In this term paper, I will deal with some aspects of Small Clause (SC) analysis in English. The first chapter will explain what SCs are and present a general overview of their position in sentences. Furthermore I will briefly introduce a controversial analysis and consider the advantages of the SC analysis, as opposed to a predication analysis for example. Therefore several constituent tests will be applied to show that SCs can really function as syntactic units. Some semantic aspects will also be discussed to prove that they should be treated as units.
In the next chapter I will introduce different types of SCs. German will be considered as well and a comparison of both English and German SCs will be presented. The argument for the existence of German SCs is very similar to the English. For this reason I will not present the line of reasoning once more but simply assume the same syntactical phenomenon for German as well (for a more detailed analysis of German Small Clauses see Staudinger 1997: 111-115). It will be argued that English offers some more possible constructions with SCs than German. This observation leads to the conclusion that there are some significant differences between the two languages.
In a last step a possible analysis for the internal structure of Small Clauses will be presented. The need for a special analysis will be explained with respect to case-assignment. Then the suggested analysis will be applied to the presented types in unmarked word order to see if it is appropriate in practice. I will focus mainly on English here because an analysis of German SCs has to put up with different problems. Some of these struggles will also be discussed here.
In the conclusion the results of the previous chapters will be summarized. In addition some ideas for further research beyond the content of this paper will be given.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. What is a Small Clause?
2. Different Types of Small Clauses in English and German
2.1 Small Clauses as Complements to Verbs
2.2 Small Clauses as Complements to Prepositions
2.3 Independent Small Clauses
2.4 Small Clauses as Adjuncts
2.5 Small Clauses as Subjects
2.6 Resultative Small Clauses
2.7 The different Small Clauses in German and English
3. The Inner Structure of Small Clauses
3.1 Analysis of Small Clauses with Aarts (1992)
3.2 Analysis of the Different Types of Small Clauses in English
3.3 Analysis of the Different Types of Small Clauses in German
4. Conclusion
5. Bibliography
Research Objectives and Key Themes
This paper examines the syntax of Small Clauses (SCs) in English and German, focusing on their structural characteristics, classification, and internal grammatical properties. The primary research goal is to determine how SCs function as syntactic units and whether an analysis based on functional projections—specifically Aarts' (1992) inflectional node model—effectively explains their behavior across both languages.
- Syntactic constituent tests for identifying Small Clauses.
- Classification of SC types: verb-complements, prepositional-complements, adjuncts, and subjects.
- Comparative analysis of SC constructions in English and German.
- Examination of case-assignment and the internal structure of SCs within X'-theory.
- Evaluation of the inflectional node model as a framework for non-finite clausal structures.
Excerpt from the Book
2. What is a Small Clause?
Clauses that lack an overt verb are called verbless clauses or Small Clauses. The general structure of SCs can be represented as follows: [NP XP] where XP = AP, NP or PP
The bracketed constituents are said to be in a close relation, namely a subject – predicate relationship, where the NP is the subject of the SC and XP its predicate. Here are examples of the three different possibilities: (1) The teacher believes [him stupid]. (2) The doctor considers [the patients maniacs]. (3) The captain wants [the sailor off his ship].
In the examples the bracketed words are said to be syntactic units. From the first example it can be concluded that the subject of an SC has to occur in the objective. In (2) it becomes obvious that there must be agreement of number and gender between the SC-subject and the SC-predicate. Of course this is the case in every SC but it is not always morphologically realized. The gender agreement cannot be realized in English SCs at all. Linguists claim that SCs contain an implicit verb be, which is not phonetically realized (Aarts 2001: 56): (4) The teacher believes [him to be stupid].
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the scope of the study, defining the focus on Small Clause analysis in English and German, while presenting the methodology involving constituent tests and comparative structural analysis.
2. What is a Small Clause?: This chapter establishes the formal definition of Small Clauses as verbless units and discusses the theoretical problem of their status as syntactic constituents versus mere sequences of words.
2. Different Types of Small Clauses in English and German: This section provides a comprehensive classification of SCs, exploring their roles as verb and prepositional complements, adjuncts, and subjects, while contrasting English and German realizations.
3. The Inner Structure of Small Clauses: This chapter analyzes the theoretical challenges of case-assignment and internal structure, testing the efficacy of functional projection models in explaining SC mechanics.
3.1 Analysis of Small Clauses with Aarts (1992): This section introduces Aarts' model of SCs as functional projections containing an inflectional node and an empty verb, evaluating its explanatory power regarding case assignment.
3.2 Analysis of the Different Types of Small Clauses in English: This section applies the inflectional node model to specific English constructions, demonstrating its utility in accounting for various SC types.
3.3 Analysis of the Different Types of Small Clauses in German: This section evaluates whether Aarts' model, designed for English, can be applied to German, concluding that while it fits structurally, it faces distinct linguistic constraints.
4. Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings, reiterating that while SCs exist as constituents, their theoretical analysis requires nuanced approaches, particularly when comparing different language structures.
5. Bibliography: This section lists all cited linguistic works and theoretical resources used to support the paper's analysis.
Keywords
Small Clauses, Syntax, English Grammar, German Grammar, Constituent Tests, Case-assignment, Inflectional Node, Functional Projections, X'-theory, Predication, Verb-complements, Adjuncts, Linguistics, Syntactic Analysis, Non-finite Clauses
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper focuses on the syntactic analysis of Small Clauses (SCs) in English and German, investigating how these verbless clauses function as syntactic units.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The main themes include the definition and classification of SCs, constituent testing, cross-linguistic comparison between English and German, and the application of internal structure models.
What is the central research question?
The research explores whether Small Clauses can be classified as syntactic constituents and whether existing theoretical models, like Aarts' inflectional node framework, accurately account for their internal structure and case-assignment.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The author employs constituent tests (such as coordination, clefting, and response tests) and comparative structural analysis based on X'-theory and phrase markers.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers the identification of SCs, their various roles (complements, adjuncts, subjects), and the application of functional projection models to describe their internal hierarchy.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Small Clauses, Syntax, Case-assignment, Inflectional Node, and Comparative Grammar.
Does the paper argue that Small Clauses are consistent across languages?
The author finds that while SCs exist in both English and German, German exhibits more significant structural constraints, making a universal application of the English model problematic.
How does the author treat the role of an implicit verb in Small Clauses?
The paper references the theory that SCs contain an implicit or "empty" verb (often represented as 'BE'), which serves to fulfill structural requirements for agreement and case.
What does the author conclude regarding the use of constituent tests?
The author concludes that constituent tests alone are not sufficient to definitively prove the status of an SC as a constituent, requiring additional semantic and syntactic evidence.
Why does the author suggest that Aarts' model is difficult to apply to German?
The model encounters difficulties with German because the unmarked word order differs from English, specifically regarding the positioning of the I-node and VP, leading to contradictions when the model is applied directly.
- Quote paper
- Eric Weidner (Author), 2003, Different Types of Small Clauses and Their Analysis, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/127135
