In PART I the focus is on core language, that is those elements which are mandatory for an utterance to make sense.
It consists of:
- subject
[what the statement is about]
- predicate
[what is being stated on the subject]
- object
Predicates may either
- describe the subject itself or
- relate the subject to something else (an object or a complement).
More in detail:
- If the statement is on the inner identity of the subject, no object is needed. This happens when the predicate is of the "to be + qualifier" type:
My friend [« subject] is a detective [« predicate].
Nor is an object needed when the predicate points to a self-enclosed activity of the subject:
The child [« subject] cries [« predicate].
- In all other instances, predicates establish a relationship between the subject and something else. Il the relationship is immediate (no connecting particle) the "something else" is an object; if not, it is a complement:
- My friend [« subject] saw [« predicate] a great movie [« object].
- My friend [« subject] spoke [« predicate] to the taxi-driver [« complement].
We express our ideas by means of clauses, i.e. statements which make sense. All clauses are built around the core discussed in Part I.
Optional elements may be also be found in clauses which are introduced in Part II at #2.1.
Complements
Let us call "complement" anything which can be removed from a clause without impairing its fundamental meaning. For example, the previous clause:
Which complements are added - and how many of them - depends on the amount of information expected by the listener and the style of exposition.
Active vs. passive construction
Another option open to us is whether emphasis should be laid on the subject or on the object. The previous clause may be rephrased as:
A great movie [« subject] was seen [« predicate] by my friend [« complement].
In it, the former object ("a great movie") becomes the subject, and the former subject ("my friend") becomes a complement.
The form "My friend saw a movie" is called "active" (the subject does something).
The form "A movie was seen" is called "passive" (the subject - the movie - is just there, it doesn't do anything, it is watched by external entities like my friend).
Subject, predicate, complement, active and passive constructions are found in all languages. They are logical notions, i.e. pertain to how human mind works.
But how core and optional elements are arranged within a clause varies from language to language(2).
The basic notions which help understand how national grammars differ among themselves are:
- determiners
- nouns
- adjectives
- the noun group
- verbs
- adverbs and particles.
The main divide is between "nouns" and "verbs":
- with nouns pointing to something of substance(3) - be it concrete entities (lion, nail-clipper ...) or entities which can be imagined (a cat with 7 tails) or construed through mental elaboration from daily experiences (generosity, evil, depth ...).
- and with verbs pointing to ways of being or processes of change (to rest, to own, to build, to understand ...).
The other notions (determiners, adjectives, adverbs, particles):
- either cluster around nouns:
- think of "mountain" (a noun)
- a "noun group" centred on mountain is
those magnificent, snowy mountains- with
- those = a determiner
- magnificent, snowy = adjectives
- or around verbs:
- think of "to cycle" (a verb):
- adverbs such as "fast", "recklessly" may be added to sharpen its meaning:
to cycle fast, to cycle recklessly ...
Focusing on verbs
In Part III we note that each language has its own rules (its grammar) for arranging such combinations and - most of all - for governing a complex feature of verbs: their conjugation (or inflection).
A peculiarity of verbs is that they may refer to a time dimension spanning from past to future. Verbs must be flexible enough to indicate the point or interval in time when an event occurs (or - if in negative form - doesn't occur).
Harmonisation of verbal tenses is another matter which is settled in different ways by different languages. The changing of verbal shapes is restricted to a minimum in English but is very articulate in German or Spanish.
Cases were slowly superseded by particles
A final remark is needed on particles ("of", "in", "on", "after", "due to", "because of" and one thousand more).
They connect complements to the clause core.
Long ago, particles were less widespread. Ancient languages tended to modify words according to their function; thus the shape of a noun would often signal whether it was a complement (and what kind of complement) or a subject, or an object.
In most current languages nouns simply adjust according to gender (feminine, masculine, neuter), number (singular, plural) - not to the function played in the clause. Complements are mostly signalled by adding appropriate particles.
Among European languages, German is an exception. While making use of particles, it still retains characteristics of ancient languages, namely the case-based structure.
| Why are case-based structures on the wane?
The synthetic feature described above enabled ancient languages to coin pithy, elegant expressions (countless Latin phrases live on in today's languages - press here to view a selection of them). But that gift come at a price in terms of language complexity and, even in the heyday of Latin, only a tiny fraction of the populace could master its syntax.
This was not a problem for the élites, as they could afford personal teachers for the education of their offspring. The vast majority of the remaining population was left illiterate and businesspeople resorted to koiné* languages.
|
*koiné: Greek for "common", i.e. essential linguistic varieties oriented to daily commercial transactions - like today's Swahili, an artificial "lingua franca" understood in a large area on the Eastern Coast of Africa.
|
As the number of disenfranchised shrank, national languages had to adjust to being handled by people who neither had leisure nor financial means for a lengthy education.
Contemporary languages are still undergoing a process of streamlining and simplification. It only takes a glimpse at books or papers printed a century ago in any European language to become aware of the change which has taken place since then.
|
The last Part deals with how two or more clauses coalesce to form a "complex sentence".
All complex sentences need one pivotal ("main") clause - on which all other ("subordinate") clauses hinge.
The same pattern found in clauses applies to sentences, with the main being the sentence core and subordinates standing by to complement the main clause.
|
The overview stops here. For more in depth intelligence of language, move on to Step by Step Reading.
You may also wish to see how high you score on a comprehension test on the subjects which have just been covered in a summary way. If so, click here.
| |
|
Based on L.G. Alexander, Longman English Grammar, Longman Group UK Ltd., Harlow 1988.
Language Structures — Part 1: The Core / 1
|
|
1.1 - SUBJECT AND PREDICATE
| A clause consists of: |
|
|
|
| |
Subject |
+ |
Predicate |
| |
|
|
|
| 1) Tree is large. |
Tree |
|
is large |
| 2) Francis jumps. |
Francis |
|
jumps |
The SUBJECT is the focus of any utterance: information is either given or requested about it.
The PREDICATE carries the information being given or sought on the subject.
Predicates come in two patterns:
- in Sentence 1, the predicate consists of TO BE (is) + QUALIFIER (large);
TO BE refers to the inner identity of the subject(1).
- the predicate of Sentence 2 (TO JUMP) does not tell how Francis (the subject) is but what he does.
Predicates of the second pattern either depict an activity (like TO JUMP, TO HEAR, TO WALK ...) or a mental / physical status (TO SUFFER, TO HOPE, TO LIE DOWN ...).
|
|
FOOTNOTES
(1) – Other verbs may be used to the same effect, such as TO BECOME, TO FEEL.
Saying I feel dizzy, Dad becomes old is very near to saying I am tired, Alessandro is a doctor.
The QUALIFIER is what characterises the subject: being old, dizzy or tired, being a doctor, etc.
Details on "Objects" Return
Only objects are directly related to subjects. Predicates which require objects are said to be transitive: i.e. a relationship is established by them which seamlessly transits from subject to object.
Predicates which make a statement on the subject without necessarily relating it to an object are intransitive. These may still assert a clarifying relationship between the subject and something else (a complement, not an object) and, when they do, we say that such relationship is indirect.
In indirect connections, the complement is usually connected via a particle such as "to", "with", "from" ....
When objects are needed they become part of the clore. Complements do not belong to the core and may be removed from the clause without impairing its fundamental meaning.
In:
the "subject + predicate" core (Mary caught) is connected to the object (a cold) with no particle in between. If "a cold" is removed, the clause no longer stands.
In:
"Paul" is not not directly appended to "Mary speaks", the joining being effected through particle "to". The cluster "to Paul" is a complement. If it is removed, what is left ("Mary speaks") carries less information but is still a meaningful statement.
Let us elaborate further.
- We said that, in the clauses which require objects, these belong to core language. Then, if they are removed, the clause should break down. Yet, in:
"a song" - the object - may be removed with no damage done to the clause, because
stays meaningful.
It does indeed, but only because the object is taken for granted or, so to speak, is left implicit (not expressed, left to the imagination of those who receive the message).
While some predicates don't need an object at all ("Mary is 24", "Mary walks") others absolutely do: in "Mary raises her child" we cannot stop the utterance at "Mary raises --".
As to predicates which may display their object ("Mary sings White Christmas") or may not ("Mary sings"), their object is so evident that, if not expressed, it is automatically replaced by a generic term in the listener's mind: "something musical", "a tune".
- Secondly, we said that objects merge with "subject + predicate" into a core consisting of 3 elements (subject + predicate + object).
However different languages use different constructions. French has:
"Marie demande un petit café."
and English says the same with:
"Mary asks for an espresso."
As to German, we find:
"Maria fragt nach einen Kaffee" (... asks after a coffee)
Should we hold that "un petit café" is an object because there is no connecting particle after "demande", and "coffee" or "Kaffee" are complements because of the particles "for" and "nach" (after) connecting them to predicates?
We should not, as the seeming inconsistency results from inadequate semantics(1).
An indirect construction occurs when a particle is inserted between predicate and complement. In the present case, particles are not inserted, they are the predicate.
Consider "to look" in English: it means "to seem", "to appear" (she looks pale, you look disappointed ...). But if particles "at", "after", "for" are joined to "look", the meaning changes altogether: "to look at" means "to behold", "to look after" is "to take care of", to "look for" is "to search", "to require".
The same applies to German "fragen nach": particle nach is enmeshed in predicate fragen nach the same way "for" is in "to ask for".
"To ask for" is not verb "to ask" plus particle "for"; it is a different verb altogether. While English and German use two words ("look" + "for", "fragen" + "nach"), other languages express the same concept with just one word ("demander" in French).
In Spanish, particles are even added because of a grammar twist — not because a complement is introduced. "Busco un coche" is Spanish for "I seek a car": this is a direct construction with "buscar" (to seek) as predicate and "coche" (car) as object.
But when the object being sought is a human being, Spanish requires that particle "a" precede the object: "I seek John" becomes "busco a Juan". Of course this is the same direct construction as in the car example; "a" is a stylistic frill of the Spanish language; it does not signal an indirect construction.
If the particle blends with the verb, then what follows is an object. If it is an exogenous element juxtaposed beside the verb, what follows is a complement.
- Thirdly, no object is required in "Mary speaks to Paul", "The President spoke before a crowd". But in the clause
"The witness speaks the truth"
a direct links connect "the witness speaks" to object "truth". Why so that the same verb is at times intransitive (object not expected) and other times transitive (object expected)?
To unravel the query, let us translate into Italian. The first clause becomes "Maria parla con Paolo" and the third "Il testimone dice la verità".
Thus, we are in fact dealing with two different verbs: "parlare" and "dire". English conceals this because its "speak" carries two meanings: 1) being engaged in a conversation, delivering a speech or even mumbling within oneself and 2) saying something in particular.
It is not infrequent that one and same word takes up more than one meaning. Consider "stem": it covers "stop the flow of a liquid" (He stemmed the blood dripping from his nose) as well as "grow out of" (Her unease stems from her sense of guilt). This happens in all languages but it is unlikely that two languages attach the same multiple meanings to one given term (with "hang" it is English which differentiates two diverging meanings ("hung", "hanged") which are left blurred in the one Italian term ("appeso").
Imaginative or proverbial expressions may also give rise to unusual linguistic figures. A predicate which may be safely taken not to require an object is "to rain", as it points to a state of nature, not to a relationship transiting from subject to object. At first glance however, the saying "it rained cats and dogs" seems to include cats and dogs as objects.
In this context, one quickly realises that — rather than two separate nouns — "cats and dogs" is tantamount to "much", "copiously", "a lot", in short it is an adverb.
Let us now consider the "frogs" which are the object in the Bible's account of one of the plagues sent onto Egypt by Yahweh. "It rained frogs" because the Pharaoh had denied Moses permission to lead the Hebrews to deliverance across the red Sea.
We are back to the dual meaning-verb seen above when "speak" was found to cover both "talk" and "tell". In the Bible, the usual meaning of "rain" as a climatic state is replaced by "hurl something from above".
A reverse problem is found in "throw", which usually does require an object.
In "My brother-in-law throws" its usual meaning of "hurling something" gives way to taking part in athletic competitions related to discus or javelin.
- Fourthly, keep in mind that objects cannot be found with the "to be + qualifier" predicate (seen above in "My friend is a detective").
This is so because, in the subject/object relationship, something is connected to something else, with two entities boing understood as separate even if one is a fraction of the other ("She tore her hair") . This can never be the case with "to be", which invariably underpins a statement on the subject itself ("being a detective" is one of the traits of my friend's identity, not an element superimposed on him).
In the "to be + qualifier" predicate form, "to be" is the verbal part of the predicate (also termed copula) and the "qualifier" (a noun or adjective) the nominal part.
(2) – Return
The following exhange is drawn from the Lokanova French forum. It shows to which extent languages are dissimilar.
Posté le: 05 Nov 2004 06:17
Flamenco a écrit :
J'ai entendu dire que le thaï était une langue très simple ... Vous en savez quelque chose ?
Réponse de Beaumont :
L'avantage du thai c'est que tu peux très vite te débrouiller, donc c'est pour ça que certains disent que c'est facile. ... Comme il n'y a pas de grammaire et pas de conjugaison, la structure des phrases est très simple et on peut très vite tenir une conversation basique. ...
Posté le: 06 Nov 2004 04:22
Rónán a écrit :
S'il y avait pas de grammaire, tout le monde dirait n'importe quoi et personne se comprendrait... Que veux-tu dire par "pas de grammaire" ?
Réponse de Beaumont :
La formule était un peu rapide, je voulais dire pas de grammaire à apprendre, dans le sens où les règles régissant la syntaxe et la morphologie sont très simples.
Syntax: study of how words are to be arranged within a clause (from Greek meaning "joining together")
Morphology: study of how to change the shapes of words (from Greek meaning "shape")
|
Pour ce qui est de la morphologie, par exemple, les noms et les adjectifs ne changent pas en fonction du genre et du nombre ... . Les verbes ne changent pas non plus en fonction du temps ou de la personne. On ajoute simplement une particule devant le verbe (toujours la même) qui indique le passé ou le futur (et il n'y a pas 36 millions de temps et de modes comme en français).
Pour ce qui est de la syntaxe, la construction des phrases est très simple : sujet (et encore, souvent omis quand on peut le déduire du contexte), verbe, complément.
Si tu veux dire "hier, je suis allé à la piscine", ça donnera "hier + (je) + passé + aller + piscine". Il n'y a pas besoin de se demander quel temps du passé on va utiliser, comment se conjugue le verbe, comment on indique le lieu, quel déterminant on va utiliser, si piscine est féminin ...
(3) – Return
What is meant by "something of substance"? A quick recall of ancient Greek philosophy shall clarify.
All which is conceivable rests on an interplay of "substance" and "shape" (or "form").
Let us consider the word "child". Each child is different: some are tall and others less so, their hair comes in any shade within a range, so does the colour of their complexion or eyes; some are healthy and other sickly. However we recognise them all as children. What is common to them we call "substance".
The substance of an individual specimen needs a shape compatible with its nature. No substance is conceivable without shape, nor can shapes be thought of unless applied to a substance. Any entity observed in the real world or imagined within our mind blends substance and form (shape).
Substance may be understood as the underlying base which supports a given set of shapes — for example those children can take up.
Although our example is drawn from the real world (children are part of it), the same reasoning applies to substances which cannot be physically seen nor weighed: to ideas. We may associate the word "tuberculosis" with words such "gruesome", "debilitating" etc. The basis word identifies substance, ancillary words define its shape. In this context shapes don't display physical characters (colour, health, weight ...) but ones which define substance in other ways.
Nouns point to substances (child, tuberculosis ...) and adjectives point to shapes (tall, dark-haired, gruesome, ...).
(1) – Return
Semantics: the branch of linguistics which focuses on the meaning of speech segments.
