The Teachers Grammar Book - James Williams

Sentence 20: A goon shot the ATM, so Buggsy made an easy withdrawal.

One of the beauties of phrase-structure grammar is its versatility. Earlier, we modified our VP rule because we know that we have to be able to account for tense if we are going to describe sentences accurately. But what about adverbials? They are part of the VP, but so far we have not described grammatically how they appear in the language. Well, all we have to do is modify the VP rule again by adding an optional adverbial phrase:

VP Æ Aux V (NP) (AdvP) (AdjP) (PP)

On page 79, we differentiated simple adverbs from adverbials, noting that adverbs are single words and that adverbials are phrases and clauses—specifi- cally, prepositional phrases and subordinate clauses—that function adverbially. Because phrase-structure rules do not provide explicit information about function, prepositional phrases and subordinate clauses are not included under the heading of AdjP. Consequently, if we expand the description of VP for adverbs, we have:

adv AdvP Æ NP

This rule allows us to describe sentences like 21 and 22:

21.Quickly, she called her bank on the cell phone.

22.Macarena lost her checkbook yesterday.

Because adverbials and adjectivals frequently work together, we need one more adjustment to the VP to describe sentences like 23:

23. Buggsy bought his wife a very expensive emerald necklace.

Again, making the change to the rule is quite simple:

adv AdjP Æ (AdvP)

NP

At this point, the grammar rules are beginning to get more complicated, but diagrams can help us visualize how the rules work to describe sentence grammar. A diagram of sentence 23, for example, illustrates how the various components fit together.

Sentence 4.23: Buggsy bought his wife a very expensive emerald necklace.

Mood. Although we won’t examine this point in grammatical detail, verb phrases include a feature of verbs known as mood. Mood indicates the factuality or likelihood of the action or conditionality expressed by the verb, and it also can express politeness. Mood is interesting, in part, because we communicate this information in verbs without even thinking about it.

There are three moods in English:

•Indicative—used to state facts Example: Buggsy owned the casino.

•Imperative—used to express commands Example: Stop the car!

•Subjunctive—used to express matters contrary to fact, conditionality, hypotheticals, wishes, and politeness in making requests

The first two moods are fairly concrete, but the subjunctive mood is subtle and sometimes complicated because it applies under five different conditions. Contrary-to-fact statements always and expressions of conditionality sometimes require a dependent clause; this clause begins with the word if or whether—depending on the nature of the statement, for the words are not synonymous in formal Standard English.

Also, the subjunctive verb form is interesting. In some cases, such as con- trary-to-fact statements, the verb form is in the past tense in the dependent as

well as the independent clause. Firstand third-person nouns and pronouns (I, he, she) take the second-person verb form. The following examples illustrate these unique features:

•Subjunctive: Contrary-to-Fact Statements

1.If Fred were just a bit younger, he would apply for the position.

2.If I were you, I would leave town.

3.They acted as though Buggsy were watching.

•Subjunctive: Conditional Statements

1.Fred will leave if Buggsy comes to the party.

2.After eating his veggies, little Johnny could have his dessert.

3.We will gain our reward, provided we be strong.

•Subjunctive: Hypothetical Acts

1.If Fred bought the new BMW, he would be completely broke.

2.If he were asked, he would serve.

•Subjunctive: Expressing a Wish

1.Macarena wished she were rich.

2.Fritz recommended that she be patient.

•Subjunctive: Politeness in Requests

1.Would you open the window?

2.Could you close the door?

Usage Note

Linguists have noted a significant change in the use of the subjunctive in contrary-to-fact statements involving forms of be. In spoken English, there has been a shift in the verb form in the dependent clause to make it agree in number with its noun or pronoun (although this shift is apparent only in sentences with personal pronouns and names as subjects). As a result, the example sentences just cited increasingly are expressed as:

•If Fred was just a bit younger, he would apply for the position.

•If I was you, I would leave town.

•They acted as though Buggsy was watching.

The subjunctive marker is dropped in the verb in the dependent clause, but it is retained in the independent clause. Again, the question of what constitutes standard usage is important. Some people argue that standard usage is whatever the most people use. This argument is off the mark because it fails to take into account the influences of prestige and acceptability that generally govern standard usage.

Thus, standard usage is not, and never has been, the form used most widely; it is the

form most widely accepted. The subjunctive form is accepted by those who use formal Standard English and by those who do not, whereas the nonsubjunctive form is accepted only by those who use the nonstandard form. Standard usage of the subjunctive, for example, continues to appear in a great deal of writing, with the notable exception of popular journalism, as well as in the speech of many people.

Note that nonstandard usage does not differentiate between if and whether in contrary-to-fact clauses. As a result, these sentences are deemed equivalent:

•?I don’t know if it’s going to snow.

•I don’t know whether it’s going to snow.

Standard usage, however, does make a distinction. If is used to introduce contrary-to-fact and conditional clauses, whereas whether is used to introduce clauses that express, implicitly or explicitly, alternative possibilities. Because there clearly are alternative possibilities to snow, the second sentence follows standard usage conventions, but the first one does not.

Some observers have suggested that the subjunctive is disappearing with respect to expressing politeness in making requests. The example requests cited earlier may be more commonly expressed today as commands with a tag question seeking agreement:

•Open the window, ok?

•Close the door, ok?

Identifying the causes for these changes must be a speculative endeavor, but the loss of subjunctive in contrary-to-fact and conditional statements may be related to a principle of behavioral efficiency. Generally, subjects and predicates agree with respect to number. In a wide variety of situations, English follows a pattern of using a singular verb form with singular subjects and a plural verb form with plural subjects, as in I was tired and They were late. The subjunctive alters this pattern. The lack of agreement seems—and is—contrary to the pattern that we find with most verbs. One therefore could argue that it is more efficient to eliminate the distinction and use the singular pattern of agreement in all situations.

With respect to the disappearance of the subjunctive to express politeness, many contemporary social commentators have remarked on the significant decrease in politeness in American society—or the increase in rudeness and outright hostility, depending on one’s perspective—which might be a factor in the shift from requests to commands. The decrease in politeness, in turn, is seen as one reaction to the dramatic population increase that the United States has ex-

perienced during the last 30 years. As population becomes more dense, there is greater competition for resources and thus more hostility. The hostility, in turn, appears to be linked to the widely held view—which has erupted like the pox during the last 30 years—that others have no rights and are undeserving of respect or consideration. Social commentators point to a variety of behaviors, seldom observed a generation ago, as evidence for this assessment—the plague of drivers who cut off others in traffic, run red lights, and generally act as though they own the roads; the increase in littering that has piled rubbish ankle deep in so many cities; and the general surliness of service providers who have abandoned the traditional motto, “The Customer Is Always Right,” for the unsavory alternative, “The Customer Is Always Wrong.”

Teaching Tip

Students have difficulty with the subjunctive for two reasons. First, they aren’t used to hearing it, so the form doesn’t rest very firmly in their linguistic repertoire. Second, the form does, indeed, represent an unusual pattern, for it is contrary to the usual agreement between subject and verb. These difficulties require a systematic approach to instruction. One effective method is to begin by describing the nature of the subjunctive, how it is used and why, with plenty of examples. Then ask students to examine several paragraphs in their reading assignments and find at least three sentences that use the subjunctive; they should share these sentences with the class, explaining how the subjunctive is used in each case. Finally, have them work in pairs or small groups to observe conversations in the cafeteria, in other classes, or at the mall; the goal is to record any instances of the subjunctive in actual speech or any instances in which the subjunctive should have been used but was not. Student teams should share their findings with the class. What conclusions can they make on the basis of their study of texts and their observations of conversations?

Modals

Some features of mood, such as hypothetical permission, are expressed in words that are called modals (M). The modals are listed here:

Historically, English modals came from a special class of verbs in Germanic, the ancestor of English and the other Germanic languages. Modals have always differed from ordinary verbs, to the point where they now belong to a special category of their own. Modals and verbs differ in the range of forms that

they exhibit. English verbs appear in a number of distinct forms, whereas modals have a single, invariant form. For instance, modals never end in -s, even in sentences with third-person singular subjects.

To include the modal in our grammar, we simply expand the rule for auxiliary to account for tense markers (past and present) and modals, as shown:

Aux Æ tense (M)

maymust

With this modification to our rules, we can describe sentences such as 24:

24. Fritz may get a promotion.

Analysis of this sentence is shown in the following tree diagram on the next page.

A question that often arises in the analysis of expanded verb phrases is why the tense marker is placed in front of the verb rather than after. The past participle suffix -ed/-en, after all, comes at the end of a verb, not at the beginning. The answer is that there is no simple way to capture schematically the relations among tense, modals, and verbs. Whenever a verb has a modal, the modal is tensed, not the verb. If our description put tense after the verb, we would solve nothing—we would still have the question of how tense jumps over the verb and attaches to the modal. The placement of tense at the head of the VP is a matter of convention; placing it elsewhere in the VP would not enhance the description.

What we learn here is that structural analyses are at best an approximate description of the language we actually use. If we wanted to account for the fact that the past participle appears at the end of verbs, we would have to develop a special

Sentence: 4.24: Fritz may get a promotion.

rule for attachment, which indeed is what linguists have done. Nevertheless, structural analyses reveal much about the nature of grammatical constructions.

Tense and Its Complexities

When we examine tense closely, it becomes apparent that the relation between tense and verbs is not a simple one. Tense does not merely indicate when an action took place, as evidenced in sentences such as Macarena could visit her sick friend in the morning. The verb visit is not tensed in this sentence; instead, the tense marker is attached to the modal. But although the modal is in the past tense, the action is to occur in the future. Many students have a hard time grasping this concept.

Usage Note

Although modals are function words, they nevertheless have a semantic content. Can and may, for example, do not mean the same thing. Can indicates ability, whereas may indicates permission as well as a conditional future. With regard to requesting permission, popular usage has largely eliminated may and replaced it with can. If a student wants permission to use the rest room, he or she invariably will ask, Can I use the rest room rather than May I use the rest room. In a department store, clerks will ask, Can I help you, not May I help you. Formal standard usage, however, continues to differentiate between these words, which makes helping students understand the difference a worthwhile goal. Because may can signify two different meanings, it can lead to ambiguity. Consider the following sentences:

25.Fritz can play the piano.

26.Fritz may play the piano.

Sentence 25 signifies Fritz’s ability to play; sentence 26 can be understood as giving Fritz permission to play, or it can be understood as a comment about Fritz’s playing the piano at some time in the future. The condition is uncertain. We easily can imagine this future conditional if we think of Fritz being at a party. Sentence 27 offers another example of may as a future conditional:

27. Buggsy may take a trip to Las Vegas next week.

It is worth noting that the past tense form of may is might. These words differ in that might signifies a more uncertain or doubtful future than does may. Thus, the likelihood of Buggsy taking a trip is more uncertain in sentence 28 than it is in sentence 27:

28. Buggsy might take a trip to Las Vegas next week.

Like many other usage distinctions, this one seems to be disappearing. Even speakers and writers of formal Standard English rarely differentiate the two forms. However, anyone interested in using language as precisely as possible will, indeed, differentiate them.

The difference between will and shall is far more complicated, and it, too, has essentially disappeared in American usage. The traditional distinction maintains that shall is used to indicate the simple future in the first person, as in I shall go to the movies. Shall cannot be used in the second and third persons, however, but instead must be replaced by will, as in They will end the strike