Gramátic a Inglesa II
María de los Ángeles Gómez González
GUÍA DOCENTE E MATERIAL DIDÁCTICO
2011/2012
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. 2011 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 2011-2012
ENGLISH GRAMMAR II
Prof. Dr. María de los Ángeles GÓMEZ GONZÁLEZ
Table of Contents
1. Subject Description 2
2. The Meaning of the Subject in the Degree 2
3. Objectives and Acquired Skills 3
3.1. Specific Objectives 3
3.2. Acquired Skills 4
4. Subject Contents and Bibliography 4
PART I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SYNTAX 5
PART II A TYPOLOGY OF CLAUSE COMBINING & CLAUSE
CONDENSING 13
PART III THE LOGICO-SEMANTICS OF CLAUSE COMBINING
& CLAUSE CONDENSING 22
5. Distribution of ECTS and Methodology 25
6. Calendar 25
7. Assessment 26
8.- Other information of interest 26
8.1. Study Recommendations 26
8.2. Models of Exam 27
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
2
1.- SUBJECT DESCRIPTION
Sujact Name: English Grmmar II
Code: 671501
Type of subject, course and year in which it is imparted: Major Subject, 2nd course/cycle,
5th year of the degree.
Number of credits: 4.5
First semester
ECTs: 4.5 x 25 = 112.5
Prerrequisites (regulated or recommended): To have passed the first three years of the
degree and particularly the subject English Grammar I (obligatory).
Taught in English
Examinations: Please consult the timetable.
Teacher: Prof. Dr. María de los Ángeles Gómez González.
Email: [email protected]
Office hours:
To be determined
Personal website: http://www.usc.es/scimitar/mdlagg/index.html
Research team website SCIMITAR: http://www.usc.es/scimitar/
2.- THE MEANING OF THE SUBJECT IN THE DEGREE
This optional course will help students to undertand other subjects with which it is directly
related (cf. Table 1 below): one obligatory and two major subjects that deal with different
levels of grammatical description of the English language (Introducción a la Gramática
Inglesa, Gramática Inglesa I and III), as well as four optional courses which approach English
grammar and linguistics from a synchronic perspective (both descriptive and applied
views) (Gramática Inglesa (Morfología), Curso Monográfico de Lingüística Inglesa I and II,
Perspectivas Metodológicas en el Estudio de la Gramática Inglesa).
In addition, this course will help you to: (1) improve your knowledge of English
grammatical constructions through the exploration and analysis of linguistic data in real
texts (written, spoken and/or multimodal); (2) promote reflection upon (the English)
language and its critical analysis, exploring from a functional-discourse perspective the
clausal and sentential constructions available in PresE to convey a given message in
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
3
connection with real life situations (different registers and genres); (3) favour your critical
ability with regard to linguistic phenomena; (4) initiate you into linguistic research,
resorting to and selecting the resources (bibliographic, linguistic data, etc.) and
technologies which are considered to be appropriate to carry out this goal. This will be
found most beneficial for the comprehension of the other subjects of the degree as well as
for common day needs and future professional applications.
Table 1. Synchronic approaches to English grammar & linguistics in English Philology
Name Status Credits
Introducción a la Gramática Inglesa Obligatory 4.5
Gramática Inglesa I Major 4.5
Gramática Inglesa II Major 4.5
Gramática Inglesa III Major 4.5
Gramática Inglesa (Morfología) Optional 4.5
Curso Monográfico de Lingüística Inglesa I Optional 4.5
Curso Monográfico de Lingüística Inglesa II Optional 6
Perspectivas Metodológicas en el Estudio de la Gramática
Inglesa
Optional 9
Total number of credits 42
3.- OBJECTIVES AND ACQUIRED SKILLS
3.1.- Specific Objectives
In this course we shall mainly focus on the description and analysis of simple, complex and
compound clauses from a discourse-functional perspective. Accordinly, you will get
acquainted with the different subtypes of coordination and subordination and will be
confronted with case studies for analysis using the principles and conceptual tools
explained in class.
Part I offers an introduction of syntax, the area with which the course deals,
presenting some introductory concepts and models of syntactic analysis from a functional
perspective. Part II constitutes the bulk of the course, in which a typology of clause
combining and clause condensing is offered. Closing the course, Part III is devoted to the
description of so-called “Rhetorical Structure Theory” which analyses the hierarchical
clausal and sentential relations (structural and logico-semantic) that hold across different
types of texts.
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
4
Readings and theoretical questions will be substantiated with practical tasks. The
specific objectives of this subject are the following:
1. To become familiar with the main approaches and concepts in syntactic analysis in
English, although comparisons with other languages (especially Spanish & Galician)
will also be encouraged.
3. To analyse clausal and sentential constructions in natural settings.
4. To read specialized literature related to the field critically.
5. To use new resources and technologies to carry out research in the field.
6. To conduct a small-scale project in this field.
7. To work individually and in groups.
8. To encourage active participation in class.
3.2.- 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 clause-combining and clause-
condensing strategies 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.
4.- SUBJECT CONTENTS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
PART I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SYNTAX
PART II A TYPOLOGY OF CLAUSE COMBINING AND CLAUSE CONDENSING
PART III THE LOGICO-SEMANTICS OF CLAUSE COMBINING & CLAUSE
CONDENSING
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
5
PART 1
INTRODUCTION TO SYNTAX
1. Introduction: utterance, sentence, clause
2. The structure of the clause
3. Types of sentences: simple, compound and complex
4. Grammatical form and illocutionary force
4.1. Declarative clauses: Statements
4.2. Negative clauses: Negations
4.3. Interrogative clauses: Questions
4.4. Imperative clauses: Directives
4.5. Exclamative clauses: Exclamation, Echo and Tags
5. 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
6. The syntactic patterns of non-canonical clauses
6.1. Preposings
6.2. There constructions
6.3. It-Extrapositions
6.4. Inversions
6.5. Left detachments
6.6. Right detachments
6.7. Cleft clauses
6.8. Pseudo-cleft clauses
6.9. Passives
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
6
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
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.
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
7
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,
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
8
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).
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
9
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.
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
10
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.
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
11
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
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
12
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.
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
13
PART 2
A TYPOLOGY OF CLAUSE COMBINING & CLAUSE CONDENSING
1. From (complex) verbs to separate clauses
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
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
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
14
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
4. Clause condensing
4.1. Substitution
4.2. Ellipsis
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
15
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 [INT1] www.linguistics-online.de; module: Formal Aspects of the Verb - catenatives, accessed: September 10, 2005.
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
16
II. 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.
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
17
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.
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.
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
18
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.
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.
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
19
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.
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.
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
20
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.
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.
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
21
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.
III. SELECTED REFERENCES ON CLAUSE CONDENSING
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] .
Ricento, T. 1987. Clausal ellipsis in multi-party conversation in English. Journal of
Pragmatics 11. 751-775,
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
22
PART 3
THE LOGICO-SEMANTICS OF CLAUSE COMBINING & CLAUSE CONDENSING
1. Introduction
2. Projection
2.1. Locution
2.2. Idea
3. Expansion
3.1. Elaboration
3.2. Extension
3.3. Enhancement
4. Rhetorical Structure Theory
4.1. Spans and hierarchies
4.1.1. Spans of hypotactic and paratactic relations in language
4.1.2. Nuclei and satellites
4.2. Types of RST relations
4.2.1. Subject matter
4.2.2. Presentational
4.3. Sample RST analyses
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
23
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
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.
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
24
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. OTHER RESOURCES
http://www.sfu.ca/rst
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
25
5.- DISTRIBUTION OF ECTS AND METHODOLOGY
4.5 credits (45 hours of class) will be devoted to class sessions in which the syllabus will be
covered and the projects will be presented. This will require reading and explaining the
compulsory references, as well as the material prepared by the teacher (hand-outs and
presentations) which also includes practical tasks. In addition, students will also have to
write a small scale research project, for the preparation of which you must necessarily have
at least one preparatory interview with Prof. Dr. Gómez González (compulsory tutorial).
Table 2. Distribution of ECTS
Activities Class Factor Personal work Total
Theory classes
& readings
30 1.5 45 75
Practical
classes & tasks
15 1 15 30
Office hours 6 - - -
Examination 1 6.5 6.5 7.5
Total 52 66.5 112.5
In the theory classes the professor will offer an explanation on the topics of the program,
resorting to the selected references for each section as well as to support material
elaborated by her (hand-outs, power point presentations, etc.). 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.
6.- CALENDAR
WEEK 1: PART 1.
WEEK 2: PART 1.
WEEK 3: PART 2.
WEEK 4: PART 2.
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
26
WEEK 5: PART 2.
WEEK 6: PART 2.
WEEK 7: PART 2.
WEEK 8: PART 2.
WEEK 9: PART 2.
WEEK 10: PART 2.
WEEK 11: PART 2.
WEEK 12. PART 2.
WEEK 13: PART 3.
WEEK 14: PART 3.
WEEK 15: PART 3.
7.- ASSESSMENT
Assessment will be based on a FINAL EXAMINATION which will include theoretical and
practical questions on English Morphosyntax. Class attendance and participation, as well
as the satisfactory completion of course activities will be taken into account in the final
grade. As result, those studentas that are positively evaluated in these parameters and
whose grade in the final exam is 4 (out of 10) or more will benefit from upward grade
revision. By no means will this apply to students who fail to come to class regularly.
8.- OTHER INFORMATION OF INTEREST
8.1.- 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: (i) the different aspects involved
in the elaboration of the course project work, and (ii) any doubts or issues that may
need clarification.
•••• Student’s cards. Students are advised to hand in their students’ cards during the
first days of class.
•••• September resit. Those students who do not get a pass in June but who have
attended classes and have submitted their projects (cf. § 7 above) will only have to
take the final September examination. On the contrary, those students who neither
have attended classes nor have submitted their projects will have to hand in their
papers at least one week before taking their final September examination (on the
María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Study Guide of English Grammar II
27
official date).
•••• Marks. They will ONLY be kept until the September resit within the same academic
year.
•••• English expression. Serious grammatical mistakes will have an impact on the final
grade.
8.2.- Models of Exam
EENNGGLLIISSHH GGRRAAMMMMAARR IIII
SURNAMES + FIRST NAME:….………………………………………………………… 1. Using the space below, provide a syntactic analysis of the underlined constituents giving arguments for it. 40% a. I agree with you more than with Robert. b. ‘This book is impossible to read’, thought John. 2. Provide a tree or block diagram for the following text. (60%) 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 and also look at the idea of setting up a research network, which, in my opinion, is a very good idea.
EENNGGLLIISSHH GGRRAAMMMMAARR IIII
SURNAMES + FIRST NAME:….………………………………………………………… 1. Explain the difference between ‘embedding’ and ‘subordination’ providing illustrations (40%) 2. Read the following extract from a personal letter and do the following: (a) segment it into sentences, (2) provide a syntactic analysis of each sentence and (3) propose a logico-semantic interpretation of the text. (60%) Thumbs began to be troublesome about 4 months ago and I made an appointment with the best hand surgeon in the Valley to see if my working activities were the problem. Using thumbs is not the problem but heredity is -as has been demonstrated in many studies- and the end result is no use of thumbs if I don’t do something now.
Recommended