Sintaxe e Semántica da Lingua Inglesa - Inicio - USC · Sintaxe e Semántica . da Lingua Inglesa. ... English Grammar. A university Course. ... S. & Quirk, R. 1991. A Student´s

Sintaxe e Semántica da Lingua Inglesa

María de los Ángeles Gómez González

GUÍA DOCENTE E MATERIAL DIDÁCTICO

2018/2019

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. 2018 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 2018-2019

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

María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Syntax and Semantics ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2

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

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

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

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

http://www.usc.es/scimitar/


3

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


4

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


5

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.


6

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


7

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


8

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.


http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/


9

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.


10

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.


11

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.


12

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.


13

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.


14

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.


15

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wo8NAAAAIAAJ&dq=parataxis

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wo8NAAAAIAAJ&dq=parataxis


16

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


17

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


18

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

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

http://www.santiagoapostol.net/ingles/grammar_bach.htm http://esl.fis.edu/learners/advice/syntax.htm https://www.sfu.ca/rst/


19

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.


20

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.


21

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.


22

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.

http://openlibrary.org/search/subjects?q=%5bSanta%20Cruz%20de%20Tenerife,%20Canary%20Islands%5d

http://openlibrary.org/search/subjects?q=%5bSanta%20Cruz%20de%20Tenerife,%20Canary%20Islands%5d


23

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.



24

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.


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.



25

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


26

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.

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

27

7.2.- Mock Test

EENNGGLLIISSHH SSYYNNTTAAXX AANNDD SSEEMMAANNTTIICCSS

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'

Documents

Sintaxe e Semántica da Lingua Inglesa - Inicio - USC · Sintaxe e Semántica . da Lingua Inglesa. ... English Grammar. A university Course. ... S. & Quirk, R. 1991. A Student´s