Where grammatical rules derive from, how they are linked, whether they are similar in different languages or not, whether we are born with it or acquire it as infants – these are questions, linguists worldwide have been dealing with for decades. Many syntactical approaches are the result of these researches. Two of them, the Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (CGEL) and the Introduction to Syntactic Analysis – A Valency Aproach (ISAAVA), will be compared in this paper.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (CGEL)
2.1 CGEL's Clause Constituents or the First Functional Level of Analysis
2.2 Phrases and Phrase Constituents or the First Formal and Second Functional Level of analysis
2.3 Word Classes or the Second Formal Level of analysis
3 Introduction to Syntactic Analysis – A Valency Approach (ISAAVA)
4 Comparison of a CGEL-Analysis and an ISAAVA-Analysis of an example sentence
4.1 Sentence analysis
4.2 Differences and problematic aspects in the two approaches
4.2.1 Prepositions vs. Particles
4.2.2 Analysis of “fended off“
4.2.3 Determiners vs. Determiner-pronouns
5 Conclusion
Objectives and Core Topics
This paper aims to compare two distinct syntactic frameworks—the constituency-based "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" (CGEL) and the valency-based "Introduction to Syntactic Analysis – A Valency Approach" (ISAAVA)—by applying them to a specific example sentence to highlight their structural differences, terminology, and handling of problematic linguistic categories.
- Theoretical overview of CGEL and ISAAVA frameworks.
- Application of both models to a complex, real-world example sentence.
- Critical comparison of clause constituents and word class categorization.
- In-depth examination of linguistic challenges, such as phrasal verbs and particles.
Excerpt from the Book
4.2.1 Prepositions vs. Particles
One general aspect in which CGEL and ISAAVA differ from each other is how to deal with prepositions. This becomes obvious at the very beginning of the example sentence where it says “Under cooling Moscow skies [...]”. At this first part this is analysed pretty similar. Whereas in CGEL it is identified as an adverbial (A), ISAAVA categorizes it as an adjunct unit (AU). Therefore both approaches agree on optionality and mobility of this constituent. The actual distinction occurs on the next level. CGEL names the following phrase a prepositional phrase. ISAAVA calls it a particle phrase. This distinction appears to be simply terminological which in a certain way is actually true. However these different technical terms are originated in a deeper level of sentence analysis, namely the level of word class.
In CGEL the concept of multiple class membership is used (cf. Herbst 2010: 167). This means that it is possible to classify one and the same word differently depending on the context in which it occurs. Nevertheless prepositions are clearly divided from other word classes such as subordinating conjunctions or adverbs. If a word such as 'under' is followed by a noun phrase as this is the case in the example sentence, this is an unquestionable indication to be concerned with a preposition.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides a rationale for the comparison of syntactic approaches and introduces the research context.
2 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (CGEL): Outlines the constituency-based approach, detailing its clause constituents, phrase structures, and word classes.
3 Introduction to Syntactic Analysis – A Valency Approach (ISAAVA): Introduces the valency-based model and its specific analytical steps for sentence decomposition.
4 Comparison of a CGEL-Analysis and an ISAAVA-Analysis of an example sentence: Evaluates the application of both models on a shared example sentence to illustrate methodological differences.
5 Conclusion: Summarizes the findings and discusses the utility of ISAAVA as a pedagogical tool compared to the traditional CGEL.
Keywords
Syntactic Analysis, CGEL, ISAAVA, Valency, Constituency, Clause Constituents, Word Classes, Particles, Phrasal Verbs, Linguistic Frameworks, Prepositions, Sentence Structure, Grammar Theory.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper focuses on comparing two major syntactic frameworks for English sentence analysis: the traditional constituency-based CGEL and the valency-based ISAAVA model.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The study covers grammatical theory, syntactic structures, word class categorization, and the technical challenges in defining linguistic components like phrasal verbs and particles.
What is the main research objective?
The primary goal is to apply both grammatical models to an identical sentence to reveal their practical differences, structural approaches, and how they define categories like "objects" versus "complement units."
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The author uses a comparative analysis method, specifically contrasting the procedural steps of CGEL against the valency-driven approach of ISAAVA.
What topics are discussed in the main section?
The main section details the fundamental definitions of both models, analyzes specific constituents like adverbials and adjuncts, and addresses problematic phenomena such as "fended off."
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include Syntactic Analysis, CGEL, ISAAVA, Valency, Constituency, Clause Constituents, Word Classes, and Phrasal Verbs.
How do CGEL and ISAAVA differ in their treatment of prepositions?
CGEL generally classifies them as part of prepositional phrases, while ISAAVA introduces the category of "particle phrases" at a specific level of analysis to better differentiate word class functions.
What does the author conclude about the two approaches?
The author suggests that while CGEL provides a necessary structural basis, ISAAVA offers helpful simplifications and a unique perspective, recommending its inclusion in linguistic education.
- Citation du texte
- Anonym (Auteur), 2013, Analysis of english sentences. Comparison of the systems CGEL and ISAAVA, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1026272
