GRAMTICA_INGLESA_2

Gramátic a Inglesa II

María de los Ángeles Gómez González

GUÍA DOCENTE E MATERIAL DIDÁCTICO

2011/2012

FACULTADE DE FILOLOXÍA DEPARTAMENTO DE FILOLOXÍA INGLESA E ALEMÁ

1

FACULTADE DE FILOLOXÍA. DEPARTAMENTO DE FILOLOXÍA INGLESA E ALEMÁ AUTORA: María de los Ángeles GÓMEZ GONZÁLEZ Edición electrónica. 2011 ADVERTENCIA LEGAL: Reservados todos os dereitos. Queda prohibida a duplicación total ou parcial desta obra, en calquera forma ou por calquera medio (electrónico, mecánico, gravación, fotocopia ou outros) sen consentimento expreso por escrito da autora.

2

Study Guide

Academic Course 2011-2012

ENGLISH GRAMMAR II

Prof. Dr. María de los Ángeles GÓMEZ GONZÁLEZ

Table of Contents

1. Subject Description 2

2. The Meaning of the Subject in the Degree 2

3. Objectives and Acquired Skills 3

3.1. Specific Objectives 3

3.2. Acquired Skills 4

4. Subject Contents and Bibliography 4

PART I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SYNTAX 5

PART II A TYPOLOGY OF CLAUSE COMBINING & CLAUSE

CONDENSING 13

PART III THE LOGICO-SEMANTICS OF CLAUSE COMBINING

& CLAUSE CONDENSING 22

5. Distribution of ECTS and Methodology 25

6. Calendar 25

7. Assessment 26

8.- Other information of interest 26

8.1. Study Recommendations 26

8.2. Models of Exam 27

María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II

2

1.- SUBJECT DESCRIPTION

Sujact Name: English Grmmar II

Code: 671501

Type of subject, course and year in which it is imparted: Major Subject, 2nd course/cycle,

5th year of the degree.

Number of credits: 4.5

First semester

ECTs: 4.5 x 25 = 112.5

Prerrequisites (regulated or recommended): To have passed the first three years of the

degree and particularly the subject English Grammar I (obligatory).

Taught in English

Examinations: Please consult the timetable.

Teacher: Prof. Dr. María de los Ángeles Gómez González.

Email: [email protected]

Office hours:

To be determined

Personal website: http://www.usc.es/scimitar/mdlagg/index.html

Research team website SCIMITAR: http://www.usc.es/scimitar/

2.- THE MEANING OF THE SUBJECT IN THE DEGREE

This optional course will help students to undertand other subjects with which it is directly

related (cf. Table 1 below): one obligatory and two major subjects that deal with different

levels of grammatical description of the English language (Introducción a la Gramática

Inglesa, Gramática Inglesa I and III), as well as four optional courses which approach English

grammar and linguistics from a synchronic perspective (both descriptive and applied

views) (Gramática Inglesa (Morfología), Curso Monográfico de Lingüística Inglesa I and II,

Perspectivas Metodológicas en el Estudio de la Gramática Inglesa).

In addition, this course will help you to: (1) improve your knowledge of English

grammatical constructions through the exploration and analysis of linguistic data in real

texts (written, spoken and/or multimodal); (2) promote reflection upon (the English)

language and its critical analysis, exploring from a functional-discourse perspective the

clausal and sentential constructions available in PresE to convey a given message in


3

connection with real life situations (different registers and genres); (3) favour your critical

ability with regard to linguistic phenomena; (4) initiate you into linguistic research,

resorting to and selecting the resources (bibliographic, linguistic data, etc.) and

technologies which are considered to be appropriate to carry out this goal. This will be

found most beneficial for the comprehension of the other subjects of the degree as well as

for common day needs and future professional applications.

Table 1. Synchronic approaches to English grammar & linguistics in English Philology

Name Status Credits

Introducción a la Gramática Inglesa Obligatory 4.5

Gramática Inglesa I Major 4.5

Gramática Inglesa II Major 4.5

Gramática Inglesa III Major 4.5

Gramática Inglesa (Morfología) Optional 4.5

Curso Monográfico de Lingüística Inglesa I Optional 4.5

Curso Monográfico de Lingüística Inglesa II Optional 6

Perspectivas Metodológicas en el Estudio de la Gramática

Inglesa

Optional 9

Total number of credits 42

3.- OBJECTIVES AND ACQUIRED SKILLS

3.1.- Specific Objectives

In this course we shall mainly focus on the description and analysis of simple, complex and

compound clauses from a discourse-functional perspective. Accordinly, you will get

acquainted with the different subtypes of coordination and subordination and will be

confronted with case studies for analysis using the principles and conceptual tools

explained in class.

Part I offers an introduction of syntax, the area with which the course deals,

presenting some introductory concepts and models of syntactic analysis from a functional

perspective. Part II constitutes the bulk of the course, in which a typology of clause

combining and clause condensing is offered. Closing the course, Part III is devoted to the

description of so-called “Rhetorical Structure Theory” which analyses the hierarchical

clausal and sentential relations (structural and logico-semantic) that hold across different

types of texts.


4

Readings and theoretical questions will be substantiated with practical tasks. The

specific objectives of this subject are the following:

1. To become familiar with the main approaches and concepts in syntactic analysis in

English, although comparisons with other languages (especially Spanish & Galician)

will also be encouraged.

3. To analyse clausal and sentential constructions in natural settings.

4. To read specialized literature related to the field critically.

5. To use new resources and technologies to carry out research in the field.

6. To conduct a small-scale project in this field.

7. To work individually and in groups.

8. To encourage active participation in class.

3.2.- Acquired Skills

1. An understanding of the basic concepts of clausal and sentential syntactic analysis.

2. Knowledge of the main features of different types of clause-combining and clause-

condensing strategies in English.

3. Critical reading of recommended literature.

4. Application of the basic concepts dealt with in the course.

5. The ability to consult and select from the recommended bibliography and available

resources all the relevant and appropriate information.

6. The ability to gather, select and analyse natural data in field research.

4.- SUBJECT CONTENTS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

PART I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SYNTAX

PART II A TYPOLOGY OF CLAUSE COMBINING AND CLAUSE CONDENSING

PART III THE LOGICO-SEMANTICS OF CLAUSE COMBINING & CLAUSE

CONDENSING


5

PART 1

INTRODUCTION TO SYNTAX

1. Introduction: utterance, sentence, clause

2. The structure of the clause

3. Types of sentences: simple, compound and complex

4. Grammatical form and illocutionary force

4.1. Declarative clauses: Statements

4.2. Negative clauses: Negations

4.3. Interrogative clauses: Questions

4.4. Imperative clauses: Directives

4.5. Exclamative clauses: Exclamation, Echo and Tags

5. The concept of "negation"

5.1. Location in the clause structure

5.2. Major types of negation

5.3. Assertive, non-assertive and negative forms

5.4. Scope and focus of negation

6. The syntactic patterns of non-canonical clauses

6.1. Preposings

6.2. There constructions

6.3. It-Extrapositions

6.4. Inversions

6.5. Left detachments

6.6. Right detachments

6.7. Cleft clauses

6.8. Pseudo-cleft clauses

6.9. Passives


6

I. TEXTBOOKS AND REFERENCE BOOKS

Biber, D. et al. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. Chp.

11.

Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Leech, G. 2002. Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written

English. Harlow: Longman. Chp. 3

Butler, Christoper. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional

Theories, Part 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. 2 vols. (vol. 2). Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Downing, A. & Locke, P. 2006. English Grammar. A university Course. London: Routledge

(2nd ed.). Chps. 2 and 7.

Eggins, S. 2005. Introduction to Systemic Function Linguistics. London: Continuum.

Foley, W., Van Valin, R. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Greenbaum, S. & Quirk, R. 1991. A Student´s Grammar of the English Language. London:

Longman.

Haiman, John & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). 1988. Clause combining in grammar and

discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1-27.

Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2004 (3rd ed.). An introduction to functional

grammar. London: Arnold. ER. Chps. 3 & 8.

Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chps. 4, 9, 10-16.

Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. 2005. A Student's Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Huddleston, R. 1988. English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Chps. 11 and 13

Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2002. Combining clauses into clause complexes: a

multifaceted view. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar

and discourse: essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 237-322

Quirk, R. et al. 1985. A University Grammar of English. London: Longman. Chps. 9 (pp. 533-

648), 10 (pp. 649-716), 11 (pp. 717-798).

Winter, Eugene O. 1982. Towards a Contextual Grammar of English. London: George Allen &

Unwin.


7

II. OTHER RESOURCES

http://www.sfu.ca/rst http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/

III. COMPLEMENTARY LITERATURE

Aarts, B. 1997. English Syntax and Argumentation. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Aarts, J., Pieter de Haan & Oostdijk, Nelleke. 1993 (eds). English Language Corpora: Design,

Analysis and Exploitation. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Altenberg, B. 1984. Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica 38. 20-

69.

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP.

Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimension of Register Variation. Cambridge: CUP.

Biber, Douglas et al. 1998. Corpus Linguistics – Investigating Language Structure and Use.

Cambridge: CUP.

Blackburn, Simon. 1996. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: OUP.

Bloor, Th. and Bloor, M. 1995. The Functional Analysis of English. London: Arnold.

Burton-Roberts, N. 1986. Analysing Sentences. London: Logman.

Crystal, David (1985): A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Culicover, P. 1982. Syntax. New York: Academic Press.

Givón, T. 1993. English Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing

Company. (Volume 2, chapter 13 "Interclausal Connections and Discourse

Coherence", pp. 315-344).

Greenbaum, S. 1996. The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: OUP.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1987). Spoken and written modes of meaning. In R. Horowitz & S. Samuels (eds.), Comprehending oral and written language. San Diego: Academic Press. 55-82.

Hoey, Michael and Eugene O. Winter. 1986. Clause Relations and the Writer's

Communicative Task." In Barbara Couture (ed.), Functional Approaches to Writing:

Research Perspectives. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. 120-41,


8

Hoey, Michael. 1986. Overlapping Patterns of Discourse Organization and Their

Implications for Clause Relational Analysis of Problem-Solution Texts." In Charles

Cooper and Sidney Greenbaum (eds), Studying Writing: Linguistic Approaches,

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 187-214.

Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. (Chapter 12)

Iglesias Rábade, L. 1997. A University Course on Syntactic Analysis. Barcelona: PPU.

Lehmann, Christian. 1988. “Towards a typology of clause linkage.” In Haiman &

Thompson (eds.). 181-225.

Longacre, Robert E. 1985. Sentences as combinations of clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.),

Language typology and syntactic description III: complex constructions. 235-286.

Lyons, J. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.

Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: CUP

Maimon, E. 1978. Measuring syntactic growth: Errors and expectations in sentence-

combining practice with college freshmen. Research in the teaching of English 12. 233-

244.

Martin, Jim R. 1983. Conjunction: The Logic of English Text. In Petofi and E. Sozer (eds.),

Micro and Macro Connexity of Texts. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. 1-72.

Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Matthews, P. H. 1997. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.

Matthews, P. H. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Muñoz, C. 1995. Clause Analysis. A Practical Approach. Barcelona: PPU.

Mesthrie, Rajend. 2001 (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Quirk, R. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.

Radford, A. 1997. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Sinclair, J. (ed.). 1990. Collins COBUILD English Grammar. London: Collins ELT. chps. 7

(319-324), 8 (pp. 373-383).


9

Talmy, L. (1978). Relations between subordination and coordination. In J. Greenberg (Ed.),

Universals of human language, volume 4: Syntax (pp. 487-513). Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Van Valin, R. (1984). A typology of syntactic relations in clause linkage. In C. Brugman and

M. Macaulay (Ed.), Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics

society (pp. 542-558). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Verstraete, J.-C., 2002. Interpersonal Grammar and Clause Combining in English. Ph.D.

Dissertation. University of Leuven, Leuven.

Wiegand, N. (1984). Creating complex sentence structure. In C. Brugman and M. Macaulay

(Ed.), Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society (pp.

674-687). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Winter, E. (1977). A clause relational approach to English texts: A study of some predictive

lexical items in written discourse. Instructional science, 6, 1-92.

Witte, S., Daly, J., & Cherry, R. (1986). Syntactic complexity and writing quality. In D. McQuade (Ed.), The territory of language (pp. 150-164). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Young, D.J. 1980. The Structure of English Clauses. London: Hutchinson.

IV. SELECTED REFERENCES ON ILLOCUTIONARY PATTERNS: QUESTIONS,

DIRECTIVES

Carrell, P. and Konneker, B. 1981. Politeness: Comparing native and nonnative judgments.

Language Learning, 31(1). 17-30.

Nelson, G. and Winters, T. 1980. ESL Operations: Techniques for Learning while Doing.

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Danielson, D. and Porter, P. 1990. Using English: Your Second Language (2nd ed.).

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Regents, 82-85.

Hintikka, J. (1982). Tag questions and grammatical acceptability. Journal of Nordic Linguistics

5(2). 129-132.

Long, M. 1981. Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language Learning 31(1). 135-157.

Richards, J. 1977. Answers to yes/no questions. English Language Teaching Journal 31(2). 136-

141.


10

Tsui, A. 1992. A functional description of questions. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in

Spoken Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, 89-110.

VanderBrook, S., Schlue, K., and Campbell, C. 1980. Discourse and second language

acquisition of yes-no questions. In D. Larsen-Freeman (ed.), Discourse Analysis in

Second Language Research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 56-74.

Williams, J. 1989. Yes/no questions in ESL textbooks and classrooms. IDEAL 4. 149-156.

Williams, J. 1990. Another look at yes/no questions: Native speakers and nonnative

speakers. Applied Linguistics 11(2). 159-182.

V. SELECTED REFERENCES ON NEGATION

Dahl, O. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17. 79-106.

Haan, F. de 1997. The Interaction of Modality and Negation: ATypological Study. New York:

Garland.

Higginbotham, James and Robert May. 1981. Questions, quantifiers, and crossing. The

Linguistic Review 1. 41-79.

Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages, Kobenhavn: Det Kgl.

DanskeVidenskabernes Selskab.

Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In J. Fodor and K. Katz (eds.), The Structure of

Language. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 246-323.

Klima, Edward. 1964. Negation in English. J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz, eds. The Structure of

Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Labov, William. 1972. Negative attraction and negative concord. Language 48. 773-818.

Ladusaw, William A. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Ph.D.

dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.

Laka, I. 1994. On the Syntax of Negation. New York: Garland.

Linebarger, Marcia. 1980. The grammar of negative polarity. Ph. D.dissertation, MIT.

Payne, J. R. 1985. Negation. In T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 197-242.

Progovac, Ljilijana. 1988. A binding approach to polarity sensitivity. PhD dissertation,

University of Southern California.

Sheidlower, J. and Lighter, L. 1993. A recent coinage…NOT. American Speech 68 (2). 213-219.


11

Stevens, P. 1993. The pragmatics of NO!: Some strategies in English and Arabic. IDEAL, 6,

87-112.

Tottie, Gunnel. 1991. Negation in English Speech and Writing: A Study in Variation. San Diego:

Academic Press.

Yaeger-Dror, M. 1985. Intonational prominence on negatives in English. Language and

Speech, 28, 197-230.

Zanuttini, R. 1996. On the relevance of tense for sentential negation. In A. Belletti, & L.

Rizzi (eds.) Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax, Oxford:

Oxford University Press. 181-207.

Zanuttini, R. 1997. Negation and verb movement. In L. Haegeman (ed.) The New

Comparative Syntax. London, Longman. 214-245.

Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1991. Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of

Romance Languages. University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. Dissertation.

Zwicky, A. M. & Pullum G. K. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English -n't. Language 59.

502-513.

V. SELECTED REFERENCES ON NON-CANONICAL CLAUSES

Beerman, D., Leblanc, D. & Riemsdijk, H. 1997. Rightward Movement.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.

Collins, P. C. 1991. Clefts and Pseudoclefts Sentences in English. London, Routledge.

Dorgeloh, H. 1997. Inversion in Modern English: form and function. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,

John Benjamins.

Geluykens, R. 1992. From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction: On Left-dislocation in

English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.

Gómez-González, M. D. L. A. 2001. The Theme-Topic Interface. A Corpus-Based Study in

English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. . Chp. 7.

Gómez-González, M. D. L. A. 2004. A three-dimensional account of it-clefts in discourse: A

corpus-based study. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 23.2: 1-40. Texas: EEUU.

Gómez-González, M. D. L. A. & Gonzálvez García, F. 2005. On clefting in English and

Spanish. In C. Butler, M. D. L. A. Gómez González, y S. M. Doval Suárez. (eds.), The

Dynamics of Language Use: Functional and Contrastive Perspectives. 155-196.

Hannay, M. 1985. English Existentials in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht : Foris.

Hidalgo Downing, R. 2003. La Tematización en el Rspañol Hablado: Estudio discursivo sobre el


12

español peninsular. Madrid: Gredos.

Kaltenböck, G. 2004. It-extraposition and Non-extraposition in English: A Study of Syntax in

Spoken and Witten Ttexts. Vienna: Wilheim Braumüller.

Martínez, Insua. A. 2004. Existential Tthere-constructions in Ccontemporary British English: A

Corpus-Driven analysis of their Use in Speech and Writing. Muenchen : LINCOM.

Shibatani, M. (ed). 1998. Passive and Voice. Amsterdan/Filadelfia: John Benjamins.

Siewierska, A. 1984. The Passive. A Comparative Linguistic Analysis. London: Croom Helm.

Virtanen, T. 1992. Discourse Functions of Adverbial Placement in English. Clause Initial

Adverbials of Time and Place in Narratives and Procedural Place Descriptions. Abo.

Ward, G. 1988. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Preposing. Nueva York: Garland.


13

PART 2

A TYPOLOGY OF CLAUSE COMBINING & CLAUSE CONDENSING

1. From (complex) verbs to separate clauses

2. Coordination and parataxis

2.1. Syndetic vs. asyndetic

2.2. Yuxtaposition

2.3. Basic coordination: characterization and markers

2.3.1. Reductibility to one element

2.3.2. Order change

2.3.3. Likeness of class and function

2.3.4. Open endedness.

2.3.5. Range of occurrence

2.4. Non-basic coordination: characterization and markers

2.4.1. Discontinuity

2.4.2. Bound ellipsis and Gapping

2.4.3. Restructuring

2.5. Expressive and idiomatic uses of coordination

2.5.1. Pseudocoordination

2.5.2. Iterative or continued use of coordination

2.5.3. Other expressive uses of coordination

3. Subordination and hypotaxis

3.1. Characterization and markers

3.2. Subordination vs. embedding

3.3. Complement clauses

3.3.1. Noun complement clauses

3.3.2. Adjective complement clauses

3.3.3. Verb complement clauses

3.4. Relative clauses

3.4.1. Restrictive

3.4.2. Non-restrictive

3.4.3. Fused relative constructions

3.4.4. Finite, non-finite and other reduced variants


14

3.5. Comparative constructions

3.5.1. Equality

3.5.2. Inequality

3.5.3. Comparison + result

3.5.4. Comparison + purpose

3.6. Adverbial clauses

3.6.1. Clauses of time

3.6.2. Clauses of place

3.6.3. Clauses of condition

3.6.3. Clauses of concession

3.6.4. Clauses of reason or cause

3.6.5. Clauses of result

3.6.6. Clauses of purpose

3.6.7. Clauses of manner

4. Clause condensing

4.1. Substitution

4.2. Ellipsis


15

I. SELECTED REFERENCES ON CATENATIVE VERBS

Aarts, B. & Meyer, Ch. F. 1995 (eds.). The verb in contemporary English: theory and description.

1995 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

de Haan, Pieter. 2002. Review article on An empirical grammar of the English verb: Modal

verbs, by Dieter Mindt. Journal of English Linguistics 30. 274-280.

Gramley, Stephan / Pätzold, Kurt-Michael. 1992. A Survey of Modern English. London and

New York: Routledge.

Halliday, M.A.K. / Matthiesen, M.I.M. 2005. An Introduction to Functional Grammar.

London: Arnold.

Huddleston, Rodney / Pullum, Geoffrey. 2005. A Student's Introduction to English Grammar.

Cambridge et. al.: Cambridge University Press.

Huddleston, Rodney. 19881. Constituency, multi-functionality and grammaticalization in

Halliday's Functional Grammar. Linguistics 24.137-174.

Huddleston, Rodney. 19882. Review article on A comprehensive Grammar of the English

Language, by Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik.

Index by David Crystal. Language 64. 345-354.

Huddleston, Rodney. 1997. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Hudson, Richard. 1998. English Grammar. London and New York:Routledge.

Hudson, Richard. 2002. Linguistics Association of Great Britain - Language Fact Sheet:

Auxiliary Verbs. http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/aux.htm.1

Kamphuis, Vera. 1996. Review article on An empirical grammar of the English verb: Modal

verbs, by Dieter Mindt. ICAME Journal 20. 86-90.

Mindt, Dieter. 2000. An Empirical Grammar of the English Verb System, Berlin: Cornelsen.

Palmer, Frank Robert. 1987. The English Verb. London and New York: Longman.

Quirk, Randolph / Greenbaum, Sidney / Leech, Geoffrey / Svartvik, Jan.1985. A

Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.

Rizo, A.J. 1990. Los Verbos Catenativos Ingleses. Granada: Servicio de Publicaciones de la

Universidad.

INTERNET SOURCES [INT1] www.linguistics-online.de; module: Formal Aspects of the Verb - catenatives, accessed: September 10, 2005.


16

II. SELECTED REFERENCES ON COORDINATION & PARATAXIS

Bayer, S. (1996). The coordination of unlike categories. Language 72,pp579--616

Butler, Christoper. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories, Part 2, Volume 64 of Studies in Language. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003. 260–261.

Carden, G. and D. Pesetsky (1977). Double-verb constructions, markedness and a fake coordination. In Papers from the 13th regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp82--92. University of Chicago. Reprinted in: Minoru Yasui (Ed.), Kaigai Eigogaku-ronso, (1979) Tokyo: Eichosha Company.

Culicover, P. and R. Jackendoff (1997). Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28(2), pp195--217.

De Vos, M. 2005. The syntax of pseudo-coordination in English and Afrikaans.

Dik, S. 1968. Coordination: Its Implications for the Theory of General Linguistics. Amsterdam:

North-Holland Publishing Company.

Goldsmith, J. 1985. A principled exception of the coordinate structure constraint. In W. Eilfort, P. Kroeber and K. Peterson (Eds). CLS 21, Part 1: papers from the general session at the twenty-first regional meeting, Chicago, pp133--143. Chicago Linguistic Society.

Jiménez Juliá, T. 1995. La coordinación en español: Aspectos teóricos y descriptivos. Santiago:

Universidade de Santiago.

Johannessen, J.B. 1998. Coordination. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lakoff, G. 1986. Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. In A. Farley, P. Farley, and K-E. McCullough (Eds). CLS 22, Part 2: Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory, Chicago, pp152--167. Chicago Linguistic Society.

Lakoff, Robin. 1971. "If's, And's, and But's about Conjunctions." In Charles J. Fillmore and

D. Terence Langendoen (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics, New York: Holt,

Rinehart, Winston. 114-49,

Morris, Edward Parmelee. 1901. Parataxis. In C. Scribner's Sons, On Principles and Methods in Latin Syntax".

Na, Y. and G. Huck. 1992. On extracting from asymmetrical structures. In D. Brentari, G. Larson and L. Macleod (Eds), The joy of grammar: a festschrift in honour of James D. Mccawley, pp251--274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


17

Progovac, L. 1998. Structure for coordination (Part 1). GLOT International 3(7), pp3--6.

Progovac, L. 1998. Structure for coordination (Part 1). GLOT International 3(7), pp3--6

Ross, J. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Rozakis, Laurie. 2003. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Grammar and Style. Alpha. 167–168.

Sag, I., Gazdar, T., Wassow, T. and S. Weisler. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, pp117--171.

Schmerling, S. 1975. Asymmetric coordination and rules of conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds). Speech Acts, Volume 3 of Syntax and semantics, pp211–231. New York: Academic Press.

Siegel, M. E. A. 1984. Gapping and interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 523-530.

Van Oirsouw. R.R. 1987. The Syntax of Coordination. London: Croom Helm.

Williams, E. 1978. Across the board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9,31--43.

Zoerner, E. 1995. Coordination: the syntax of &P. Ph.D thesis. University of California, Irvine.

II. SELECTED REFERENCES ON SUBORDINATION & HYPOTAXIS

Andersson, L-G. 1975. Form and function of subordinate clauses. Gothenburg monographs

in linguistics 1. Goteburg: University of Goteburg Department of Linguistics

Bever, T., & Townsend, D. 1979. Perceptual mechanisms and formal properties of main and

subordinate clauses. In W. Cooper & E. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing (pp. 159-

226). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Couper-Kuhlen, E., 1996. Intonation and clause combining in discourse: the case of

because. Pragmatics 6, 389–426.

Cristofaro, S., 1998. Deranking and balancing in different subordination relations: a

typological study. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51, 3–42.

Culicover, P., Jackendoff, R., 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination.

Linguistic Inquiry 28, 195–217.


18

Haiman, John & Sandra A. Thompson. 1984. ”Subordination” in universal grammar.

Berkeley Linguistic Society 10: 510-523.

Martin, James R. 1988. Hypotactic recursive systems in English: towards a functional

interpretation. In James D. Benson & William S. Greaves (ed.), Systemic Functional

Approaches to Discourse: Selected Papers from the Twelfth International Systemic Workshop.

Norwood, NJ.: Ablex. 240-70.

Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. The structure of discourse and

“subordination”.” In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (ed.), Clause combining in

grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 275-329.

ADVERBIAL CLAUSES

Diessel, H. 2001. The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses. A typological

study. Language 77. 433–455.

Greenbaum, S., 1969. Studies in English Adverbial Usage. Longman, London.

Goethals, P., 2002. Las Conjunciones Causales Explicativas en Castellano. Un Estudio Semiótico-

lingüístico. Peeters, Leuven & Paris.

Hengeveld, Kees. 1998. Adverbial clauses in the languages of Europe. In J. Van der Auwera

(ed.). Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 335-

419.

Krogsrud, H. B. 1980. Factors Motivating the Position of Finite Adverbial Clauses

Introduced by as, because, since. Unpublished MA thesis. The Department of British

and American studies, University of Oslo.

Meier, E. 2001. "Since you mention it": A Contrastive Study of Causal Subordination in

English and Norwegian. Unpublished MA thesis. The Department of British and

American studies, University of Oslo.

Mithun, Marianne. 1988. The grammaticization of coordination. In John Haiman & Sandra

A. Thompson (ed.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam:

Benjamins. 331-359.


19

Pérez Quintero. 2002. Adverbial subordination in English: A functional approach (Language and

Computers series 41). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.

Thompson, Sandra A. 1984. Grammar and written discourse: initial vs. final purpose

clauses in English. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 13. Also in Text 5(1/2). 55-84.

Thompson, Sandra A. & Robert E. Longacre. 1985. Adverbial clauses. In Timothy Shopen

(ed.). 171-234.

Vandepitte, S. 1993. A Pragmatic Study of the Expression and the Interpretation of Causality:

Conjuncts and Conjunctions in Modern Spoken British English. Brussel: Paleis der

Academién.

Verstraete, Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2007. Rethinking the Coordinate-Subordinate

Dichotomy: Interpersonal Grammar and the Analysis of Adverbial Clauses in English (Topics

in English Linguistics). New York/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

CONDITIONAL CLAUSES

Ford, C. E. and Thompson, S. 1986. Conditionals in discourse: A text-based study from

English. In E. Trangott et al (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

George, H. V. 1966. If (1) and if (2). English Language Teaching Journal 20(2). 113-119, and

20(3), 232-239.

Haegeman, L. 2009. Folia Linguistica. Volume 18 (3-4). 485–502

Hill, L. A. 1960. The sequence of tenses with if clauses. Language Learning 10(3 and 4). 165-

178.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1985. Conditional markers. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in

syntax. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 289-307.

Whitaker, S. F. 1970. Unless. English Language Teaching Journal, 24(2), 154-160.


20

DIRECT AND INDIRECT SPEECH

Goodell, E. W. 1987. Integrating theory with practice: An alternative approach to reported

speech in English. TESOL Quarterly 21(2). 305-325.

Harman, I. 1990. Teaching indirect speech: Deixis points the way. ELT Journal, 44(3). 230-

238.

Sakie, R. and Reed, S. 1997. Time reference in reported speech. English Language and

Linguistics 1(2). 319-348.

Thompson, S. 1996. Voices in the text: Discourse perspectives on language reports. Applied

Linguistics 17(4). 501-530.

Thompson, S. and Ye, C. 1991. Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers.

Applied Linguistics 17(4). 501-530.

Yule, G., Mathis, T. and Hopkins, M. F. 1992. On reporting what was said. ELT Journal

46(3). 245-251.

RELATIVE CLAUSES

Chiang, D. 1980. Predictors of relative clause production. In R. C. Scarcella and S. D.

Krashen (eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Danielson, D. and Porter, P. 1990. Using English: Your Second Language (2nd ed.).

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Regents, 360-370.

Fox, A. and Thompson, S. 1990. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses.

Language, 66(2). 297-316.

Pennington, M. C. (ed.). 1995. Part II: Relative clauses, in New Ways in Teaching Grammar.

Alexandria, VA: TESOL. 25-37

Rutherford, W. 1975. Modern English. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich. 240-242, 362-367.


21

Schumann, J. 1980. The acquisition of English relative clauses by second language learners.

In R. C. Scarcella and S. D. Krashen (eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition.

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Thewlis, S. 1997. Grammar Dimensions, Book 3 (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle, pp. 195-

208.

III. SELECTED REFERENCES ON CLAUSE CONDENSING

Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Chps. 3 and 4.

Mederos Martin, H. 1988. Procedimientos de Cohesión en Español Actual. Santa Cruz de

Tenerife, Canary Islands] .

Ricento, T. 1987. Clausal ellipsis in multi-party conversation in English. Journal of

Pragmatics 11. 751-775,


22

PART 3

THE LOGICO-SEMANTICS OF CLAUSE COMBINING & CLAUSE CONDENSING

1. Introduction

2. Projection

2.1. Locution

2.2. Idea

3. Expansion

3.1. Elaboration

3.2. Extension

3.3. Enhancement

4. Rhetorical Structure Theory

4.1. Spans and hierarchies

4.1.1. Spans of hypotactic and paratactic relations in language

4.1.2. Nuclei and satellites

4.2. Types of RST relations

4.2.1. Subject matter

4.2.2. Presentational

4.3. Sample RST analyses


23

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gómez-González, M. D. L. A. & M. Taboada Gómez. 2005. Coherence relations in

Functional Discourse Grammar. In J. L. Mackenzie & M.D.L.Á. Gómez-González

(eds), Studies in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistic Insights Series No. 26.

Berna, Suiza: Peter de Lang. 227-259.

Mann, W. C. & S. A. Thompson. (eds.) 1992. Discourse description. Diverse linguistic

analysis of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Mann, W. C. & S. A. Thompson. (eds.) 1992. Discourse description. Diverse linguistic analysis

of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Mann, W. C. 2005. RST Web Site, from http://www.sfu.ca/rst

Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1986. Relational propositions in discourse.

Discourse Processes 9.1. 57-90.

Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional

theory of text organization. Text 8.3. 243-281.

Mann, W. C., C. M. I. M. Matthiessen & S. A. Thompson. 1992. Rhetorical structure theory

and text analysis. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description:

Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John

Benjamins. 39-78.

Mann, W. C., C. M. I. M. Matthiessen & S. A. Thompson. 1992. Rhetorical structure theory

and text analysis. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description:

Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John

Benjamins. 39-78.

Renkema, J. 2009. The texture of discourse. Towards an outline of connectivity theory.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Stuart-Smith, Virginia. 2001. Rhetorical Structure Theory as a Model of Semantics: a

Corpus-Based Analysis from a Systemic-Functional Perspective. Macquarie

University: Ph.D. thesis.

Taboada, M. 2004a. Building coherence and cohesion: Task-oriented dialogue in English and

Spanish. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.


24

Taboada, M. 2004b. Rhetorical relations in dialogue: A contrastive study. In C.L. Moder

and A. Martinovic-Zic (eds), Discourse across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam and

Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 75–97.

Taboada, M., & W.C. Mann. 2006. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking back and moving

ahead. Discourse Studies 8.3. 423-459.

Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in interaction. London: Longman. 87-92.

II. OTHER RESOURCES

http://www.sfu.ca/rst


25

5.- DISTRIBUTION OF ECTS AND METHODOLOGY

4.5 credits (45 hours of class) will be devoted to class sessions in which the syllabus will be

covered and the projects will be presented. This will require reading and explaining the

compulsory references, as well as the material prepared by the teacher (hand-outs and

presentations) which also includes practical tasks. In addition, students will also have to

write a small scale research project, for the preparation of which you must necessarily have

at least one preparatory interview with Prof. Dr. Gómez González (compulsory tutorial).

Table 2. Distribution of ECTS

Activities Class Factor Personal work Total

Theory classes

& readings

30 1.5 45 75

Practical

classes & tasks

15 1 15 30

Office hours 6 - - -

Examination 1 6.5 6.5 7.5

Total 52 66.5 112.5

In the theory classes the professor will offer an explanation on the topics of the program,

resorting to the selected references for each section as well as to support material

elaborated by her (hand-outs, power point presentations, etc.). In the practical sessions

students will apply the acquired notions and skills on the syntactic analysis of clauses and

sentences from a discourse-functional perspective, and they will also discuss issues related

to such activities. Students are expected to read the compulsory readings and to do the

practical tasks recommended for each unit.

6.- CALENDAR

WEEK 1: PART 1.

WEEK 2: PART 1.

WEEK 3: PART 2.

WEEK 4: PART 2.


26

WEEK 5: PART 2.

WEEK 6: PART 2.

WEEK 7: PART 2.

WEEK 8: PART 2.

WEEK 9: PART 2.

WEEK 10: PART 2.

WEEK 11: PART 2.

WEEK 12. PART 2.

WEEK 13: PART 3.

WEEK 14: PART 3.

WEEK 15: PART 3.

7.- ASSESSMENT

Assessment will be based on a FINAL EXAMINATION which will include theoretical and

practical questions on English Morphosyntax. Class attendance and participation, as well

as the satisfactory completion of course activities will be taken into account in the final

grade. As result, those studentas that are positively evaluated in these parameters and

whose grade in the final exam is 4 (out of 10) or more will benefit from upward grade

revision. By no means will this apply to students who fail to come to class regularly.

8.- OTHER INFORMATION OF INTEREST

8.1.- Study Recommendations

•••• Attendance & Office hours. Students are expected to come to class regularly and to

use the professor’s office hours to consult with her: (i) the different aspects involved

in the elaboration of the course project work, and (ii) any doubts or issues that may

need clarification.

•••• Student’s cards. Students are advised to hand in their students’ cards during the

first days of class.

•••• September resit. Those students who do not get a pass in June but who have

attended classes and have submitted their projects (cf. § 7 above) will only have to

take the final September examination. On the contrary, those students who neither

have attended classes nor have submitted their projects will have to hand in their

papers at least one week before taking their final September examination (on the


27

official date).

•••• Marks. They will ONLY be kept until the September resit within the same academic

year.

•••• English expression. Serious grammatical mistakes will have an impact on the final

grade.

8.2.- Models of Exam

EENNGGLLIISSHH GGRRAAMMMMAARR IIII

SURNAMES + FIRST NAME:….………………………………………………………… 1. Using the space below, provide a syntactic analysis of the underlined constituents giving arguments for it. 40% a. I agree with you more than with Robert. b. ‘This book is impossible to read’, thought John. 2. Provide a tree or block diagram for the following text. (60%) My linguistics professor advised me to tell the rest of the team’s members that we should have a number of meetings to discuss the issue as to whether the proposed guidelines could be improved and also look at the idea of setting up a research network, which, in my opinion, is a very good idea.

EENNGGLLIISSHH GGRRAAMMMMAARR IIII

SURNAMES + FIRST NAME:….………………………………………………………… 1. Explain the difference between ‘embedding’ and ‘subordination’ providing illustrations (40%) 2. Read the following extract from a personal letter and do the following: (a) segment it into sentences, (2) provide a syntactic analysis of each sentence and (3) propose a logico-semantic interpretation of the text. (60%) Thumbs began to be troublesome about 4 months ago and I made an appointment with the best hand surgeon in the Valley to see if my working activities were the problem. Using thumbs is not the problem but heredity is -as has been demonstrated in many studies- and the end result is no use of thumbs if I don’t do something now.

GRAMTICA_INGLESA_2

Documents

mouton de gruyter

tenth annual meeting

diverse linguistic analyses

unpublished ma thesis

diverse linguistic analysis

final september examination

english grammar ii

chicago linguistic society