Sintaxe e Semántica da Lingua Inglesa - Universidade de Santiago ...

FACULTADE DE FILOLOXÍA. DEPARTAMENTO DE FILOLOXÍA INGLESA E ALEMÁAUTORA: María de los Ángeles GÓMEZ GONZÁLEZEdición electrónica. 2013ADVERTENCIA LEGAL: Reservados todos os dereitos. Queda prohibida a duplicación total ou parcialdesta obra, en calquera forma ou por calquera medio (electrónico, mecánico, gravación, fotocopia ououtros) sen consentimento expreso por escrito da autora.1

Table of ContentsStudy GuideAcademic Course 2013-2014ENGLISH SYNTAX AND SEMANTICSProf. Dr. María de los Ángeles GÓMEZ GONZÁLEZ1. Subject Description 22. Objectives and Acquired Skills 22.1. Specific Objectives 32.2. Acquired Skills 33. Subject Contents and Bibliography 23.1. Abridged syllabus and Bibliography 33.2. Detailed Programme and Reference List 6UNIT 1 Introducing the syntax of the clause 6UNIT 2 Coordination and parataxis 14UNIT 3 Subordination and hypotaxis 16UNIT 4 Clause condensing 22UNIT 5 Introducing sentence and word semantics 234. Distribution of ECTS and Methodology 255. Calendar 256. Assessment 267.- Other information of interest 267.1. Study Recommendations 267.2. Mock Test 262

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________introductory concepts and summarises the principles of syntactic analysis endorsed in thecourse. The contents of Part II form the bulk of the syllabus, in which a typology ofinterclausal connectios are described concerning clause combining and clause condensingprocesses. Closing the course, Part III offers an introduction to sentence and wordsemantics in English, paying particular attention to the interconnections between Semanticsand Syntax. Readings and theoretical questions will be substantiated with practical tasks.2.1.- Specific ObjectivesThe specific objectives of this subject are the following:1. Become familiar with the main approaches and concepts in syntactic and semanticanalysis 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 Skills1. An understanding of the basic concepts of clausal and sentential syntactic analysis.2. Knowledge of the main features of different types of interclausal connections (clausecombiningand clause-condensing strategies), as well as of the basics of semanticanalysis 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 availableresources all the relevant and appropriate information.6. The ability to gather, select and analyse natural data in field research.3.- SUBJECT CONTENTS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY3.1.- Abridged syllabus and BibliographyPART I: INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH SYNTAXUNIT 1 Introducting the syntax of the clause1.1. Utterance, sentence, clause3

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________1.2. The structure of the clause1.3. Syntactic patterns of canonical and non-canonical clauses1.4. Interclausal connections and syntactic relationshipsPART II: CLAUSE COMBINING AND CLAUSE CONDENSINGUNIT 2 Coordination and parataxis2.1. Syndetic vs. asyndetic2.2. Yuxtaposition2.3. Basic coordination: characterization and markers2.3.1. Reductibility to one element2.3.2. Order change2.3.3. Likeness of class and function2.3.4. Open endedness.2.3.5. Range of occurrence2.4. Non-basic coordination: characterization and markers2.4.1. Discontinuity2.4.2. Bound ellipsis and Gapping2.4.3. Restructuring2.5. Expressive and idiomatic uses of coordination2.5.1. Pseudocoordination2.5.2. Iterative or continued use of coordination2.5.3. Other expressive uses of coordinationUNIT 3. Subordination and hypotaxis3.1. Characterization and markers3.2. Subordination vs. embedding3.3. Complement clauses3.3.1. Noun complement clauses3.3.2. Adjective complement clauses3.3.3. Verb complement clauses3.4. Relative clauses3.4.1. Restrictive3.4.2. Non-restrictive3.4.3. Fused relative constructions4

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________3.4.3. Finite, non-finite and other reduced variants3.5. Comparative constructions3.5.1. Equality3.5.2. Inequality3.5.3. Comparison + result3.5.4. Comparison + purpose3.6. Adverbial clauses3.6.1. Clauses of time3.6.2. Clauses of place3.6.3. Clauses of condition3.6.3. Clauses of concession3.6.4. Clauses of reason or cause3.6.5. Clauses of result3.6.6. Clauses of purpose3.6.7. Clauses of mannerUNIT 4. Clause condensing4.1. Substitution4.2. EllipsisPART III: INTODUCTION TO ENGLISH SEMANTICSUNIT 5 Introducing sentence and word semantics5.1. Rhetorical Structure Theory and sentence semantics5.2. Lexical SemanticsRequired BooksA) SyntaxBiber, Douglas, Geoffrey Leech and Susan Conrad. 2002. Longman Student Grammar ofWritten and Spoken English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Downing, A. & Locke, P. 2006. English Grammar. A university Course. London: Routledge(2nd ed.).B) SemanticsHurford, 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.5

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________3.2.- Detailed Programme and Reference ListPART 1 INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH SYNTAXUNIT 1 Introducting the syntax of the clause1.1. Utterance, sentence, clause1.2. The structure of the clause1.2.1. Grammatical form and illocutionary force1.2.1.1. Declarative clauses: Statements1.2.1.2. Negative clauses: Negations1.2.1.3. Interrogative clauses: Questions1.2.1.4. Imperative clauses: Directives1.2.1.5. Exclamative clauses: Exclamation, Echo and Tags1.2.2. The concept of "negation"5.1. Location in the clause structure5.2. Major types of negation5.3. Assertive, non-assertive and negative forms5.4. Scope and focus of negation1.3. Syntactic patterns of canonical and non-canonical clauses1.3.1. Canonical Clauses: Major clause types and verb patterns1.3.1.1. Copular1.3.1.2. Intransitive1.3.1.3. Monotransitive1.3.1.4. Ditransitive1.3.1.5. Monotransitive Prepositional1.3.1.6. Complex Transitive1.3.2. Non-canonical clauses1.3.2.1. Preposings1.3.2.2. There constructions1.3.2.3. It-Extrapositions1.3.2.4. Inversions1.3.2.5. Left detachments1.3.2.6. Right detachments1.3.2.7. Cleft clauses6

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________1.3.2.8. Pseudo-cleft clauses1.3.2.9. Passives1.4. Interclausal connections and syntactic relationships1.4.1. From (complex) verbs to separate clauses1.4.2. Models of syntactic analysis and the analysis of sentencesI. TEXTBOOKS AND REFERENCE BOOKSBiber, 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 WrittenEnglish. Harlow: Longman. Chp. 3Butler, Christoper. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-FunctionalTheories, Part 2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. 2 vols. (vol. 2). Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.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 anddiscourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1-27.Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 2004 (3rd ed.). An introduction to functionalgrammar. 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 UniversityPress. Chps. 11 and 137

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Mackenzie, J. L. and E. Martínez Caro. 2012. Compare and Contrast. An English Grammar forSpeakers of Spanish. Granada: Comares.Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2002. Combining clauses into clause complexes: amultifaceted view. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammarand discourse: essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 237-322Quirk, 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 RESOURCEShttp://www.sfu.ca/rsthttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/III. COMPLEMENTARY LITERATUREAarts, 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.8

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Givón, T. 1993. English Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin PublishingCompany. (Volume 2, chapter 13 "Interclausal Connections and DiscourseCoherence", 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'sCommunicative 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 TheirImplications for Clause Relational Analysis of Problem-Solution Texts." In CharlesCooper and Sidney Greenbaum (eds), Studying Writing: Linguistic Approaches,Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 187-214.Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity 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: CUPMaimon, E. 1978. Measuring syntactic growth: Errors and expectations in sentencecombiningpractice 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: JohnBenjamins.9

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________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 UniversityPress.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: StanfordUniversity Press.Van Valin, R. (1984). A typology of syntactic relations in clause linkage. In C. Brugman andM. Macaulay (Ed.), Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguisticssociety (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 predictivelexical 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 IllinoisUniversity Press.Young, D.J. 1980. The Structure of English Clauses. London: Hutchinson.10

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________IV. SELECTED REFERENCES ON ILLOCUTIONARY PATTERNS: QUESTIONS,DIRECTIVESCarrell, 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 Linguistics5(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 inSpoken Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, 89-110.VanderBrook, S., Schlue, K., and Campbell, C. 1980. Discourse and second languageacquisition of yes-no questions. In D. Larsen-Freeman (ed.), Discourse Analysis inSecond 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 nonnativespeakers. Applied Linguistics 11(2). 159-182.V. SELECTED REFERENCES ON NEGATIONDahl, 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. TheLinguistic Review 1. 41-79.Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.11

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________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 ofLanguage. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 246-323.Klima, Edward. 1964. Negation in English. J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz, eds. The Structure ofLanguage. 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 andSpeech, 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 NewComparative Syntax. London, Longman. 214-245.Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1991. Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study ofRomance Languages. University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. Dissertation.Zwicky, A. M. & Pullum G. K. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English -n't. Language 59.502-513.12

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________V. SELECTED REFERENCES ON NON-CANONICAL CLAUSESBeerman, 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 inEnglish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.Gómez-González, M. D. L. A. 2001. The Theme-Topic Interface. A Corpus-Based Study inEnglish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. . Chp. 7.Gómez-González, M. D. L. A. 2004. A three-dimensional account of it-clefts in discourse: Acorpus-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 andSpanish. In C. Butler, M. D. L. A. Gómez González, y S. M. Doval Suárez. (eds.), TheDynamics 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 elespañol peninsular. Madrid: Gredos.Kaltenböck, G. 2004. It-extraposition and Non-extraposition in English: A Study of Syntax inSpoken and Witten Ttexts. Vienna: Wilheim Braumüller.Martínez, Insua. A. 2004. Existential Tthere-constructions in Ccontemporary British English: ACorpus-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 InitialAdverbials of Time and Place in Narratives and Procedural Place Descriptions. Abo.Ward, G. 1988. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Preposing. Nueva York: Garland.13

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________PART 2 A TYPOLOGY OF CLAUSE COMBINING & CLAUSECONDENSINGUNIT 2 Coordination and parataxis2.1. Syndetic vs. asyndetic2.2. Yuxtaposition2.3. Basic coordination: characterization and markers2.3.1. Reductibility to one element2.3.2. Order change2.3.3. Likeness of class and function2.3.4. Open endedness2.3.5. Range of occurrence2.4. Non-basic coordination: characterization and markers2.4.1. Discontinuity2.4.2. Bound ellipsis and Gapping2.4.3. Restructuring2.5. Expressive and idiomatic uses of coordination2.5.1. Pseudocoordination2.5.2. Iterative or continued use of coordination2.5.3. Other expressive uses of coordinationI. SELECTED REFERENCES ON COORDINATION & PARATAXISBayer, S. (1996). The coordination of unlike categories. Language 72,pp579--616Butler, Christoper. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-FunctionalTheories, Part 2, Volume 64 of Studies in Language. John Benjamins PublishingCompany, 2003. 260–261.Carden, G. and D. Pesetsky (1977). Double-verb constructions, markedness and a fakecoordination. In Papers from the 13th regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society,Chicago, pp82--92. University of Chicago. Reprinted in: Minoru Yasui (Ed.), KaigaiEigogaku-ronso, (1979) Tokyo: Eichosha Company.14

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Culicover, P. and R. Jackendoff (1997). Semantic subordination despite syntacticcoordination. 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 generalsession at the twenty-first regional meeting, Chicago, pp133--143. Chicago LinguisticSociety.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 onpragmatics 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 andD. 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 Methodsin 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--615

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Ross, J. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. thesis. Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.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 distinguishcategories. 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 hypotaxis3.1. Characterization and markers3.2. Subordination vs. embedding3.3. Complement clauses3.3.1. Noun complement clauses3.3.2. Adjective complement clauses3.3.3. Verb complement clauses3.4. Relative clauses3.4.1. Restrictive3.4.2. Non-restrictive3.4.3. Fused relative constructions3.4.4. Finite, non-finite and other reduced variants3.5. Comparative constructions3.5.1. Equality3.5.2. Inequality16

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________3.5.3. Comparison + result3.5.4. Comparison + purpose3.6. Adverbial clauses3.6.1. Clauses of time3.6.2. Clauses of place3.6.3. Clauses of condition3.6.3. Clauses of concession3.6.4. Clauses of reason or cause3.6.5. Clauses of result3.6.6. Clauses of purpose3.6.7. Clauses of mannerI. SELECTED REFERENCES ON CATENATIVE VERBSAarts, B. & Meyer, Ch. F. 1995 (eds.). The verb in contemporary English: theory and description.1995 Cambridge: Cambridge University Pressde Haan, Pieter. 2002. Review article on An empirical grammar of the English verb: Modalverbs, by Dieter Mindt. Journal of English Linguistics 30. 274-280.Gramley, Stephan / Pätzold, Kurt-Michael. 1992. A Survey of Modern English. London andNew 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 inHalliday's Functional Grammar. Linguistics 24.137-174.Huddleston, Rodney. 19882. Review article on A comprehensive Grammar of the EnglishLanguage, 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: CambridgeUniversity 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.117

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Kamphuis, Vera. 1996. Review article on An empirical grammar of the English verb: Modalverbs, 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. AComprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.Rizo, A.J. 1990. Los Verbos Catenativos Ingleses. Granada: Servicio de Publicaciones de laUniversidad.INTERNET SOURCES[INT1] www.linguistics-online.de; module: Formal Aspects of the Verb - catenatives,accessed: September 10, 2005.II. SELECTED REFERENCES ON SUBORDINATION & HYPOTAXISAndersson, L-G. 1975. Form and function of subordinate clauses. Gothenburg monographsin linguistics 1. Goteburg: University of Goteburg Department of LinguisticsBever, T., & Townsend, D. 1979. Perceptual mechanisms and formal properties of main andsubordinate 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 ofbecause. Pragmatics 6, 389–426.Cristofaro, S., 1998. Deranking and balancing in different subordination relations: atypological 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 functionalinterpretation. In James D. Benson & William S. Greaves (ed.), Systemic Functional18

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________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 ingrammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 275-329.III.ADVERBIAL CLAUSESDiessel, H. 2001. The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses. A typologicalstudy. 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 Semióticolingüístico.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 ClausesIntroduced by as, because, since. Unpublished MA thesis. The Department of Britishand American studies, University of Oslo.Meier, E. 2001. "Since you mention it": A Contrastive Study of Causal Subordination inEnglish and Norwegian. Unpublished MA thesis. The Department of British andAmerican studies, University of Oslo.Mithun, Marianne. 1988. The grammaticization of coordination. In John Haiman & SandraA. Thompson (ed.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam:Benjamins. 331-359.Pérez Quintero. 2002. Adverbial subordination in English: A functional approach (Language andComputers series 41). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.19

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Thompson, Sandra A. 1984. Grammar and written discourse: initial vs. final purposeclauses 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 derAcademién.Verstraete, Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2007. Rethinking the Coordinate-SubordinateDichotomy: Interpersonal Grammar and the Analysis of Adverbial Clauses in English (Topicsin English Linguistics). New York/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.IV. CONDITIONAL CLAUSESFord, C. E. and Thompson, S. 1986. Conditionals in discourse: A text-based study fromEnglish. In E. Trangott et al (eds.). On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.George, H. V. 1966. If (1) and if (2). English Language Teaching Journal 20(2). 113-119, and20(3), 232-239.Haegeman, L. 2009. Folia Linguistica. Volume 18 (3-4). 485–502Hill, 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 insyntax. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 289-307.Whitaker, S. F. 1970. Unless. English Language Teaching Journal, 24(2), 154-160.20

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________V. DIRECT AND INDIRECT SPEECHGoodell, E. W. 1987. Integrating theory with practice: An alternative approach to reportedspeech 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 andLinguistics 1(2). 319-348.Thompson, S. 1996. Voices in the text: Discourse perspectives on language reports. AppliedLinguistics 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 Journal46(3). 245-251.VI. RELATIVE CLAUSESChiang, 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. 25-37Rutherford, W. 1975. Modern English. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich. 240-242, 362-367.21

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________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 condensing4.1. Substitution4.1.1. Nominal4.1.2. Verbal4.1.3. Clausal4.2. Ellipsis4.2.1. Definition4.2.2. Function and interpretation4.2.3. Syntactic typesI. SELECTED REFERENCES ON CLAUSE CONDENSINGAelbrecht, 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 deTenerife, Canary Islands]Paltridge, Brian. 2006. Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. London: Continuum.Ricento, T. 1987. Clausal ellipsis in multi-party conversation in English. Journal ofPragmatics 11. 751-775.Stainton, Robert J. 2006. Words and thoughts: Subsentences, ellipsis, and the philosophy oflanguage. Oxford: Clarendon Press.22

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________PART 3 INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH SEMANTICSUNIT 5 Introducing sentence and word semantics5.1. Rhetorical Structure Theory and sentence semantics5.1.1. Projection5.1.1.1. Locution5.1.1.2. Idea5.1.2. Expansion5.1.2.1. Elaboration5.1.2.2. Extension5.1.2.3. Enhancement5.1.3. Spans of hypotactic and paratactic relations in language5.1.4. Types of RST relations4.1.5. Sample RST analyses5.2. Lexical Semantics5.2.1. Basic concepts of semantic theory5.2.2. Lexical semantics, lexical fields and meaning relationshipsI. SELECTED REFERENCES AND RESOURCES ON RST & SENTENCE SEMANTICSGómez-González, M. D. L. A. & M. Taboada Gómez. 2005. Coherence relations inFunctional 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 linguisticanalysis of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Mann, W. C. & S. A. Thompson. (eds.) 1992. Discourse description. Diverse linguistic analysisof a fund-raising text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Mann, W. C. 2005. RST Web Site, from http://www.sfu.ca/rstMann, 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 functionaltheory of text organization. Text 8.3. 243-281.23

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Mann, W. C., C. M. I. M. Matthiessen & S. A. Thompson. 1992. Rhetorical structure theoryand text analysis. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description:Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins. 39-78.Mann, W. C., C. M. I. M. Matthiessen & S. A. Thompson. 1992. Rhetorical structure theoryand text analysis. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description:Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins. 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: aCorpus-Based Analysis from a Systemic-Functional Perspective. MacquarieUniversity: Ph.D. thesis.Taboada, M. 2004a. Building coherence and cohesion: Task-oriented dialogue in English andSpanish. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Taboada, M. 2004b. Rhetorical relations in dialogue: A contrastive study. In C.L. Moderand A. Martinovic-Zic (eds), Discourse across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam andPhiladelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 75–97.Taboada, M., & W.C. Mann. 2006. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking back and movingahead. Discourse Studies 8.3. 423-459.Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in interaction. London: Longman. 87-92.http://www.sfu.ca/rstII. SELECTED REFERENCES ON LEXICAL SEMANTICSCruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Stubbs, M. 2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Blackwell, Oxford,UK and Malden, USA.24

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________4.- DISTRIBUTION OF ECTS AND METHODOLOGY6 credits will be devoted to class sessions in which the syllabus will be covered and thepractical tasks will be corrected. In the joint sessions the professor will offer an explanationon the topics of the programme, which will be summarised in hand-outs and power pointsresorting to the selected references provided for each section. In the practical sessionsstudents will apply the acquired notions and skills on the syntactic analysis of clauses andsentences from a discourse-functional perspective, and they will also discuss issues relatedto such activities. Students are expected to read the compulsory readings and to do thepractical tasks recommended for each unit.5.- CALENDARWK 1- PART 1WK 2- PART 1WK 3- PART 2: COORDINATION & PARATAXIS. TYPES OF COORDINATIONWK 4- PART 2: SUBORDINATION & HYPOTAXIS. COMPLEMENT CLAUSES I(NOUN COMPLEMENT CLAUSES)WK 5- PART 2: COMPLEMENT CLAUSES II (ADJECTIVE COMPLEMENT CLAUSES)WK 6- PART 2: COMPLEMENT CLAUSES III (VERB COMPLEMENT CLAUSES)WK 7- PART 2: RELATIVE CLAUSESWK 8- PART 2: COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTIONSWK 9- PART 2: ADVERBIAL CLAUSES IWK 10- PART 2: ADVERBIAL CLAUSES IIWK 11- PART 2: CLAUSE CONDENSINGWK 12- PART 3: SENTENCE SEMANTICSWK 13- PART 3: LEXICAL SEMANTICSWK 14- REVISION25

María de los Ángeles Gómez-GonzálezStudy Guide of English Syntax and Semantics____________________________________________________________________________________________________________6.- ASSESSMENTAssessment will be based on a FINAL EXAMINATION which will include theoretical andpractical questions on English Morphosyntax. Class attendance and participation, as wellas the satisfactory completion of course activities will be taken into account in the finalgrade. As result, those studentas that are positively evaluated in these parameters andwhose grade in the final exam is 4 (out of 10) or more will benefit from upward graderevision. By no means will this apply to students who fail to come to class regularly.7.- OTHER INFORMATION OF INTEREST7.1.- Study Recommendations• Attendance & Office hours. Students are expected to come to class regularly and touse the professor’s office hours to consult with her.• English expression. Serious grammatical mistakes will have an impact on the finalgrade.7.2.- Mock TestENGLISH SYNTAX AND SEMANTICSSURNAMES + 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 anumber 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 verygood initiative in my opinion.2. Describe and illustrate the different types of catenative complements that exist inEnglish (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'26