The sentence is usually regarded as the upper limit of grammar. But we have already seen a number of ways in which a sentence can influence the grammatical make-up of a following one:
B11
personal pronouns (see B2)
❏
His wife is sick. However, she will try to come.
the definite article (see B3)
❏
I found some old coins and a painting. The painting seemed valuable.
This referring back is called ‘anaphora’.
The grammatical links between sentences are called ‘cohesion’. In fact, such links may occur between clauses as well as between sentences.
Two further techniques in creating cohesion are the use of proforms and ellipsis.
Proforms
Proforms are words that are used to replace or refer to a longer construction in a sentence. The most typical proforms are pronouns:
I’ve got a new car and John’s got one too. (= ‘John’s got a car’)
John and Mary hurt themselves in the accident. (‘. . . hurt John and Mary . . .’) However, there are other words which have this function, for example so:
Are they coming? – I hope so.
Here so represents a subordinate clause ‘that they are coming’. Not can be used for the equivalent negative:
I hope not. (‘. . . that they are not coming.’)
This should not be confused with the archaic use of not for forming negative verb phrases (as in I know not . . .) discussed in A7.
Do is another proform:
Who knows how to do it? – I do. (= ‘know how to do it’) Here do replaces not just the verb but the object as well.
Ellipsis
Ellipsis involves leaving out elements; it is common in answers:
Would you like to go to the cinema? – I’m afraid I can’t.
Here ‘go to the cinema’ has been ‘left out’. We also find ellipsis in coordination:
He finished his drink and then (he) walked home.
The difference between this and proforms is that ellipsis replaces something with nothing. But in both cases the missing text can be recovered from the context.
The purpose of such proforms and ellipsis is not only to make sentences shorter and avoid being repetitive, but also to create ‘cohesion’ within a text – to show readers or listeners that the sentences belong together. There are other ways of showing cohesion: linking adverbs (across sentences – see B4) and conjunctions (within sentences – see A9), for example:
Most of the audience didn’t like the film, but I enjoyed it.
There are also lexical links which may reinforce grammatical ones, as in this case of anaphora:
I bought a BMW last week and the next day the stupid car wouldn’t start.
And we will see extensive use of another type of ellipsis in A12 regarding spoken English.
B E YO N D A N D B E N E AT H T H E S E N T E N C E 133
Identify the cohesive links in these short passages taken from the text in C11.
1. For a brief moment I understood what Betty and Barney Hill went through. It was today in 1961 that something extraordinary happened to this rather ordinary American couple – they were abducted by aliens.
2. Ötzi lived about 5,300 years ago, yet we know quite a lot about him.
B11.2 Grammar beneath the sentence
The idea that there is grammar ‘hidden’ beneath sentences may seem strange, but we have already seen lots of evidence to suggest that what we see or hear on the surface of language is not ‘the real thing’. First of all, we have recognised that sentences are not made up of strings of words; rather, words are grouped together into phrases, and phrases into clauses, and clauses into sentences. In other words language is not linear; it is two-dimensional (at least). Furthermore, the ways in which units can be grouped into larger units are governed by the rules of grammar.
To take an example, compare these two major, simple sentences:
a) She ran over the road.
b) She ran over a pedestrian.
On the surface these sentences seem to have a similar structure; the only apparent difference is in the noun phrases at the end. Yet in fact they are quite different. Using clause elements (see A8) we would analyse them as
a) She (S) ran (V) over the road (A).
b) She (S) ran over (V) a pedestrian (Od).
The central difference is that over in b) goes with the verb ran, while in a) it goes with the road in a prepositional phrase. In a) it is a preposition, in b) a particle as part of a phrasal verb; as we saw in B7, this particle could be placed at the end, while the preposition could not. Of course, there is also the difference between the adverbial in a) and the object in b).
Deep and surface structure
But when we talk of grammar being hidden, we are not simply referring to links between words that cannot be seen on the surface. There are other aspects that may be hidden. For example, in this sentence
I want him to tell me the truth.
while him is in the objective case (representing the object of want), it also represents the ‘hidden’ subject of the non-finite verb tell (see A10).
We can explain this and other phenomena by making a distinction between
‘surface structure’ and ‘deep structure’. In the above example there is no surface struc-ture subject of tell, but there is in deep strucstruc-ture.
The distinction between surface and deep structure can account for a number of problems:
✪
Activity B11.1cases of ambiguity:
❏ I saw the man with the telescope.
Here with the telescope can either go with (‘postmodify’) the man (the man had a telescope), or be a separate adverbial element, indicating that the telescope was used to see the man.
why sentences which look alike really are not, for example:
❏
She is eager to please.
She is easy to please.
On the surface these two sentences appear to be have the same structure: SVP, with the predicative consisting of an adjective with an infinitive complement.
However, in the first sentence she is the deep structure subject of please, which is intransitive, whereas in the second she is the deep surface object of please (‘something pleases her’), which is of course transitive.
why sentences which do not look alike really are, e.g. actives and passives:
❏
I wrote it vs it was written by me
why elements which are present really are not, i.e. meaningless ‘dummy’ elements
❏
which are introduced to make a sentence grammatically acceptable:
e.g. the dummy auxiliary do: Do you believe her?
e.g. dummy subjects: It’s raining.
Here we can suggest that there is no subject in deep structure and that it is introduced in surface structure to satisfy the rule that English clauses must have a subject.
why units which are not present on the surface really are: see proforms and
❏
ellipsis above
why words which go together are not always next to each other; one unit may
❏
be split up into two, separated by another unit:
e.g. phrasal verbs: He picked the ball up.
e.g. verb phrases in interrogatives: Can you come?
e.g. stranded prepositions in interrogatives, passives and relative and nominal clauses
Who you were speaking to?
Explain this joke (told by Groucho Marx) using the concept of ambiguity.
Yesterday I shot an elephant in my pyjamas. How he got into my pyjamas I’ll never know.
Explain the deep structure difference between this pair of sentences, using the concepts of clause elements and transitivity.
1. She has an ability to perform.
2. She has a function to perform.
Activity B11.2
✪
Activity B11.3
✪
R E P O R T I N G 135
B11.3 Conclusion
Grammar is a complex and multi-dimensional mechanism, not the simple random collection of rules that is presented to learners of language. But we should not expect anything less of a system that is the basis of the subtleties of human communication and the expression of human thought.
Comments Activity B11.1:
1. The links are anaphoric: ‘Betty and Barney Hill’ – ‘this rather ordinary American couple’ – ‘they’.
2. The links are: ‘Ötzi’ – ‘him’, and the use of yet to show the relationship between the ideas in the two clauses.
Activity B11.2: We logically think first of all that he was wearing his pyjamas, that in my pyjamas is an adverbial, and that is how he shot the elephant. But from the second sentence we understand the elephant was wearing them and that in my pyjamas is part of a noun phrase an elephant in my pyjamas.
Activity B11.3: If we only looked at the clause structure here we would get the same analysis: SVO. However, in 2 function is the deep-surface object of perform (as well as the object of has), whereas in 1 perform is intransitive, and ability is only the object of has. If we paraphrase with a relative clause we can see the difference:
She has an ability that she has to perform. This makes no sense.
She has a function that she has to perform.
If we choose another noun such as duty the sentence becomes ambiguous:
She has a duty to perform.
REPORTING
B12.1 Direct and reported speech
An important feature of speech is reporting to others what someone has said to us.
There are two ways of doing this:
direct speech, i.e. to repeat what the person said:
❏
‘I will not stand for re-election,’ he said.
reported speech (or ‘indirect speech’):
❏
He said that he will not stand for re-election.
Both involve a reporting clause (functioning as the main clause – introduced by he said above), plus a reported clause in the case of reported speech (that he . . . ), or a
B12
quote in direct speech (‘I will . . .’); both the reported clause and the quote function as the object of the reporting verb (said). However, the reported clause is integrated more closely into clause structure; above it is a subordinate clause, but non-finite clauses are also possible (He said to come.)
Backshift
Learners of English are commonly presented with a list of rules for ‘transforming’
direct speech into reported speech when the reporting verb is in the past (as it usu-ally is). These involve shifting tenses ‘backwards’ in time:
‘change the present simple into the past simple’
‘change the present continuous into the past continuous’
‘change the present perfect into the past perfect’.
‘change the past into the past perfect’, etc.
plus changes for pronouns (e.g. I to you) and adverbials of place and time (e.g. here to there), etc. (‘deixis’, as described in B2). For example, this sentence in direct speech:
‘I am coming to the party tomorrow’.
would ‘become’, using the above rules:
She said she was coming to the party the next day.
However, these rules are very problematic. The first problem is that any ‘changes’
that might be made depend on the context. So if the party has not yet taken place we might say:
She said she is coming to the party tonight.
In other words, the adverbial may have numerous realisations, and the tense need not change. Here are two examples (from Thomson 1994) where there is no change in tense (the original text is in brackets):
(‘I am willing . . .’) Yeltsin, for his part, said he is willing to try.
(‘We carried out the attack.’) An opposition group said it carried out the attack.
Such ‘exceptions’ are usually explained in terms of recency and continued validity (especially if the reporting verb is in the present), but this is not a complete explana-tion. For one thing, the past tense rarely ‘changes’ into the past perfect.
The second problem is that the way speech is reported is also dependent on the (new) speaker’s attitude to what he or she has heard. This is only to be expected;
reporting someone else’s words as if they are yours could get you into trouble if the original speaker is unreliable or uses swear words. So how does A report to B what C said? How can A distance himself or herself from commitment to the original statement? The answer is to use the past tense, for example:
(‘I am very unhappy.’) She said she was very unhappy.
We have already seen in B5 situations where the past is used for distancing. Its use here in reported speech is similar. This explains why the past rarely ‘changes’ to past perfect, unlike the present perfect; the distance is already there in the past tense. But such a change may imply a change of state:
(‘We were intending . . .’) They said they had been intending to carry out the attack.
(but they are not now)
R E P O R T I N G 137
This is the only situation where modals (can, etc.) can be said to have ‘past’ tense forms (could, etc.), which can be used to achieve the same distancing as the past tense, for example:
(‘I can come.’) She said she could come. (but can would also be possible)
Another problem with the notion of transforming direct speech into reported speech is that we normally base what we say on the meaning that we remember, not on the words. If the exact words are important – and we remember them – then we will use direct speech. If not, we will construct the sentences using the same rules for tense usage as apply elsewhere. There is a story by Agatha Christie in which a dying man’s last words are remembered as ‘heap of fish’, which mystifies everyone.
What he actually said was ‘pilocarpine’ (the name of the poison used in his murder);
however, this was heard as ‘pile o’ carp’ and then wrongly remembered.
If you are going through this section in class, try to recall what your teacher/
lecturer said at the start and represent it in reported speech. Compare your version with those of your colleagues. How similar are they? What tenses have you chosen?
The unwarranted focus on rules for tense backshift can obscure a number of areas which are important for reporting:
the status of the reported clause. It functions as the direct object of the reporting
❏
verb, most commonly as a nominal that clause:
He said that he is coming.
But other non-finite structures, such as to infinitive, are possible.
the use of reporting verbs in the correct pattern (see B8). Thus
❏
He told me that you are lazy. (and not ‘He told that you are lazy.’) An indirect object is required for tell. See Activity B12.2 below.
the ordering of elements when direct speech is used in reporting. The reporting
❏
clause may come before or after the quote:
She said ‘come here’. / ‘Come here’, she said or in the middle:
‘Come on,’ he said, ‘let’s try to get there first’.
the choice of reporting verb. There is a wide range of such verbs (see those used
❏
in the text in C11). Say is by far the most frequent; tell and ask are also common:
He said that you are lazy.
Not all verbs referring to the act of speaking can be reporting verbs. Scold and talk are two such exceptions. You cannot say ‘He talked that you are lazy.’
reported thought, which follows the same patterns as reported speech, and can
❏
even involve direct reporting with a quote:
I thought he was crazy.
‘You must be crazy’, I thought.
✪
Activity B12.1Fill in the gaps with a suitable reporting verb from the list below.
a) He __________ to her for causing the accident.
b) She __________ that she caused the accident.
c) He __________ her of causing the accident.
d) He __________ her for causing the accident.
e) She __________ that I caused the accident.
blamed, accused, claimed, apologised, admitted
A final issue is the reporting of questions. Here the word order is important (there is no inversion), as is the use of if or whether to introduce the reported clause (rather than that):
(‘Can I come?’) He asked if he can/could come.
B12.2 Conclusion
The rules for ‘backshift’ in reported speech are one of the great ‘deceptions’ in English teaching, for the following reasons:
when we report what someone else said using reported speech, we normally base
❏
it on the meaning that we remember, not on the exact words that we heard. If the exact wording is important, then we will use direct speech. Exercises that present the direct speech and ask learners to transform it into reported speech are artificial and misleading.
the choice of tense (and of other features, such as personal pronouns) in reported
❏
speech is subject to the same rules of usage that apply elsewhere in English. In the case of tense ‘change’ the deciding factor is whether we wish to distance ourselves from what the speaker said or not.
other factors, such as the choice of appropriate reporting verbs and the ordering
❏
of elements should receive more focus. This is why the heading of this section is
‘Reporting’ and not ‘Reported Speech’.
Activity B12.2: a) apologised, b) admitted, c) accused, d) blamed, e) claimed
Note that in b) and e) the past tense is used in the reported that clause. A past perfect (. . . had caused) would be unlikely, even though the original statement would have been in the past tense: I/you caused . . . )
Activity B12.2