a students introduction to english grammar huddleston
.pdfExercises |
223 |
In [ib], any sunscreen is the subject and on is the predicate, consisting of the locative complement on. The relation is like that expressed in finite clauses by be (cf. There wasn 't any sunscreen on him), though it would not be possible to insert be in [ib] itself.
In [iic] the subject is missing as well as the predicator, but there is nevertheless a predicational relation understood: the adjunct can be expanded to while I was in Boston.
(b) Verbless clauses functioning directly as adjuncts
Verbless clauses with a subject + predicate structure can function as adjuncts, as illustrated in such examples as these:
[38]i The meeting finally over, they all adjourned to the local cafe.
iiThe passengers, many ofthem guite elderly, wereforced to line up in the sun.
The predicational relationship is again like the one expressed in finite clauses by be, as in examples like The meeting was finally over, or Many of them were quite elderly. The adjunct in [i] has a temporal interpretation (it means "when the meet ing was finally over"). The one in [ii] is comparable to a supplementary relative clause ("many of whom were quite elderly").
1 . For each of the following examples, (a) say |
iii |
In a restaurant review, describing a visit |
whether there is an NP in the matrix clause |
|
to a cafe: |
that is intended to be the antecedent for the |
|
Meandering in at about 11:30 a.m. on a |
missing subject of the underlined non |
|
Sunday - somewhere between breakfast |
finite clause; (b) if there is, say which NP it |
|
and brunch - the place was packed. |
is, or if there isn't, say what you would take |
iv |
In an editorial about a demonstration: |
to be the understood subject of the non |
|
Even allowing for the strong feelings on |
finite clause; and then (c) say whether you |
|
both sides, the behaviour of the demon |
think a prescriptive grammarian would |
|
strators was indefensible. |
regard the example as an instance of the so |
v |
From a journalist's description of a |
called dangling modifier construction. |
|
flight over the countryside: |
i From a 1 987 opinion column by a |
|
Flying low, a herd of cattle could be seen. |
British commentator: |
2. The verbs in the bracketed clauses below |
|
Having said all that, however; there is |
are all plain forms. Which of the clauses |
|
little doubt in my mind that Mrs. |
are infinitival, and hence non-finite? |
|
Thatcher is going to win and thoroughly |
i |
All Idid was [give them your phone |
deserves to do so. |
|
number]. |
ii From a news story about causes of |
11 |
You can stay at our cabin, but [make |
infantry battlefield deaths: |
|
sure you bring plenty of warm clothes]. |
Pinned down by gunfire and unreach |
iii |
I recommend [that the proposal be |
able by medical evacuation teams, the |
|
approved without delay]. |
main cause of death was loss of blood. |
iv |
They advised me [to rejectyour offer]. |
226 Chapter 14 Coordination and more
A simple piece of evidence for this is that a sentence division can occur between the two clauses. The two sentences might even be spoken by two different people, one adding to what the other said. And when we separate the two clauses like this, the coordinator goes with the second:
[2]A: She's a good teacher. B : And her students really like her.
We therefore use the term 'coordinate' not only for her students really like her, but also for and her students really like her. We distinguish them, when we need to, by calling the first a bare coordinate and the second an expanded coordinate. Here are simplified diagrams representing the structure for [ l i] and [ l iii] :
[3]
a. |
Coordination |
|
b. |
Clause |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Coordinate, : |
Coordinate2: |
Subject: |
Predicate: |
|
|
|||
|
Clause |
Clause |
NP |
|
VP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Marker: |
Coordinate2: |
|
Predicator: |
PredComp: |
|
|
|
Coordinator |
Clause |
|
V |
Coordination |
|
||
|
Jane is a |
and |
her students |
|
Coordinate, : |
Coordinate2: |
||
good teacher |
I |
|
|
|
|
|||
really like her |
|
|
AdjP |
NP |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marker: |
Coordinate2: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coordinator |
NP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I |
her assistant is veryyoung but a quick learner
External syntax: where coordinate constituents can occur
Whether a coordination is admissible in a certain position depends primarily on the individual coordinates. In the default case, if each of the bare coordinates can occur on its own in some position, the coordination can occur there. Thus the admissibil ity of [ l iii] is predictable from that of the separate clauses Her assistant is very young and Her assistant is a quick learner.
The fact that it is usually possible to replace a coordination by any one of the coordinates is the key reason for saying that coordination is a non-headed construc tion. This kind of replacement distinguishes coordination very sharply from head + dependent constructions, as illustrated in the following examples:
230 Chapter 14 Coordination and more
In [iii] , by contrast, just the first embedded clause is relativised: who attended the dinner is a relative clause but they are not members isn't, so the coordination is ungrammatical.
Relativisation is thus said to work across the board, i.e. to all coordinates. Example [ 1 4iii] clearly doesn't satisfy condition [ 1 2] : the second underlined clause cannot occur alone in this context (*The people they are not members owe $20 is ungram matical), so the coordination of the two underlined clauses is inadmissible.
We f nd a sharp contrast here with head + dependent constructions:
[IS] |
iii |
Theyattended the dinner although theyare not members. |
|
*Thepeople [who attendedthe dinner although who are not members] owe $20. |
mThepeople [who attended the dinner although theyare not members] owe $20.
But in [ 1 4] is a coordinator. Although in [ I S] is not: it's a preposition with a content clause complement. When we relativise here, then, it is just the attend clause that is affected, as in [ l Siii] (the clause they are not members is the complement of a prepo sition inside the attend clause). Version [ 1 Sii] is ungrammatical, because the rela tive clause who are not members is complement of a preposition. This is not a permitted function for relative clauses.
2.3Impossibility of preposing an expanded coordinate
It is completely inadmissible to prepose an expanded coordinate. There is a sharp contrast between the coordinator but and the preposition although when
we applyipreposing to [ 1 4i] and [ I Si] :
[16] ii
The adjunct in [ 1 6ii] is placed at the beginning of the clause (instead of the end, as in [ 1 Si]), and this is fully acceptable. But an expanded coordinate behaves quite dif ferently: changing the structure of [ 1 4i] in a comparable way makes [ 1 6i], which is completely unacceptable.
3The order of coordinates
In the simplest and most straightforward cases, the order of the coordi nates can be changed without perceptible effect on the acceptability or interpreta tion of the coordination:
[17] iii |
a. |
We can have [beans or broccoli]. |
b. |
We can have [broccoli or beans]. |
a. |
I was [fummand tired]. |
b. |
I was [tired and fumm]. |
Coordination of this kind is called symmetric - and contrasts with asymmetric coordination, such as we find in [ 1 8] :
|
|
|
|
§4 The marking of coordination |
23 1 |
[18] i |
a. |
We were left [high and do!.]. |
b. |
*We were left [do!. and high]. |
|
ii |
a. |
I [ and had breakfast]. |
b. |
I [had breakfast and gQl.JUZ]. |
|
High and dry ("above the tide line, abandoned") is fossilised, so that the order is fixed. There are a good number of expressions of this kind: aid and abet, betwixt and between, common or garden, hem and haw, and so on.3
In [ii] the [a] and [b] versions are both fully acceptable, but they differ in their natural interpretations. This is because there is an implication that the events took place in the order described: in [iia] you understand that I got up and then had break fast, while in [iib] I had breakfast first (in bed) and then got up.
There are a good many cases of and and or coordinations carrying implications beyond the basic additive or alternative meaning of the coordinator, and making the coordination asymmetric. A few examples are given in [ 1 9] :
[19]i He [parked his car at a bus-stop and was fined $/00].
ii[Pay within a week and you'll get a /0% discount].
iii[We need topay the bill today or we won't get the discount].
In [i] there is again an implication that the parking took place before the fining, but also a further implication that the fining was the CONSEQUENCE of the parking. In [ii] there is a conditional implication: "IF you pay within a week you get the discount".
There is also a conditional implication in [iii], but with or the implicit condition is negative: "IF WE DON'T pay the bill today we won't get the discount".
4The marking of coordination
In all the examples so far the coordination construction has been marked by a coordinator introducing the final coordinate. This is the most common pattern, but not the only one. There are three other possibilities.
(a) Unmarked coordination
Sometimes no coordinator is used, so the coordination is just a list. Commas are used to separate the items in writing.
[20] |
i |
Hefelt [tired, depressed, listless]. |
[and understood] |
|
ii |
Did they ever offeryou [red wine, white wine, beer]? |
[or understood] |
(b) Repetition of coordinator
The coordinator can introduce all except the first of a series of coordinates. The rep etition of the coordinator gives added emphasis to the relation it expresses:
3There are also numerous expressions where the order is not rigidly fixed but one order is usual and familiar, so that reversal sounds a bit strange: knife and fork, hope and pray, men and women. Fossilised expressions are another example of something that condition [ 1 2] doesn't cover: hem and haw, for example, cannot be replaced by either of its coordinates.
232Chapter 14 Coordination and more
[21]Hefelt [tired. and depressed. and listless].
iiThey offered us a choice of [red wine or white wine or beer].
(c) Correlative coordination
Although the first coordinate is never introduced by a coordinator, it can be marked by one of the determinatives both, either, and neither, paired respectively with the coordinators and, or, and nor, yielding correlative coordination:
[22][Both the managing director and the company secretary] have been arrested.
ii It's one of those movies thatyou'll [either love or hate].
III[Neither Sue nor her husband] supported theplan.4
1. Both is restricted to two-coordinate constructions. Around 1900, usage books began to claim that this was also true of either and neither, but the evidence does not support them.
2. Both, either, and neither are often found displaced from their basic position in one direction or the other. Thus we find phrases like both to [the men andtheir employers], where both is displaced to the left: the more basic order would be to [both the men and their employers], with both immediately before the first coordinate. We also find phrases like rapid changes [illeitherthe mixed lig,uor or in the effluent], with either displaced to the right: the basic order would be rapid changes either [illthe mixed lig,uor or in the effluent]. Most people accept the displaced versions without noticing them, but some pre scriptive grammarians insist that all displacements are errors.
5Layered coordination
Subject to a suitably refined condition along the lines of [ 1 2], a coordi nate can belong to virtually any syntactic category. And that means a coordinate can itself be a coordination:
[23] [[Kim works in a bank and Pat is a teacher], but [Sam is still unemployed]]. 11 You can have [[pancakes] or [ggg andbacon]].
III [[Laurel and Hardy] and [Fred and Ginger]] are myfavorite movie duos.
Here we have layered coordination: one coordinate structure functioning as a coordinate within a larger one. The outer square brackets enclose the larger coordi nation, with the inner brackets enclosing the coordinates within it; underlining then marks the coordinates at the lower level.
In [i) the larger coordination has the form X but Y; the Y is just a clause, Sam is still unemployed, but the X is a coordination of the two underlined clauses. At the
4This illustrates the usual pattern for neither, but sometimes or rather than nor is found paired with it, as in She was constrained by neitherfashion conformity.