Syntax & Morphology Final Exam - i.a. Verb Complementation, Ungrammaticality

[ilct94]

Hi everyone, I'm preparing for my final exam, and could you help me guys with a few exercises?

1) How many types of verb complementation and verb-particle configurations are there?
a) monotransitive, ditransitive, copular, complex transitive, linking - are there any others?
b) phrasal verbs, prepositional, phrasal-prepositional - I think there should be one more, but I am not sure though.

2) Using specific descriptive apparatus (rules, principles, constraints etc.), explain why the following sentences are ungrammatical.

*He bought the book and in the store
*The director was criticized of the movie by her colleagues.
*Jane criticized at the conference.
*It is clear the news.
*She asked where was the car.
*Richard watched a documentary that wasn't very entertaining on tigers in Asia.

It's easy to correct these sentences, but honestly, I have no idea how to explain any of them. Could you help me with at least one sentence or recommend me a good website where I could read about the rules, principles, constraints?

Thank you.

[Daniel]

We won't do homework for you here (including reviews). The point is for you to get the practice. If you have specific questions about it, feel free to ask.

The answers also depend substantially on the theory/theories used by your instructor and in your textbook. I'd suggest reviewing the textbook for the first one. For the second, you should be able to name specific rules that explain why those sentences are NOT part of the language-- for the first one, have you discussed any rules about coordination, for example?

[ilct94]

Ok then, let's forget about task #1 for a moment:

*He bought the book and in the store

Coordinating conjuctions join parts of a sentence that are grammatically equal. In the sentence above 'and' links a noun phrase and a prepositional phrase, thus, the sentence is incorrect.

*Jane criticized at the conference.

Criticized is a monotransitive verb, but the sentence does not have a single direct object.

Other way to make the sentence grammatically correct is making Jane the direct object, but the sentence does not contain an auxiliary verb (was) preceding the main verb.

I guess if asked you whether my answers are correct, it would still count as a homework review. Could you at least tell me if I'm 'going in the right direction'?

[Daniel]

Sounds reasonable to me.

Although not consistently taught this way, it's best to present ungrammatical sentences in pairs with a grammatical sentence. Of course that assumes you can correctly identify what it "should be" but giving a grammatical example can also help illustrate your point, depending on how much detail is expected.

[ilct94]

First of all, thanks djr33 for your last post.

Yesterday I was doing some exercises and got three answers wrong, and I don't know how to correct them. I am not sure whether I was wrong or my teacher.

1) The Dean has offered a scholarship to the best student.
Is 'offer' a ditransitive verb in this sentence? I wrote it is and got 0 points. We have a direct object - a scholarship and an indirect object - the best student. It doesn't make any sense to me.

2)The critics considered the movie a flop in the 70s'.
Similar story. I wrote that consider is a complex-transitive verb and a flop is an object complement. 0 points.

3) He denied the rumour that his friends were involved in the robbery.
I was asked to bracket and describe the dependent clause in the sentence above. I put that his friends were involved in the robbery in brackets and wrote that it is a relative clause and functions as a noun phrase modifier.

Could you clarify those examples for me?

[Daniel]

(1) I agree with you. Offer, like give, takes two objects, a direct object, and an indirect object.
It's possible your instructor was making a distinction between double object constructions ("ditransitives") like "offered him a scholarship" vs a transitive+to construction "offered a scholarship to him". (There's also arguably some difference in whether the scholarship was actually transferred/given in this case, but I don't believe telicity [whether an action is completed] would determine its valency [how many arguments it takes, e.g. 2 for ditransitives].)
Your instructor either made a mistake while grading or has a special reason for this in a particular use of the terminology. Note that terminology can be used very differently depending on your book, your instructor, and even specific purposes at any given time. It's a real problem, because it gets in the way of really understanding what's going on when the focus is on the terminology, but on the other hand we need some way to talk about things.

(2) I don't know what a "complex-transitive verb" would be. Sure, it might be that. Or it might be something else. It depends on the definition. This is some sort of secondary predication (in the most usual terminology, I think), where "[be a] flop" is a secondary predicate for "movie". I want to say depictive, but I must not be thinking of the right specific subcategory because that's describing the object, not the subject (a common example of a depictive is "I [did something] naked").

(3) Your answer sounds reasonable. But again it depends on terminology. I'm not sure I'd strictly consider that to be a relative clause because "rumour" has no role in the embedded clause. A relative clause is usually one where the relativized noun has a role like subject or object in the clause ("That's the man who bought the house" -- subject; "That's the house he bought" -- object.)
I think a common term for this might be "object clause", although it's a little weird that it has "the rumour that" rather than just "that". It's similar to "The fact that", which is more common and might be discussed in your textbook if you want to find the term.

I'd ask your instructor about these-- they're not bad answers, even if they aren't the preferred answers. They may also be able to suggest a better way to study (e.g., where the exact definitions are, since there are many terms and definitions you might come across elsewhere).

[ilct94]

"I don't know what a "complex-transitive verb" would be. Sure, it might be that. Or it might be something else. It depends on the definition."

I don't know either, I'm really confused right now. I've just read that consider could be an attributive ditransitive verb as well.

"A relative clause is usually one where the relativized noun has a role like subject or object in the clause (...)"

I think you mean a nominal/noun clause, but I might be wrong? According to my book there are three types of subordinate/dependent clauses:

- Nominal - function as nouns
- Relative - function as adjectives
- Adverbial - as adverbs

In the sentence "He denied the claim that his friends were involved in the robbery" (actually, in the original sentence it was the claim, not the rumour, my mistake) the subordinate clause "that his friends were involved in the robbery" acts an adjective describing the noun phrase "the claim". I think should have got at least 1 point for that example.

Anyway, thanks again. I will discuss that with my instructor as soon as I get a chance.

[Daniel]

As I've said, the terminology is both entirely unimportant to the data itself and also what determines your grade. It's sort of a necessary evil, but it would be nice if it was clearer or more standardized. (It's not, and it's not just your class where this happens. It's in most/all classes and in publications too. And everyone knows it. It just isn't easy to fix. At a deeper level there is a question of whether these individual phenomena we give labels to even exist as natural classes or other specific entities, so that's one problem. Some are probably invented by the perception of the analyst. Still, they are sometimes useful.)

A nominal clause, yes. An object clause is a specific type, functioning as the object of the sentence. A subject clause is another type. The idea is that "the claim/rumour" is part of the clause (a sort of head?), rather than an independent noun that is modified by it. It's not a description-- it's its identity. But this is a technicality and one that should be explained (along with, I'd argue, why the distinction matters).

More than arguing for points back, I'd suggest talking to your instructor to find out why the points were given as they were. Maybe it'll help you with the next class, given this grading system.