DOCSLIB.ORG

CAS LX 522 Syntax I the Forest Vs. the Trees

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CAS LX 522 Syntax I the Forest Vs. the Trees CAS LX 522 The forest vs. the trees Syntax I • Let’s take a moment to look at what we’ve done and lay out where we’re going. • The underlying goal is to lay out a model of Week 4. θ Theory and the Big Picture this subconscious knowledge of sentence structure that we have; a system which predicts what speakers find grammatical and ungrammatical. The forest vs. the trees The forest vs. the trees • All we have from the outset is data and • We started out looking at sentences to see what intuition as to how the system works; we makes a sentence? • Looks like sentences need a subject, kind of look at the data, we draw generalizations, centered around a noun, and a predicate, usually we formulate hypotheses, and we look at kind of centered around a verb. more data to see how the predictions of our • The subject part can have other stuff, not just the hypotheses fared. noun (adjectives, etc.), and the verb part can have other stuff, not just the verb (adverbs, etc.). • So, we laid out some hypotheses as to what the subject and the predicate could contain. The forest vs. the trees The forest vs. the trees • We noticed that the things which can be subjects (we • The fact that pretty much any kind of phrase called then “noun phrases” because of the intuitive centrality of the noun) can also be objects of verbs or that we looked at seemed to have roughly of prepositions, we noticed where the adjectives and the same properties suggested a further, prepositional phrases seem to be able occur with bigger hypothesis about how Language respect to the noun and so forth. works: • Looking deeper, with the idea of constituency in mind, we continued to revise our hypotheses until we came • X-bar theory: The hierarchical structure of up with rules for the noun phrase and the verb phrase sentences is constructed (only) of phrases and the other components of the sentence that seemed that conform to the X-bar template. to share a lot of common properties. 1 The forest vs. the trees The forest vs. the trees • Along the way, we discovered that if we assume • In general, this is how we’ll progress; we consider X-bar theory is right, we probably had mis-named some part of the data, form hypotheses based on the phrase which can be the subject of a sentence the generalizations we see, and then look for data or an object of the verb; based on the evidence that we don’t account for. from possessor phrases, we determined that what we thought was a “noun phrase”, headed by a • Right now, we have the basic tools we need to noun, was actually a “determiner phrase” headed diagram the structures of sentences (categories, X- by a determiner (and containing a noun phrase bar theory), but that’s by no means the end of the headed by a noun). story… The forest vs. the trees The forest vs. the trees • There are several large areas we need to address. • Another major component of syntax is First of all, simply drawing a tree that conforms to movement, which has many complex X-bar theory doesn’t guarantee that we’re going to properties. have a grammatical sentence. • In general, the idea is that sentences like these • Theta theory and subcategorization are the major – John will leave. components of our final theory which help make – Will John leave? sure that our structures are legitimate. These are • Are related in a meaningful way. going to be our main topics today. The forest vs. the trees The forest vs. the trees • The underlying view of the grammatical • That means that there are two levels involved in the system has us starting with something like: generation of a sentence (where we our system is supposed to, in the end, generate all and only the – John will leave grammatical sentences of a language). • …in either case, and if you are trying to • There’s the first level (John will leave), which is form a yes-no question, you will sometimes called the Deep Structure or D-Structure additionally move will from where you see or DS representation of the sentence. it above to where you see it below: • Then, there’s a second level, after any movement – Will John — leave? has happened (Will John leave?), and this is what we pronounce. This is sometimes called the Surface Structure or S-Structure or SS representation. 2 The forest vs. the trees The forest vs. the trees • In fact, there’s even a third level; it’s a level • Everyone bought something conceptually after the one we pronounce. – For every person x: for something y: x bought y. – For some thing y: • Consider: for every person x: – Everyone bought something. x bought y. • These are renditions of the two meanings in a – …I don’t remember what that thing was, though. “logical form”; they differ in whether everyone or – …but they all bought different things. someone comes first. The forest vs. the trees The Y model • The idea is that after S-Structure there can be more movement to yield the Logical Form (or LF). • This overall view of grammar has this shape • There are two possibilities for Everyone bought (something like an inverted Y) something. It’s ambiguous, like I saw the man on the Overt movement DS D-Structure is the hill with the binoculars. underlying form • We might say that one one meaning (every…some…) S-Structure is the surface no movement occurs, but on the other meaning form (modulo phon/morph) SS Covert movement (some…every…) something moves over everyone. Phonology/ • something everyone bought — Morphology PF LF Phonetic Form is Meaning is read the pronunciation off of Logical Form The Y model The Y model • We haven’t been making distinctions, but we have • Given this, we can only say that X-bar theory applies generally been considering sentences that did not contain to SS/DS. However, we will make an additional any (obvious) overt movement. Basically, we have been assumption: Movement is structure preserving. characterizing SS/DS. Overt movement DS D-Structure is the Overt movement DS X-bar theory underlying form S-Structure is the surface form (modulo phon/morph) SS SS Covert movement Covert movement Phonology/ Phonology/ Morphology PF LF Morphology PF LF Phonetic Form is Meaning is read the pronunciation off of Logical Form 3 The Y model The Y model • By movement is structure preserving, we mean that • Theta theory and subcategorization will constrain movement will never change an X-bar compliant structure additional aspects of DS (for example, the into an X-bar noncompliant structure. X-bar theory constrains requirement that hit has a DP object). DS and all representations created by movement (SS, LF). θ Theory Overt movement Overt movement DS DS Subcategorization X-bar theory X-bar theory SS SS Covert movement Covert movement Phonology/ Phonology/ Morphology PF LF Morphology PF LF The Y model The Y model • Binding Theory concerning the interpretation of • Case Theory concerning the placement of noun noun phrases (DPs) like him, himself, and Bill, are phrases (DPs) within a sentence will turn out to be constraints on the form LF takes. basically a set of constraints on SS. θ Theory θ Theory Overt movement Overt movement DS Subcategorization DS Subcategorization X-bar theory X-bar theory SS Case theory, EPP SS Covert movement Covert movement Phonology/ Phonology/ Morphology PF LF Morphology PF LF Binding theory Binding theory The plan But first, some clarifications… • This is an overview of the components of • The introduction of the DP last week the grammar (to a good first approximation, seemed to cause some unrest and confusion. of course), and the plan from here will be to work our way through the components (θ- • As mentioned a few minutes ago, what theory, movement, Case theory, Binding makes this confusing is in part just an issue theory). of labeling. We, sensibly enough, called the kind of phrase that can serve as a subject or • Today: θ-theory and subcategorization. an object, a “noun phrase.” 4 But first, some clarifications… But first, some clarifications… • We discovered that as we • The implication of this is that explored the phrase of which DP subjects like the student or objects DP like the book were never NPs at the noun is the head (the D′ all—they were DPs which contain D′ NP), we shouldn’t include NPs. D NP D NP determiners like the (or the the the possessive ’s) inside; rather, N′ • Of course, NPs still exist! And N′ the D is outside the NP. everything we had previously N discovered about them is still true. N book book The data hasn’t changed. It’s only that NPs are inside of DPs. But first, some clarifications… But first, some clarifications… • One note about DP and the old term • Perhaps a little more shocking is the basic idea of “noun phrase”: You will find that people DP are not as precise about DP as they X-bar theory, which was probably not fully driven should be—even the textbook will home last time. D′ frequently refer to “noun phrase” or even “NP” when it really means “DP”. D NP the • The logic was like this: Looking at NP, VP, and so • The term “noun phrase” (and its N′ forth, we found that the shape of the phrases is abbreviation) “NP” had become very pretty much the same. This suggested a entrenched in the vocabulary of N fundamental property of language, a linguistics—you’ll just have to be awake book as you read.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Basic Locative Constructions and Simple Clause Structures of English, Akan, and Safaliba
    Basic Locative Constructions and Simple Clause Structures of English, Akan, and Safaliba Edward Owusu PhD Candidate, Department of Linguistics, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana, and Lecturer, Department of Liberal and General Studies, Sunyani Polytechnic, Sunyani, Ghana. John Agor, PhD Lecturer, Department of Linguistics, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana. AsuamahAdade-Yeboah PhD Candidate, UniveridadEmpresarial de Costa Rica (UNEM) Senior Lecturer, Department of Communication Studies, Christian Service University College, Kumasi, Ghana. Kofi Dovlo, PhD Senior Lecturer (Adjunct), Department of Linguistics, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra, Ghana Abstract This paper discusses some basic locative constructions and simple clause structures of English, Akan (a majority language in Ghana), and Safaliba (a minority language in Ghana). Specifically, the paper compares the simple clause of and the basic locative constructions in these three languages by showing clearly how native speakers of these languages produce forms to express meaning. Structures such as clause functions, relative clause, verb forms, serial verb constructions, noun phrase, negation, and locative constructions have been employed as touchstones in juxtaposing the three languages. The data used,were drawn from native speakers’ intuition and expressions about the location of entities (this has been vividly explained in section 1.3). Several obversations were made. For example, it was realised that while English and Safaliba are pre- determiner languages, Akan is post-determiner language. Again as English recognises prepositions, Akan and Safaliba use postposition. Keywords: Basic locative constructions, Simple clause, Akan, Safaliba, Adpositional phrases 1. Introduction A sign, according to Saussure (1915/1966) is a combination of a concept and a sound-image, a combination that cannot be separated.
    [Show full text]
  • On Root Modality and Thematic Relations in Tagalog and English*
    Proceedings of SALT 26: 775–794, 2016 On root modality and thematic relations in Tagalog and English* Maayan Abenina-Adar Nikos Angelopoulos UCLA UCLA Abstract The literature on modality discusses how context and grammar interact to produce different flavors of necessity primarily in connection with functional modals e.g., English auxiliaries. In contrast, the grammatical properties of lexical modals (i.e., thematic verbs) are less understood. In this paper, we use the Tagalog necessity modal kailangan and English need as a case study in the syntax-semantics of lexical modals. Kailangan and need enter two structures, which we call ‘thematic’ and ‘impersonal’. We show that when they establish a thematic dependency with a subject, they express necessity in light of this subject’s priorities, and in the absence of an overt thematic subject, they express necessity in light of priorities endorsed by the speaker. To account for this, we propose a single lexical entry for kailangan / need that uniformly selects for a ‘needer’ argument. In thematic constructions, the needer is the overt subject, and in impersonal constructions, it is an implicit speaker-bound pronoun. Keywords: modality, thematic relations, Tagalog, syntax-semantics interface 1 Introduction In this paper, we observe that English need and its Tagalog counterpart, kailangan, express two different types of necessity depending on the syntactic structure they enter. We show that thematic constructions like (1) express necessities in light of priorities of the thematic subject, i.e., John, whereas impersonal constructions like (2) express necessities in light of priorities of the speaker. (1) John needs there to be food left over.
    [Show full text]
  • Logophoricity in Finnish
    Open Linguistics 2018; 4: 630–656 Research Article Elsi Kaiser* Effects of perspective-taking on pronominal reference to humans and animals: Logophoricity in Finnish https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0031 Received December 19, 2017; accepted August 28, 2018 Abstract: This paper investigates the logophoric pronoun system of Finnish, with a focus on reference to animals, to further our understanding of the linguistic representation of non-human animals, how perspective-taking is signaled linguistically, and how this relates to features such as [+/-HUMAN]. In contexts where animals are grammatically [-HUMAN] but conceptualized as the perspectival center (whose thoughts, speech or mental state is being reported), can they be referred to with logophoric pronouns? Colloquial Finnish is claimed to have a logophoric pronoun which has the same form as the human-referring pronoun of standard Finnish, hän (she/he). This allows us to test whether a pronoun that may at first blush seem featurally specified to seek [+HUMAN] referents can be used for [-HUMAN] referents when they are logophoric. I used corpus data to compare the claim that hän is logophoric in both standard and colloquial Finnish vs. the claim that the two registers have different logophoric systems. I argue for a unified system where hän is logophoric in both registers, and moreover can be used for logophoric [-HUMAN] referents in both colloquial and standard Finnish. Thus, on its logophoric use, hän does not require its referent to be [+HUMAN]. Keywords: Finnish, logophoric pronouns, logophoricity, anti-logophoricity, animacy, non-human animals, perspective-taking, corpus 1 Introduction A key aspect of being human is our ability to think and reason about our own mental states as well as those of others, and to recognize that others’ perspectives, knowledge or mental states are distinct from our own, an ability known as Theory of Mind (term due to Premack & Woodruff 1978).
    [Show full text]
  • The Function of Phrasal Verbs and Their Lexical Counterparts in Technical Manuals
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1991 The function of phrasal verbs and their lexical counterparts in technical manuals Brock Brady Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Applied Linguistics Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Brady, Brock, "The function of phrasal verbs and their lexical counterparts in technical manuals" (1991). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4181. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.6065 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Brock Brady for the Master of Arts in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (lESOL) presented March 29th, 1991. Title: The Function of Phrasal Verbs and their Lexical Counterparts in Technical Manuals APPROVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE: { e.!I :flette S. DeCarrico, Chair Marjorie Terdal Thomas Dieterich Sister Rita Rose Vistica This study investigates the use of phrasal verbs and their lexical counterparts (i.e. nouns with a lexical structure and meaning similar to corresponding phrasal verbs) in technical manuals from three perspectives: (1) that such two-word items might be more frequent in technical writing than in general texts; (2) that these two-word items might have particular functions in technical writing; and that (3) 2 frequencies of these items might vary according to the presumed expertise of the text's audience.
    [Show full text]
  • Feature Clusters
    Chapter 2 Feature Clusters 1. Introduction The goal of this Chapter is to address certain issues that pertain to the properties of feature clusters and the rules that govern their co-occurrences. Feature clusters come as fully specified (e.g. [+c+m] associated with people in (1a)) and ‘underspecified’ (e.g. [-c] associated with acquaintances in (1a)). Such partitioning of feature clusters raises the question of the implications of notions such as ‘underspecified’ and ‘fully specified’ in syntactic and semantic terms. The sharp contrast between the grammaticality of the middle derivation in (1b) and ungrammaticality of (1c) takes the investigation into rules that regulate the co-realization of feature clusters of the base-verb (1a). Another issue that is discussed in this Chapter is the status of arguments versus adjuncts in the Theta System. This topic is also of importance for tackling the issue of middles in Chapter 4 since – intriguingly enough – whereas (1c) is not an acceptable middle derivation in English, (1d) is. (1a) People[+c+m] don’t send expensive presents to acquaintances[-c] (1b) Expensive presents send easily. (1c) *Expensive presents send acquaintances easily. (1d) Expensive presents do not send easily to foreign countries. In section 2 of this Chapter, the properties of feature clusters with respect to syntax and semantics are examined. Section 3 sets the background for Section 4 by addressing the issue of conditions on thematic roles that have been assumed in the literature. Section 4 deals with conditions that govern the co-occurrences of feature clusters in the Theta System. The discussion in section 4 will necessitate the discussion of adjunct versus argument status of certain phrases.
    [Show full text]
  • II Levels of Language
    II Levels of language 1 Phonetics and phonology 1.1 Characterising articulations 1.1.1 Consonants 1.1.2 Vowels 1.2 Phonotactics 1.3 Syllable structure 1.4 Prosody 1.5 Writing and sound 2 Morphology 2.1 Word, morpheme and allomorph 2.1.1 Various types of morphemes 2.2 Word classes 2.3 Inflectional morphology 2.3.1 Other types of inflection 2.3.2 Status of inflectional morphology 2.4 Derivational morphology 2.4.1 Types of word formation 2.4.2 Further issues in word formation 2.4.3 The mixed lexicon 2.4.4 Phonological processes in word formation 3 Lexicology 3.1 Awareness of the lexicon 3.2 Terms and distinctions 3.3 Word fields 3.4 Lexicological processes in English 3.5 Questions of style 4 Syntax 4.1 The nature of linguistic theory 4.2 Why analyse sentence structure? 4.2.1 Acquisition of syntax 4.2.2 Sentence production 4.3 The structure of clauses and sentences 4.3.1 Form and function 4.3.2 Arguments and complements 4.3.3 Thematic roles in sentences 4.3.4 Traces 4.3.5 Empty categories 4.3.6 Similarities in patterning Raymond Hickey Levels of language Page 2 of 115 4.4 Sentence analysis 4.4.1 Phrase structure grammar 4.4.2 The concept of ‘generation’ 4.4.3 Surface ambiguity 4.4.4 Impossible sentences 4.5 The study of syntax 4.5.1 The early model of generative grammar 4.5.2 The standard theory 4.5.3 EST and REST 4.5.4 X-bar theory 4.5.5 Government and binding theory 4.5.6 Universal grammar 4.5.7 Modular organisation of language 4.5.8 The minimalist program 5 Semantics 5.1 The meaning of ‘meaning’ 5.1.1 Presupposition and entailment 5.2
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns
    Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns Mark Baker Rutgers University April 2018 Abstract: I argue that indexical shift is more like logophoricity and complementizer agreement than most previous semantic accounts would have it. In particular, there is evidence of a syntactic requirement at work, such that the antecedent of a shifted “I” must be a superordinate subject, just as the antecedent of a logophoric pronoun or the goal of complementizer agreement must be. I take this to be evidence that the antecedent enters into a syntactic control relationship with a null operator in all three constructions. Comparative data comes from Magahi and Sakha (for indexical shift), Yoruba (for logophoric pronouns), and Lubukusu (for complementizer agreement). 1. Introduction Having had an office next to Lisa Travis’s for 12 formative years, I learned many things from her that still influence my thinking. One is her example of taking semantic notions, such as aspect and event roles, and finding ways to implement them in syntactic structure, so as to advance the study of less familiar languages and topics.1 In that spirit, I offer here some thoughts about how logophoricity and indexical shift, topics often discussed from a more or less semantic point of view, might have syntactic underpinnings—and indeed, the same syntactic underpinnings. On an impressionistic level, it would not seem too surprising for logophoricity and indexical shift to have a common syntactic infrastructure. Canonical logophoricity as it is found in various West African languages involves using a special pronoun inside the finite CP complement of a verb to refer to the subject of that verb.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Syntax of Scope Anna Szabolcsi January 1999 Submitted to Baltin—Collins, Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory
    1 The Syntax of Scope Anna Szabolcsi January 1999 Submitted to Baltin—Collins, Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory 1. Introduction This chapter reviews some representative examples of scopal dependency and focuses on the issue of how the scope of quantifiers is determined. In particular, we will ask to what extent independently motivated syntactic considerations decide, delimit, or interact with scope interpretation. Many of the theories to be reviewed postulate a level of representation called Logical Form (LF). Originally, this level was invented for the purpose of determining quantifier scope. In current Minimalist theory, all output conditions (the theta-criterion, the case filter, subjacency, binding theory, etc.) are checked at LF. Thus, the study of LF is enormously broader than the study of the syntax of scope. The present chapter will not attempt to cover this broader topic. 1.1 Scope relations We are going to take the following definition as a point of departure: (1) The scope of an operator is the domain within which it has the ability to affect the interpretation of other expressions. Some uncontroversial examples of an operator having scope over an expression and affecting some aspect of its interpretation are as follows: Quantifier -- quantifier Quantifier -- pronoun Quantifier -- negative polarity item (NPI) Examples (2a,b) each have a reading on which every boy affects the interpretation of a planet by inducing referential variation: the planets can vary with the boys. In (2c), the teachers cannot vary with the boys. (2) a. Every boy named a planet. `for every boy, there is a possibly different planet that he named' b.
    [Show full text]
  • A PROLOG Implementation of Government-Binding Theory
    A PROLOG Implementation of Government-Binding Theory Robert J. Kuhns Artificial Intelligence Center Arthur D. Little, Inc. Cambridge, MA 02140 USA Abstrae_~t For the purposes (and space limitations) of A parser which is founded on Chomskyts this paper we only briefly describe the theories Government-Binding Theory and implemented in of X-bar, Theta, Control, and Binding. We also PROLOG is described. By focussing on systems of will present three principles, viz., Theta- constraints as proposed by this theory, the Criterion, Projection Principle, and Binding system is capable of parsing without an Conditions. elaborate rule set and subcategorization features on lexical items. In addition to the 2.1 X-Bar Theory parse, theta, binding, and control relations are determined simultaneously. X-bar theory is one part of GB-theory which captures eross-categorial relations and 1. Introduction specifies the constraints on underlying structures. The two general schemata of X-bar A number of recent research efforts have theory are: explicitly grounded parser design on linguistic theory (e.g., Bayer et al. (1985), Berwick and Weinberg (1984), Marcus (1980), Reyle and Frey (1)a. X~Specifier (1983), and Wehrli (1983)). Although many of these parsers are based on generative grammar, b. X-------~X Complement and transformational grammar in particular, with few exceptions (Wehrli (1983)) the modular The types of categories that may precede or approach as suggested by this theory has been follow a head are similar and Specifier and lagging (Barton (1984)). Moreover, Chomsky Complement represent this commonality of the (1986) has recently suggested that rule-based pre-head and post-head categories, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Expanding the Scope of Control and Raising∗
    1 Expanding the scope of control and raising∗ Maria Polinsky and Eric Potsdam University of California at San Diego and University of Florida 1. Introduction The relationship between linguistic theory and empirical data is a proverbial two-way street, but it is not uncommon for the traffic in that street to move only in one direction. The study of raising and control is one such case, where the empirical lane has been running the risk of becoming too empty, and much theorizing has been done on the basis of English and similar languages. A statement in a recent paper is quite telling in that regard: “Our impression from the literature … is that control behaves cross-linguistically in much the same fashion [as in English]…” (Jackendoff and Culicover 2003: 519). If indeed all languages structure control in ways similar to English, cross-linguistic investigation might not be expected to have much to offer, so there has not been much impetus for pursuing them. This paper offers a new incentive to pursue empirical data on control and raising. For these phenomena, recent results from both theoretical and empirical work have coalesced in a promising way allowing us to expand the boundaries of a familiar concept. This in turn provides a stronger motivation for the development of raising/control typologies. 2. Innovations in linguistic theory and their consequence for control and raising Two main innovations in linguistic theory allow us to predict a greater range of variation in control and raising: the unification of control and raising under a single analysis as movement and the compositional view of movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Common and Distinct Neural Substrates for Pragmatic, Semantic, and Syntactic Processing of Spoken Sentences: an Fmri Study
    Common and Distinct Neural Substrates for Pragmatic, Semantic, and Syntactic Processing of Spoken Sentences: An fMRI Study G.R.Kuperberg and P.K.McGuire Downloaded from http://mitprc.silverchair.com/jocn/article-pdf/12/2/321/1758711/089892900562138.pdf by guest on 18 May 2021 Institute of Psychiatry, London E.T.Bullmore Institute of Psychiatry, London and the University of Cambridge M.J.Brammer, S.Rabe-Hesketh, I.C.Wright, D.J.Lythgoe, S.C.R.Williams, and A.S.David Institute of Psychiatry, London Abstract & Extracting meaning from speech requires the use of difference between conditions in activation of the left-super- pragmatic, semantic, and syntactic information. A central ior-temporal gyrus for the pragmatic experiment than the question is:Does the processing of these different types of semantic/syntactic experiments; (2) a greater difference be- linguistic information have common or distinct neuroanatomi- tween conditions in activation of the right-superior and middle- cal substrates? We addressed this issue using functional temporal gyrus in the semantic experiment than in the syntactic magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure neural activity experiment; and (3) no regions activated to a greater degree in when subjects listened to spoken normal sentences contrasted the syntactic experiment than in the semantic experiment. with sentences that had either (A) pragmatical, (B) semantic These data show that, while left- and right-superior-temporal (selection restriction), or (C) syntactic (subcategorical) viola- regions may be differentially involved in processing pragmatic tions sentences. All three contrasts revealed robust activation of and lexico-semantic information within sentences, the left- the left-inferior-temporal/fusiform gyrus.
    [Show full text]
  • Adverb Phrases and Clauses Function in Specific Sentences
    MS CCRS L.7.1a: Explain the function of Lesson 3 phrases and clauses in general and their Adverb Phrases and Clauses function in specific sentences. Introduction Phrases and clauses are groups of words that give specific information in a sentence. A clause has both a subject and a predicate, while a phrase does not. Some phrases and clauses function like adverbs, which means they modify a verb, an adjective, or another adverb in a sentence. • An adverb phrase tells “how,” “when,” “where,” or “why.” It is often a prepositional phrase. Soccer players wear protective gear on the field. (tells where; modifies verb wear) Soccer gloves are thick with padding. (tells how; modifies adjective thick) • An adverb clause can also tell “how,” “when,” “where,” or “why.” It is always a dependent clause. Gloves protect goalies when they catch the ball. (tells when; modifies verb protect) Goalies need gloves because the ball can hurt. (tells why; modifies verb need) Guided Practice Circle the word in each sentence that the underlined phrase or clause modifies. Write how, when, where, or why to explain what the phrase or clause tells. Hint 1 Goalies are the only players who touch the ball with their hands. Often an adverb phrase or clause immediately follows 2 As the ball comes toward the goal, the goalie moves quickly. the word it modifies, but sometimes other words separate the 3 If necessary, the goalie dives onto the ground. two. The phrase or clause may also come at the beginning of a 4 Sometimes the other team scores because the ball gets past sentence, before the the goalie.
    [Show full text]