In this term paper I will investigate the structure of English sentences with the subject
notion as a starting point. It presents a classical notion to analyse clauses and sentences
but how exactly can a subject be defined? For this purpose, I will show that the notion is
not detailed enough and suggest a distinction into grammatical, logical and psychological
subject. This proves useful to analyse sentences which at first glance do not appear to have
any subject at all. In a next step I will focus on features of the grammatical subject
according to the Cambridge Grammar of the English language (2005). The discussion will
prove that the properties given for grammatical subjects do not constitute a fixed frame
which sharply distinguishes between elements eligible to be subjects and others that are
not. Instead I will argue that the subject category is best analysed as a prototype category
and that its features have prototypical character.
The second section is concerned with different ways of accounting for particular
structures of language. If various syntactic functions can appear at the beginning of
sentences then why does a speaker choose a particular construction instead of another? I
will argue that this question is closely related to analyses of clauses, sentences and
utterances going beyond a mere subject vs. predicate dichotomy. I will start with a
discussion of the thematic structure of sentences and clauses and introduce the distinction
of topic and comment. The second step complements the thematic structure of language
with the information structure, in which constituents can be labelled ‘given’ and ‘new’.
This analysis also considers the intra- and extra-linguistic context of clauses and sentences
and can thereby account for a fair share of speaker-choices between differing
constructions. Since there are still some cases that cannot be explained by looking at the
information structure, I will then present the notion of perspective as very helpful. Taking
together these different levels of analysis one is enabled to account for a large quantity of
possible constructions in the English language.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The notion ‘subject’
2.1 The category ‘grammatical subject’
2.2 Prototypicality of the grammatical subject-category
3. Functional approaches and the notion ‘subject’
3.1 Topic and comment
3.2 Given and new information
3.3 Figure, ground and perspective
4. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to investigate the structure of English sentences through the lens of the "subject" notion, analyzing its limitations and proposing a prototype-based classification while exploring how functional approaches—such as topic-comment structure, given-new information, and figure-ground perspective—better explain speaker choices in language construction.
- Theoretical differentiation between grammatical, logical, and psychological subjects.
- Prototypicality of the grammatical subject category in English.
- Thematic structure and the role of topic and comment.
- Information structure: analyzing "given" and "new" linguistic elements.
- Cognitive linguistic perspectives on figure, ground, and speaker viewpoint.
Excerpt from the Book
2. The notion ‘subject’
The category ‘subject’ is in itself not quite clear and before I start the discussion I will try to give a definition. Eisenberg (2006: 280-283) discusses the difference between the terms semantic or logical subject, psychological subject and grammatical subject. While the grammatical subject is a common notion, the other two are not. According to Wagner (2007) the logical subject can be defined according to its semantic role. Usually the logical subject would occupy the role of an agent but if there is no agent in a sentence it is likely to occupy other semantic roles following a hierarchy proposed by Bates & MacWhinney (1982: 200):
agent > experiencer > dative > instrument > patient > location
The term psychological subject is a more functional term and I will discuss in the next chapter which terms are appropriate to describe it. For a distinction between grammatical and logical subject, compare the following sentences in which I underline the grammatical subject:
(1) Rooney scored a goal.
(2) A goal was scored by Rooney.
(3) It was raining during the match.
(4) (You) Go home!
In (1) we clearly have a grammatical subject “Rooney”, which is identical with the logical subject, i.e. the initiator of the action. This means that the grammatical and the logical subject are combined in the same syntactic element. However, grammatical and logical subject do not always have to coincide. In (2) the grammatical subject “a goal” is not identical with the agent “Rooney”. In this case we call “Rooney” the logical subject to express that the element is the initiator of the action. The distinction between the two aspects of the term subject proves particularly useful in sentences like (3) and (4). In (3) we can identify a grammatical subject “it” but there is no logical subject in the sentence. This is why the pronoun in this case might be called non-referential it. In the imperative sentence (4) it is the other way round. While no grammatical subject can be identified there is certainly a logical subject that the imperative refers to, e.g. “you” as indicated in brackets. The exact referent will only be comprehensible from the context of the sentence.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the research intent to analyze English sentence structure by differentiating between grammatical, logical, and psychological subjects and introducing functional linguistic frameworks.
2. The notion ‘subject’: Explores the complexity of defining "subject" and argues for its analysis as a prototypical category rather than a fixed set of criteria.
2.1 The category ‘grammatical subject’: Details Huddleston’s list of formal properties that identify grammatical subjects in canonical constructions.
2.2 Prototypicality of the grammatical subject-category: Challenges the rigidity of formal properties and suggests that subjects exhibit varying degrees of membership based on agency and topicality.
3. Functional approaches and the notion ‘subject’: Examines how non-canonical structures, which do not fit simple subject-predicate models, are governed by discourse-functional factors.
3.1 Topic and comment: Investigates how speakers structure sentences by distinguishing between what is being discussed and the comment made about that topic.
3.2 Given and new information: Analyzes how the information status of constituents—whether they are previously known or newly introduced—influences sentence structure and speaker preferences.
3.3 Figure, ground and perspective: Discusses how cognitive linguistic concepts help explain why speakers choose specific constructions based on prominence and their subjective viewpoint.
4. Conclusion: Summarizes that a multi-level approach incorporating functional analysis is essential for understanding the variation in English sentence constructions.
Keywords
Grammatical subject, logical subject, psychological subject, prototype theory, topic and comment, information structure, given information, new information, figure and ground, syntax, functional linguistics, sentence structure, discourse analysis, agency, topicality.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper explores the structural analysis of English sentences, focusing on the definition of the "subject" and how functional linguistic approaches provide a deeper understanding of sentence organization.
What are the primary theoretical themes covered?
The text focuses on the tripartite division of subjects (grammatical, logical, psychological), the concept of prototype categories in syntax, and functional frameworks like thematic and information structure.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to demonstrate that traditional syntactic analysis is insufficient on its own and that incorporating functional perspectives allows for a more comprehensive account of why speakers choose specific sentence constructions.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author utilizes a comparative linguistic analysis, examining syntactic constructions through established theoretical frameworks (such as Huddleston, Bates & MacWhinney, and others) and applying them to various English sentence examples.
What does the main body of the work address?
It addresses the formal properties of grammatical subjects, the limitations of those properties, and the role of discourse-based functional factors like topic/comment, information status, and figure/ground in sentence formation.
Which keywords best describe this research?
The research is best characterized by terms like grammatical subject, prototype theory, information structure, thematic structure, functional linguistics, and syntactic construction.
How does the author define the difference between a grammatical and a logical subject?
A grammatical subject is the syntactic element identified by structural properties like word order or agreement, whereas the logical subject refers to the initiator of an action (the agent) within a semantic role.
Why does the author advocate for a prototype-based analysis of the subject?
Because fixed formal properties often fail to account for non-canonical sentences; a prototype approach allows for "family resemblances" where elements can qualify as subjects to varying degrees.
What role do "given" and "new" information play in sentence structure?
They act as a constraint on word order, where speakers typically prefer to place known or "given" information at the beginning of a clause to establish common ground before introducing "new" information.
How does the concept of "perspective" influence the speaker's choice?
Perspective-taking allows a speaker to mentally structure a scene, deciding which element to foreground as a "figure" based on proximity or subjective importance, which ultimately dictates the resulting syntactic construction.
- Quote paper
- Eric Weidner (Author), 2007, The subject notion and Functional Ways of Structuring Language, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/127136
