want to give these words a special place in our grammar because they don't refer to actions or activities but are really names of relations. The BE-Verb relates the subject with a complement, a noun or adjective that completes the meaning of the subject. (We also include adverbials of time and place in the class of traditional complements even though they are derived from different sources.) For a fuller analysis of BE-verbs, see Appendix 4.

Particle

Your text does not recognize this class of element, but we need them to avoid some terrible confusions. Linguists commonly acknowledge that some verbs are made up of another element which is generally called a particle. The particle looks like a preposition or an adverb, e.g. give UP, get UP, decide ON, count ON, look OVER. However, unlike prepositions (which always take noun objects) and unlike single adverbials, particles are not optional modifiers. They are necessary to the meaning of the particular verb they are part of in such a manner that the meaning of the verb changes if the particle is deleted. To determine whether or not an element is a particle, you can see whether or not it can be moved around the direct object noun

OVER the question’ --> ‘I looked the question OVER’] or whether a single word synonym can be found [‘I looked OVER the question’ –> ‘I EXAMINED the question’; ‘I decided ON the bus’ –> ‘I SELECTED the bus.’]

Auxiliary

The text calls everything that goes in front of the verb an auxiliary. Here is where we are going to be making one of our most radical breaks with the traditional key. We are going to divide the class of auxiliaries into two sets. The first we will call auxiliaries. The second, modals. There is a closed set of auxiliaries: ‘have,’ ‘be’ and ‘do.’ ‘Have’ and ‘be’ are used in conjunction with various participles to form the two aspect markers, the perfective and progressive; in addition, a form of ‘be’ is used to create the passive voice. ‘Do’ is used to signal questions, to add emphasis or with the negative. Like the passive ‘be,’ ’do’ has no meaning. Hence, the four auxiliaries really don't have much in common except that they all occur in front of the main verb of a clause; but they are clearly different from the modals and are few enough to be memorized without difficulty. See Appendix 4 for a further discussion of auxiliaries.

Modal

The text talks about a set of auxiliaries that are used to convey specific meanings, e.g. express intentions, predict future actions, state obligations and conditions, express wishes, and denote customary actions. There are a finite set of modals which include: ‘shall,’ ‘will,’ ‘may,’ ‘can,’ ‘must,’ ’ought,’ ‘should,’ ‘would,’ and ‘could.’ To those listed in the book, we would like to include colloquial forms like the following: ‘have,’ ‘get’ and ‘is.’ There are others but these three are most common. Modals not only convey a specific set of meanings, but they are always followed by the infinitive form of the verb (which does not always take ‘to.’ See Appendix 4 for a further discussion of modals.

Gerund

An -ing verbal used as a noun. Gerunds are most often confused with the present participle used as a modifier.

Participle

An -ing or -ed verbal (present or past participle) used as a modifier. The book regards all participles to be adjectival, but this assumption is not correct. Some participles function adverbially. You can call all participles which are in front of nouns adjectives, e.g. ‘the SWIMMING duck,’ ‘the FLOODED river,’ ‘the CRYING baby.’

In this simplified key, the only elements we are going to call conjunctions are those which join two equal phrases or two independent clauses, e.g. ‘and,’ and ‘or.’ What the book calls subordinating conjunctions or conjunctive adverbs, we are simply calling adverbs.

COMMENTS ON MAJOR FUNCTIONS

Just as our list of parts of speech is radically simplified, we have included only those elements that play a major role in the structure and meaning of a sentence as a whole. In addition, we are ignoring all but basic sentence types. For example, we are not considering imperatives, commands, questions or compound constructions.

The main verb of a sentence is the verb of the main or independent clause. An independent clause has a subject and a verb and ‘can stand alone and convey meaning as a simple sentence.’ (A dependent clause has a subject and a verb but cannot stand alone.] The main verb is the most important single element in a sentence because it determines its entire grammatical structure. In our model, we are going to say that the main verb only consists of the verb and any auxiliaries and modals that accompany it. Direct objects and adverbial modifiers will be identified separately.

Subject

The text defines the subject as the ‘element in a sentence performing the action indicated by an active verb; element in a sentence receiving the action of a passive verb.’ Since actives and passives only relate to transitive verbs, this definition appears to be rather limited. The most basic definition of subject is that it is ‘who or what the sentence is about.’ The subject can be represented by a noun, pronoun or a noun-clause. The verb will usually determine what kind of subjects it can take.

Direct Object

The usual definition of direct object is that they are the ‘word or words that receive the action of the verb.’ However, this definition is confusing because many verbs that take direct objects are not action verbs, e.g. ‘he FORGOT his keys’ and ’she FELT that something might happen to the boys.‘ It is much better to think of direct objects as types of complements. They are nouns, pronouns and noun clauses that are necessary to complete the meaning of transitive verbs and never take prepositions. A transitive verb, in turn, is a verb that must be completed by a direct object. In addition, only transitive verbs can be passivized and commanded.

Indirect Object

Some transitive verbs, e.g. give, take, buy, send, and award, must be completed by a prepositional phrase, usually associated with ‘to‘ or ‘for.’ The traditional term for this phrase is indirect object. When the indirect object stands between the verb and the direct object, the preposition is usually deleted. The difference between the prepositional phrase complements which serve as indirect objects and prepositional phrases which are simply verb modifiers is semantic. It is related to the meaning of the verb itself. See Appendix 4 for a further discussion of direct and indirect objects.

Complement

We are going to stay with Ehrlich and Murphy here and say that complements are only found in BE-verb constructions. They do not complete the

meaning of the verb so much as they complete the meaning of the entire sentence. If all BE-verb constructions take the form A = B, then the complement is the B that complete the equation. They are often called subject complements because they complete or modify the meaning of the subject noun. Since they are usually nouns or adjectives, traditional grammarians also refer to these complements as predicate nouns and predicate adjectives. [But we have already mention that restricting complements to nouns, pronouns and adjectives means that we can't account for simple BE-verb constructions, such as, ‘the train is ON TIME’ and ’the drums are OVER THERE.’

Adjectival-Modifier

Since we are only concerned with major sentence functions and since the rule of adjectives is simply to modify nouns, there are no adjective modifiers that have separate sentence functions. So if an adjective or adjective clause modifiers a noun which is a subject, then that adjectival modifier is simply part of the subject. The only times that our model requires that you identify a separate adjectival function are when we are dealing with a participial phrase which is detached from the noun by commas (and usually moved to the front of the sentence) and could be an adverbial modifier.

Some modern linguists would say that adjectival modifiers are derived from relative clauses which follow the nouns they modify. Compare the first two sentences which begin with adjectival modifiers with the second two that begin with adverbial phrases:

1) Madonna, who is more famous than ever, boarded her plane.

2) More famous than ever, Marilyn Munroe boarded the plane.

3) Madonna, who is adored by her fans, boarded the plane.

4) Adored by her fans, Madonna boarded the plane.

5) Dan Quayle boarded the plane as he smiled and waved,

6) Smiling and waving, Dan Quayle boarded the plane.

7) Dan Quayle board the plane after he had given his speech.

8) Having given his speech, Dan Quayle boarded the plane.

In our model, the modifiers in (2) and (4) would have to be identified as adjectival but those in (1) and (3) would not because there is no ambiguity involved.

Adverbial-Modifier

Adverbs and adverbials can modify many, many things in a sentence but these functions are not all of equal importance. On the other hand, adverbials have a much greater effect on the sentence as a whole than adjectivals. So

we need to pay special attention to them. Also, as we just pointed out, adverbials and adjectivals can often be mistaken for each other because verbals, prepositional phrases and nouns can be either type of modifier. Hence, the best way to identify grammatical functions is to ask what kinds of questions the modifier under examination answers. The meaning of adjectives is important but fairly narrow. They help to describe or identify the noun. Any information about the noun can have no other function.

On the other hand, a modifier that refers to the manner in which the action of the verb was done or what instrument or means were used to perform the action are always adverbials of the verb. Prepositional phrases used to complete the meaning of a verb we are also calling verb modifiers; hence, they are adverbials. We shall say that any modifier of the main verb of a sentence is performing a major function in that sentence. Hence, all of the following examples would be marked as ADV(MV) = adverbials of the main verb.

1) She walked SLOWLY.

2) She ate her food WITH HER HANDS.

3) She went TO THE CONCERT.

4) She asked BOB for a drink.

From a sentence function point of view, adverbials which modify adverbs, adjectives or other adverbials are not significant. On the other hand, the most important adverbial modifiers are those which refer to the entire clause, for they relate information about causes, reasons, purposes, conditions, times, places and the truth of the events referred to by the sentence as a whole. The following are examples of sentence modifiers, which we call adverbials of the main clause ADV(MC). Chapter 6 in Ehrlich and Murphy is actually quite good in describing adverbial functions but not clear about their scope.

5) ON MONDAY, he came to school ALTHOUGH HE WALKED.

6) He did NOT see the bus WHEN HE HIT IT.

7) He SELDOM drives THESE DAYS

8) AFTER HIS ACCIDENT, he has been worried ALL THE TIME.

9) CONSTANTLY STRESSED, he eats ice cream.

10) TODAY, he called TO SEE IF I WOULD EAT ICE CREAM TOO.

11) IN FACT, IF EVERYONE ATE ICE CREAM, he'd be happy AGAIN.

Verbs and adverbials are probably the most difficult elements of a sentence to grasp. So you should always give them very special attention.

Summary

I realize that this revised key must seem incredibly simple-minded in some areas and too complicated in others. However, it has been designed to do a very specific job. In addition, I have had a chance to test and revise this model for over ten years. The important point to remember is that this key is not intended to replace Ehrlich and Murphy or any other traditional grammar text, style sheet or usage manual you may have the opportunity to use in the future. What it is designed to do is teach you how see a basic set of sentences in a radically different way than you might have been accustomed to in the past.

My belief is that this new way of seeing will help you to use other grammar texts more intelligently and also help you to solve many of the real world problems you might encounter in the areas of style, usage or just plain interpersonal communications. In addition, a lot of research that has been done in the area of critical thinking and problem-solving points to the fact that your attitude, work habits and willingness to see things from different points of view will have a lot more to do with your ability to solve the tough problems than any theory, method or text book.

Of course, the key I have just presented is nothing more than a list of labels. I don't think they've made a lot of sense to you in the way they have been presented. They shouldn't have. What you need to do is go back and apply these concepts and operations to some of the more outstanding problems you had with the text and to the sample sentences I have provided for you in Appendix 5. But, of course, I will go over the application of these rules, what I call our parsing model, with you in our next and final chapter. And so we should hurry over and start.