FACULTADE DE FILOLOXÍA
DEPARTAMENTO DE FILOLOXÍA INGLESA E ALEMÁ
Sintaxe e Semántica da Lingua Inglesa
María de los Ángeles Gómez González
GUÍA DOCENTE E MATERIAL DIDÁCTICO
2019/2020
FACULTADE DE FILOLOXÍA. DEPARTAMENTO DE FILOLOXÍA INGLESA E ALEMÁ AUTORA: María de los Ángeles GÓMEZ GONZÁLEZ
Edición electrónica. 2019
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.
ENGLISH SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS
Prof. Dr. María de los Ángeles GÓMEZ GONZÁLEZ Table of Contents
1. Subject Description 2
2. Objectives and Acquired Skills 2
2.1. Specific Objectives 3
2.2. Acquired Skills 3
3. Subject Contents and Bibliography 2
3.1. Abridged syllabus and Bibliography 3
3.2. Detailed Programme and Reference List 6
UNIT 1 Introducing the syntax of the clause 6
UNIT 2 Coordination and parataxis 14
UNIT 3 Subordination and hypotaxis 16
UNIT 4 Clause condensing 22
UNIT 5 Introducing sentence and word semantics 23
4. Distribution of ECTS and Methodology 25
5. Calendar 25
6. Assessment 26
7.- Other information of interest 26
7.1. Study Recommendations 26
7.2. Mock Test 27
1.- SUBJECT DESCRIPTION
Sujact Name: English Syntax and Semantics Code: G5061325
Type of subject, course and year in which it is imparted: Major Subject, 3rd year of the degree (Second Semester).
Number of credits: 6
Prerrequisites (regulated or recommended): To have passed English Morphosyntax.
Taught in English
Examinations: Please consult the timetable.
Teacher: Prof. Dr. María de los Ángeles Gómez González.
Email: [email protected] Office: 418
Office hours: To be confirmed Tel: +34 981 563100 Ext. 11844 Fax: +34 981 574646
Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=W9_1g6oAAAAJ&hl=en Research team website SCIMITAR: http://www.scimitar.es/
2.- OBJECTIVES AND ACQUIRED SKILLS
In this course we have a double objective. First, we shall describe and analyse the structure of simple, complex and compound clauses from a discourse-functional perspective.
Accordinly, you will get acquainted with the different subtypes of coordination and subordination in order to be able to recognise and analyse them in real texts, which will require the application of the principles and conceptual tools explained in class. Subsidiary to the first one, our second goal will be to study the basics of English Semantics at sentence and word levels.
The program of the subject is divided in three parts. Part I provides the framework for syntactic analysis adopting a discourse-functional perspective: it presents some introductory concepts and summarises the principles of syntactic analysis endorsed in the course. The contents of Part II form the bulk of the syllabus, in which a typology of
2
interclausal connectios are described concerning clause combining and clause condensing processes. Closing the course, Part III offers an introduction to sentence and word semantics in English, paying particular attention to the interconnections between Semantics and Syntax. Readings and theoretical questions will be substantiated with practical tasks.
2.1.- Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of this subject are the following:
1. Become familiar with the main approaches and concepts in syntactic and semantic analysis in English, although comparisons with other languages (especially Spanish
& Galician) will also be encouraged.
3. Analyse clausal and sentential constructions in natural settings.
4. Read specialized literature related to the field critically.
5. Use new resources and technologies to carry out research in the field.
6. Do case analysis.
7. Work individually and in groups.
8. Encourage active participation in class.
2.2.- 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 interclausal connections (clause- combining and clause-condensing strategies), as well as of the basics of semantic analysis 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.
3.- SUBJECT CONTENTS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 3.1.- Abridged syllabus and Bibliography
PART I: INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH SYNTAX UNIT 1 Introducting the syntax of the clause
1.1. Utterance, sentence, clause 1.2. The structure of the clause
1.3. Syntactic patterns of canonical and non-canonical clauses
1.4. Interclausal connections and syntactic relationships
PART II: CLAUSE COMBINING AND CLAUSE CONDENSING UNIT 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 UNIT 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
3.4.3. Finite, non-finite and other reduced variants 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 UNIT 4. Clause condensing 4.1. Substitution
4.2. Ellipsis
PART III: INTODUCTION TO ENGLISH SEMANTICS UNIT 5 Introducing sentence and word semantics
5.1. Rhetorical Structure Theory and sentence semantics 5.2. Lexical Semantics
Required Books A) Syntax
Biber, Douglas, Geoffrey Leech and Susan Conrad. 2002. Longman Student Grammar of Written and Spoken English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Downing, A. & Locke, P. 2006. English Grammar. A university Course. London: Routledge (2nd ed.).
B) Semantics
Hurford, James R., Heasley, B. and Smith, B. rendan. 2007. Semantics: A Coursebook.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd ed.).
Lyons, J. 1995. Linguistic Semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: CUP.
3.2.- Detailed Programme and Reference List
PART 1 INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH SYNTAX
UNIT 1 Introducting the syntax of the clause 1.1. Utterance, sentence, clause
1.2. The structure of the clause
1.2.1. Grammatical form and illocutionary force 1.2.1.1. Declarative clauses: Statements 1.2.1.2. Negative clauses: Negations 1.2.1.3. Interrogative clauses: Questions 1.2.1.4. Imperative clauses: Directives
1.2.1.5. Exclamative clauses: Exclamation, Echo and Tags 1.2.2. 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
1.3. Syntactic patterns of canonical and non-canonical clauses 1.3.1. Canonical Clauses: Major clause types and verb patterns
1.3.1.1. Copular 1.3.1.2. Intransitive 1.3.1.3. Monotransitive 1.3.1.4. Ditransitive
1.3.1.5. Monotransitive Prepositional 1.3.1.6. Complex Transitive
1.3.2. Non-canonical clauses 1.3.2.1. Preposings
1.3.2.2. There constructions 1.3.2.3. It-Extrapositions 1.3.2.4. Inversions
1.3.2.5. Left detachments 1.3.2.6. Right detachments 1.3.2.7. Cleft clauses
1.3.2.8. Pseudo-cleft clauses 1.3.2.9. Passives
1.4. Interclausal connections and syntactic relationships 1.4.1. From (complex) verbs to separate clauses
1.4.2. Models of syntactic analysis and the analysis of sentences 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
Mackenzie, J. L. and E. Martínez Caro. 2012. Compare and Contrast. An English Grammar for Speakers of Spanish. Granada: Comares.
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.
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,
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).
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.
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.
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 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.
PART 2 A TYPOLOGY OF CLAUSE COMBINING & CLAUSE CONDENSING
UNIT 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
I. 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.
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.
UNIT 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 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
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
http://www.santiagoapostol.net/ingles/grammar_bach.htm http://esl.fis.edu/learners/advice/syntax.htm
https://www.sfu.ca/rst/
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.
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.
III.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.
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.
IV. 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.
V. 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.
VI. 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.
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.
UNIT4 Clause condensing 4.1. Substitution
4.1.1. Nominal 4.1.2. Verbal 4.1.3. Clausal 4.2. Ellipsis
4.2.1. Definition
4.2.2. Function and interpretation 4.2.3. Syntactic types
I. SELECTED REFERENCES ON CLAUSE CONDENSING
Aelbrecht, Lobke. 2010. The syntactic licensing of ellipsis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Johnson, Kyle, ed. 2008. Topics in ellipsis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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]
Paltridge, Brian. 2006. Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. London: Continuum.
Ricento, T. 1987. Clausal ellipsis in multi-party conversation in English. Journal of Pragmatics 11. 751-775.
Stainton, Robert J. 2006. Words and thoughts: Subsentences, ellipsis, and the philosophy of language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
PART 3 INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH SEMANTICS
UNIT 5 Introducing sentence and word semantics 5.1. Rhetorical Structure Theory and sentence semantics
5.1.1. Projection 5.1.1.1. Locution 5.1.1.2. Idea 5.1.2. Expansion
5.1.2.1. Elaboration 5.1.2.2. Extension 5.1.2.3. Enhancement
5.1.3. Spans of hypotactic and paratactic relations in language 5.1.4. Types of RST relations
4.1.5. Sample RST analyses 5.2. Lexical Semantics
5.2.1. Basic concepts of semantic theory
5.2.2. Lexical semantics, lexical fields and meaning relationships
I. SELECTED REFERENCES AND RESOURCES ON RST & SENTENCE SEMANTICS 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.
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.
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.
http://www.sfu.ca/rst
II. SELECTED REFERENCES ON LEXICAL SEMANTICS
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Hurford, James R., Heasley, B. and Smith, B. rendan. 2007. Semantics: A Coursebook.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd ed.).
Lyons, J. 1995. Linguistic Semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: CUP.
Stubbs, M. 2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Blackwell, Oxford, UK and Malden, USA.
4.- DISTRIBUTION OF ECTS AND METHODOLOGY
6 credits will be devoted to class sessions in which the syllabus will be covered and the practical tasks will be corrected. In the joint sessions the professor will offer an explanation on the topics of the programme, which will be summarised in hand-outs and power points resorting to the selected references provided for each section. 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.
5.- CALENDAR WK 1- PART 1
WK 2- PART 1
WK 3- PART 2: COORDINATION & PARATAXIS. TYPES OF COORDINATION WK 4- PART 2: COORDINATION & PARATAXIS. TYPES OF COORDINATION
WK 5- PART 2: SUBORDINATION & HYPOTAXIS. COMPLEMENT CLAUSES I (NOUN COMPLEMENT CLAUSES). COMPLEMENT CLAUSES II (ADJECTIVE COMPLEMENT CLAUSES)
WK 6- PART 2: COMPLEMENT CLAUSES II (ADJECTIVE COMPLEMENT CLAUSES) COMPLEMENT CLAUSES III (VERB COMPLEMENT CLAUSES)
WK 7- PART 2: RELATIVE CLAUSES
WK 8- PART 2: COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS WK 9- PART 2: ADVERBIAL CLAUSES
WK 10- PART 2: CLAUSE CONDENSING WK 11- PART 2: SENTENCE SEMANTICS
WK 12- PART 3: SENTENCE SEMANTICS VS. LEXICAL SEMANTICS
WK 13- PART 3: LEXICAL SEMANTICS WK 14- REVISION
6.- ASSESSMENT
Assessment will be based on a FINAL EXAMINATION at the end of the period of classes, which will include theoretical and practical questions on English Syntax and Semantics.
Grades will be from 0 to 10. Students who attend classes and participate in them actively can receive bonus in such a way that their exam grade may be upgraded (but 4 is a minimum requirement). In no case will this be possible for students who do not attend classes or do so only sporadically.
The assessment system will be the same for the Resit & First sit exams, as well for those students who have failed the subject in previous years. The final marks of those students who are officially dispensed with class attendance will be exclusively based on the result of the final written exam.
7.- OTHER INFORMATION OF INTEREST 7.1.- 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.
• English expression. Serious grammatical mistakes will have an impact on the final grade.
7.2.- Mock Test
ENGLISH SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS
SURNAMES + FIRST NAME:….………
A) SYNTAX (7 points)
1. Provide a tree diagram for the following text. (4 points)
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.
Dr. Gómez also suggested we looked at the idea of setting up a research network, which is a very good initiative in my opinion.
2. Describe and illustrate the different types of catenative complements that exist in English (3 points)
B) SEMANTICS (3 points)
3. Propose a logico-semantic interpretation of the text above (1.5 points)
4. Determine whether the following are cases of homonymy or polysemy (1.5 points).
(a) fine 'superior in quality'
'a sum of money paid as a penalty' (b) bank 'an incline of land adjoining a river'
'financial institution'
(c) monitor 'a pupil who assists a teacher'
'a device that receives video signals from acomputer'
