Scarica Understanding Noun Modification & Relative Clauses in Functional Grammar e più Appunti in PDF di Linguistica Inglese solo su Docsity!
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS 1
Recap of the previous lesson In the last lesson we saw that pre modification is a phenomenon that applies to a specific part of speech that is the noun. Functional grammar doesn’t approach modification hierarchically (in terms of what is more important or less important), so it doesn’t work in terms of “dependency trees” like structural grammar. Functional grammar works in terms of stratification, in the sense that one concept is included in the other. In this sense it’s a matter of what the elements mean and their meanings are complementary. However, the members of the noun group follow a specific order. Especially in English the order of the elements is bound, so the elements that pre modify a noun have to follow a certain order. The main noun of the noun group is called Thing (even if the thing is an inanimate object.) In English premodification is the preponderant tool of noun modification, and the elements that can perceive the Thing have to follow a specific order, and this is a construction to the left of the thing. (costruzione a sinistra) The element that is closer and in contact with the thing is the classifier, then we have the epithet, then the numerative and lastly we have the deictic. Deictic + Numerative + Epithet + Classifier + Thing -Deictic tells us which thing/things are being referred to, and whether is a specific thing or not. -Numerative tells us how many things there are -Epithet gives us descriptive qualities of the thing/things -Classifier tells us what type or class of thing/things we are talking about (obviously the number of elements can change, it depends on what is being said.) e.g.: -“this microphone” is a noun group This= specific deictic Microphone= thing
POST MODIFICATION - EMBEDDING
Post modification is called embedding in functional grammar. It’s a logico-semantic connection. This means that it’s still part of the structure of the noun group, so it’s still part of “field” and “ideational meaning”. It occurs at the level of the group (but also at the level of the clause) and it occurs when two concepts are so closely connected they are enclosed into one another. This means that the post modifier is so firmly attached to the thing that are like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, if you remove the post modifier you can’t understand what you’re talking about or the full meaning of the thing. e.g.:
- “A dab of butter” = un panetto di burro If you just say “a dab” (a noun group composed by a non-specific deictic “a” and a thing “dab”) it doesn’t mean anything. In this case “of butter” is an embedded prepositional phrase. This does also work with a stick of butter, a drizzle of honey, a pinch/sprinkle of salt, etc.
- “Talking [to yourself] is a funny habit” If you eliminate [to yourself] it loses sense, it has to be there as a post modifier of “talking”, so this also is an embedded prepositional phrase.
- The scones [I make] have sultanas in the dough” Obviously not all the scones have sultanas in the dough, so you have to specify that you're talking about the scones you made. However this is a different case because “I make” is a clause, so we are talking about an embedded clause. !! There is just one type of clause that can act as a modifier and it’s a relative clause of a specific type: the defining/restrictive relative clause. The defining relative clause is necessary to understand the previous noun and can’t have a comma before it. A restrictive relative clause is a relative clause that only adds some extra meaning and it’s usually set off with a comma. It’s only defining relative clauses that are embedded; they act as post modifiers to the proìeciding noun and have to be in direct contact with it: To be a post modifier, a defining relative clause needs to be in direct contact with its noun. This doesn’t mean that all relative clauses that are in contact with a noun are defining, but it's a good rule to identify them. The second test is the one of the comma:
In conclusion, the reason why this is a defining relative clause and therefore embedded and therefore a post modifier of people, is that if you remove it the noun “people” remains unqualified and so it’s potentially pragmatically misleading. The same goes for the other examples in the slide: the Prepositional Phrases or Defining Relative Clauses, whose meaning is necessary either for the clause to remain grammatical or to provide the necessary qualification of the noun. This is why the post modifier in English is called ‘qualifier’, because it is the only post modifier, which means that both the Embedded PP and the Embedded Clause are called post modifiers. Let’s put some order in this:
Let’s start with ‘Thing’ and give all its pre modifiers: ⤷ Deictic, Numerative, Epithet, Classifier - Thing
And there’s only one post modifier: ⤷ Thing - Qualifier → qualifier is always embedded (either PPs or defining relative clauses) The main and, possibly, only difficulty here is the decision rather a PP is embedded or not in its preceding noun (when is in direct contact with a noun) and if a relative clause is defining or not, so you need a test for that. For example:
Which means: the difference between a Prepositional Phrase that is part of the Noun Group because it’s a qualifier, therefore a post modifier, and the Prepositional Phrase that stands alone as a Circumstance in the clause. Here there’s another test we can make and it consists not specifically in removing the PP (as we can see here in these two examples it can be removed in either cases), but it’s to try and move the PPs written in red to another position in the clause: ● ‘ In my boot there was a stone ’ → it still works ● ‘ With the black tail that dog belongs to my uncle ’ or ‘ That dog belong to my uncle with the black tail ’ → what’s wrong here is that ‘ with the black tail ’ is a post modifier of ‘ that dog ’ and you can’t move it elsewhere, otherwise it will modify ‘ your uncle ’. It means that the picture we have on the left side has a post modifier, whereas the picture on the right has a circumstance (the circumstance is mobile, you can move it either before or after the NG. ⤷ going back to the example of the scones we can notice that we can also say ‘ In the dough the scones I make have sultanas ’ → you can do that. So the circumstance can be moved, the embedded preposition phrase or postmodifier or qualifier can’t be moved from its position Examples with clauses, obviously with clauses you have more difficulty using the moving text because you can’t move them First example: “Children who ate chocolate are uncommon”, removing the highlighted clause doesn’t make sense,if we leave it out ‘children’ remains unqualified Second example “ They live in a house whose roof is full of holes ”, you need the relative clause to complete the information
- If I go food shopping with my friends then “my friend” is a circumstance of accompaniment, so it’s not part of the noun group “lunch”
- If you had lunch with your friend then “with your friends” is a postmodifier, so it’s embedded and a qualifier of “lunch” and it’s part of the same noun group. One element that the noun and the pronoun have in common is that:
- The pronoun has the same functional role of the noun, so it acts as a noun in the noun group. It can be pre modified and post modified Difference between defining and non-defining clauses Remember that the restrictive relative clause is the same as a defining relative clause, and it gives you necessary, qualifying information for the preceding noun. It also needs to be in direct contact with it (the noun). The one that just gives extra meaning and information instead is called non-defining relative clause or non-restrictive , you can even skip that part and the clause would still make sense, for this reason it doesn’t have to be in contact with the noun. First example: “This lesson will be recorded, which means it will be published in Virtuale.” It’s a non-defining relative clause for three reasons:
- It has a comma, defining relative clauses usually doesn't have a comma.
- The element that precedes the relative pronoun ( which) is not a noun. For this reason it can’t be embedded; it’s not possible for the past participle in a passive verb (recorded) to be post modified. The element “recorded” can’t be used as a noun so it can’t be post modified. The only elements that are post modifiable are nouns, pronouns and nominalized infinitives.
- It offers extra information and clarification, it explains what kind of event the lesson triggers. Second example: “This is an English lesson that takes place both in class and in MT.” Despite the presence of “that” and despite the fact that you can’t put a comma between “lesson” and “that” it’s a NON DEFINING-RELATIVE CLAUSE. In fact, “that takes place both in class and in MT “ it’s not vital for the meaning of the clause, you could even say : “This is an English lesson. It takes place both in class and in MT” the first phrase still maintains its meaning. EMBEDDED PROJECTION There are some cases in which the qualifier is not a relative clause but it is a projected clause. In functional grammar projection corresponds to direct and indirect speech. The embedded clause in this case it’s not a relative, it’s a false relative whose real status is that of a projected clause. 1.11.35 – 1.26. Embedded Projection were left as borderline case, this is not something we ask people at the exam , it’s a case where the embedded clause is not a relative, so it’s a false relative whose real actual grammatical status is the projective clause.
The projective clause is a topic that we will deal with in the beginning of November, but it is the functional grammatical version of reported and clauses speech, so direct and indirect speech or also as you can see here E.G. The argument that English pronunciation has undergone change is common knowledge What structure of grammar labels are declarative clauses? You certainly remember the preposizioni dichiarative that you have done in Latin for example. Why is this or are these embedded? The argument, the thought, the belief, the knowledge, the idea that English is undergone change is common knowledge… because despite the fact that this is not technically speaking a relative clause, it clause you what men are talking about, so it qualify the argument. If you remove that orange passage You wouldn’t know what humans are talking about, just as before if you remove the butter you don’t what material, what ingredient you are eating and the same happens for that English pronunciation has undergone change. E.G The thought of getting up at 6 o’clock doesn’t upset me. The same reason, if you remove of getting up at 6 o’clock nobody knows what thought doesn’t upset you. And so on … these are the clauses that Structural grammar calls declaratives. In the exam we only look at proper typical cases, the most frequent cases of post modification, so the prepositional phrase. Now we will begin to use our text. You know there is the PDF in virtuale, which it is a translation, you know this book is translated from French. In French Literature they say that The Little Prince is over-estimated, its literary value is not very high. We are not reading it for its literary value. We are reading it because it’s a good source of easy examples with the labels of grammatical difficult you can expect to find at the exam ,because we will not ask you to analyze clauses from special high languages or very difficult thing. This book offer a lot of examples, I think it’s also good to read but it’s only my opinion and you have the full pdf in English in Virtuale in Topic 2.
Are they embedded prepositional phrase or are the circumstance phrases? The circumstance for very easy reason:
- From the French precedes a verbs and it’s not possible to post modify a verb ( the post modification is something that applies to the nouns and to the pronouns because the pronouns functionally act as a noun, the verb is a different thing , so we can’t post – modify it). French is a noun but by Katherine Woods does not qualify the French language, so it’s again referred to “Transaled” and it is another circumstance of the translation. Actually this is one case that I forgot before to explain well, it speech the circumstance as an actor or it’s the one that does the action and this happen in passive clauses. So in passive clauses you have what it used to be called in your high school books “complemento d’agente”, the agency complement or circumstance. “by Katherine Woods” it isn’t circumstance in Functional grammar but it is also the actor of the passive verb (translated). We’ll see this better in the next lessons, because the next lesson is about transitivity, the entity that you call “complemento d’agente” (agency complement) because in passive clauses is recognized as the role of actor , it can’t be embedded because it does a very fundamental work, which it’s the action, the process. This is the dedication: “TO LEON WERTH I ask the indulgence of the children who may read this book for dedicating it to a grown-up” This is something that seems very juicy and it is a relative clause. Let’s find the identify. Who may read this book? Let’s try also to see if it is embedded, so if it is a post modifier of children and if that it is a qualifier or if it is a non-defining relative clause, so independent. It is a defining relative clause. Why? Because the author is not asking for the indulgence of all children, he is asking for the indulgence of the reader (see that there is no comma). In the prepositional phrases technically there are noun groups that are introduced by a preposition.
The noun group is THE = specific deictic CHILDREN = thing WHO MAY READ THIS BOOK = qualifier FOR DEDICATING IT TO A GROWN UP = hypotactic clause Hypotaxis and parataxis at the clause level work in a different way from experiental structure of the noun group and it’s one of the topic we will see in the next week. Next lesson we will begin to see: Ideational meaning is the sum: it includes both experiental meaning (transitivity) and Logical meanings (hypotaxis, parataxis …).
