past participle + preposition

[donnach]

In the following sentence:

Chomsky suggested that children have a built-in mechanism, which he called the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD, which pre-programs them to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive.

1. Is "to develop grammar" an object complement? If not, what is it?

2. What is "based on"? Is "based" the verb, with "grammar" the subject and "on the linguistic input" an adverbial phrase modifying "based"? Or....?

There are verbs like "points to", etc. that seem to require a preposition after them to make sense. Are they just regular old verbs, nothing special?

Thank you,

Donna

[Buddhaheart]

‘To develop’ is an infinitive, functioning as an adjectival modifier of ‘grammar’.

“Based’ is the participial adjective; ‘on’ is the preposition. The last part of the sentence is more easily understood if we develop ‘based on the linguistic input they receive’ into a full clause: ‘…which pre-programs them to develop grammar that is based on the linguistic input they receive.’

[Buddhaheart]

I wish to add that ‘based on’ might have been used as an adverb qualifying the verb ‘pre-grams’. Traditionally the adjectival phrase is not used as an adverb or a preposition. It’s either a phrasal verb or a past-participial adjectival phrase. I believe it’s used with the force of and adjective here modifying the noun ‘grammar’.

[donnach]

Originally Posted by Buddhaheart

‘To develop’ is an infinitive, functioning as an adjectival modifier of ‘grammar’.

“Based’ is the participial adjective; ‘on’ is the preposition. The last part of the sentence is more easily understood if we develop ‘based on the linguistic input they receive’ into a full clause: ‘…which pre-programs them to develop grammar that is based on the linguistic input they receive.’

By the elliptical 'that is' what we have is a noun absolute that modifiies 'grammar' then?

Thanks,

Donna

[velimir]

Hello Donna and Buddaheart,

I'm not a teacher, not even close . Just a regular grammar enthusiast.
I would say yes as the answer on " 1. Is "to develop grammar" an object complement? " . It is the complement of "them" .But it would be better if you didn't cut off postmodifer of "grammar" since it is also part of the complement which informs you what kind of grammar is in question.The whole object complement is "to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive". If you want to analyse the subordinate clause "which pre-programs them ..." , to my opinion it should be analysed like this :

Which - subject
pre-programs - verb
them- object
to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive- object complement

Now, if you want to analyse the object complement you can see that it is by form non-finite clause.You can transform it easily to its finite counterpart taking "they" as the implied subject (them being objective case of this pronoun in the original sentence)and make the analysis more understandable:

They develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive.

they - subject
develop - verb
grammar based on the linguistic input they receive - direct object

If you analyse the direct object you see that it is a noun phrase by its form, with "grammar" as its head. The whole part after "grammar" is functionaly a postmodifier in the noun phrase headed by "grammar".

This postmodifier is an adjective phrase headed by "based" .The whole part after "based" is an adjective complement which is in this case obligatory since the adjective "based" and the following preposition "on" form one lexical unit. Precisely,adjective and its complementing preposition are inseparable since you will automatically add "on" after saying "based" in such contexts.( I suppose you will ).Of course, the bond between the adjective and its complement need not to be so strong and obligatory like it is in the case of "based on". So, "on the linguistic input" is an adjective complement by its function and a prepositional phrase by its form. (I've intentionally left out as part of this complement "they receive " as a postmodifier of "input" in order to shorten the phrase a bit. It is way too long )

And of course it is true that : "There are verbs like "points to", etc. that seem to require a preposition after them to make sense" , exactly like this previous case with adjective "based on". As well as adjectives,verbs sometimes form a lexical unit (= logical unit) with its following preposition and they are then called "prepositional verbs". And yes,they are special,since the preposition (unless stranded) of this verbs is always followed by the prepositional object .


Best regards

Velimir

[donnach]

This postmodifier is an adjective phrase headed by "based" .The whole part after "based" is an adjective complement which is in this case obligatory since the adjective "based" and the following preposition "on" form one lexical unit. Precisely,adjective and its complementing preposition are inseparable since you will automatically add "on" after saying "based" in such contexts.( I suppose you will ).Of course, the bond between the adjective and its complement need not to be so strong and obligatory like it is in the case of "based on". So, "on the linguistic input" is an adjective complement by its function and a prepositional phrase by its form.

Would it be the same thing, or at least plausible, to say:

"on the linguistic input" is an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying the adj. "based"
"based" is an adj. modifying the noun "grammar"
"grammar" is the noun object of the verbal (infinitive phrase) "to develop"
"to develop grammar" as the infinitive phrase acting as an object complement for "them"
"they receive" is an elliptical relative clause ("that they receive") that modifies "input"?

And of course it is true that : "There are verbs like "points to", etc. that seem to require a preposition after them to make sense" , exactly like this previous case with adjective "based on". As well as adjectives,verbs sometimes form a lexical unit (= logical unit) with its following preposition and they are then called "prepositional verbs". And yes,they are special,since the preposition (unless stranded) of this verbs is always followed by the prepositional object .

This is helpful and I will research prepositional verbs further.

Thank you,

Donna

[velimir]

Hello Donnach,

Let's start from the whole sentence:

Chomsky suggested that children have a built-in mechanism, which he called the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD, which pre-programs them to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive.

This sentence can be splitted into the following functions:

Chomsky - subject

suggested - verb

the red painted part in the sentence above - direct object

Would you please analyse the object of the sentence(remove the conjunction "that" from the begining of it)and post your analysis ? That is,identify functions in the sentence which represents the direct object and indicate what is the form of every function in that sentence respectively.I think that it would be of great help for the explanation,and your better understanding of the issue.

Best regards

Velimir

[donnach]

that children have a built-in mechanism, which he called the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD, which pre-programs them to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive.

that children have a built-in mechanism - direct object of suggested

which he called the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD - adjectival clause modifying mechanism

which pre-programs them to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive - adjectival clause modifying mechanism

The part I want to understand word for word is:

which pre-programs them to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive

which - subject

pre-programs - verb

them - direct object of pre-programs?

to develop grammar - infinitive phrase consisting of infinitive + object? What function is this though? An object comeplement to them?

based on the linguistic input - past participial phrase modifying grammar?
based - past participal
on the linguistic input - prep. phrase

they receive - elliptical (missing that) relative/adjectival clause modifying input?

What do you think of this analysis?

Thanks,

Donna

[velimir]

Hello Donnach,

It is almost magnificient . I think that you will see now clearly what your analysis lacks to be perfectly magnificient.
Remember that mixing the levels of analysis is most often the cause of confusion.When you chop the whole sentence into pieces like we did ,splitting it into Subject - Verb - Direct Object (and for me ,this is the most important step in analysis,since the mistake in this initial step will make a mess in every further step) you may want to analyse the Direct Object.The task was to analyse the structure of the direct object (..the red painted part in the sentence above - direct object..Would you please analyse the object of the sentence...),and you've labeled one part of it "the direct object".That makes confusion, so I would suggest you to always keep orientation in the analysis.Let's start from what I think is the confusing part:


1.This is the culprit : ...a built-in mechanism, which he called the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD, which pre-programs them to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive.

Although so lengthy ,this is a noun phrase with 'mechanism' as its head.This noun head is pre-modified with the adjective "built-in" and postmodified with the two relative (adjective) clauses

2..Let's say that we substitute the second relative clause with "new" and say like :

..a new built-in mechanism which he called the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD

then you would make a mistake labeling the part "that children have a new built-in mechanism" as the direct object,this time leaving out the first relative clause as a postmodifier(you would never leave "new" out , I'm sure )

3..If we replace the first relative clause with "language" we have the noun phrase like:

...a new built-in language mechanism.

and in this case (without the relative clauses)you would label it right i.e "that children have a new built-in mechanism" is a direct object.

Remember this : Relative clause always postmodifies a noun or a noun phrase (and only marginally other clause).It is always embedded part of a noun phrase.In this case those two clauses postmodify the noun phrase "a built-in mechanism" or if you like it more,the noun "mechanism".The head of a noun phrase is(virtualy always): (if it is) premodified with an adjective or/and noun and (if it is) postmodified with a relative clause. A relative clause is not so straightforward modifier because of its length and the fact that it has its own subject and object. And that is why you left it out of the direct object.And it is labeled also as an adjective clause but personally I prefer "relative clause" for the sake of clarity in the terminology.As you see,in the third sentence the noun head "mechanism" is premodified with two adjectives (new, built-in),but also with the noun "language" and you will not label that noun i.e "adjectival noun".Similarly,"adjectival" doesn't seem apropriate label for the relative clause.This "relative" indicate that this clause relate to i.e refer back to some noun head.As a conclusion: a noun can be modified with an adjective, noun or a relative clause. The noun head along with its modifiers makes a noun phrase.

I would like you to remember this also:
When you analyse sentence you first ask yourself what is it : "Is it a simple,compound or complex sentence.Then you ask yourself: "What functions is it consisted of."
Then you may want to analyse some functional part of that sentence(i.e subject,object..) and the first step is to ask yourself : "What is it by its form" i.e "Is it a clause,a phrase, or a word".
When you've identified what it is,follows the second step i.e ask yourself: "What functions is it consisted of."

And before.."The part I want to understand word for word",can you following this instruction say now:

1. What is the form of direct object?
2. What are the functional parts of it?
3. What is the form of every functional part respectively?

Leave out conjunction "that" and analyse it as a declarative sentence.

Best regards

Velimir

[donnach]

Remember this : Relative clause always postmodifies a noun or a noun phrase (and only marginally other clause).It is always embedded part of a noun phrase.In this case those two clauses postmodify the noun phrase "a built-in mechanism" or if you like it more,the noun "mechanism".The head of a noun phrase is(virtualy always): (if it is) premodified with an adjective or/and noun and (if it is) postmodified with a relative clause. A relative clause is not so straightforward modifier because of its length and the fact that it has its own subject and object. And that is why you left it out of the direct object.And it is labeled also as an adjective clause but personally I prefer "relative clause" for the sake of clarity in the terminology.As you see,in the third sentence the noun head "mechanism" is premodified with two adjectives (new, built-in),but also with the noun "language" and you will not label that noun i.e "adjectival noun".Similarly,"adjectival" doesn't seem apropriate label for the relative clause.This "relative" indicate that this clause relate to i.e refer back to some noun head.As a conclusion: a noun can be modified with an adjective, noun or a relative clause. The noun head along with its modifiers makes a noun phrase.

Velimir,

I tried and tried to understand your explanation, but I just can't seem to get it.

I do know that my grammar books state that noun clauses can start with indefinite relative adjectives, and indefinite relative pronouns.

that children have a built-in mechanism, which he called the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD, which pre-programs them to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive.
so, then the whole thing is the noun clause, I have no problem with that, since a noun clause by definition includes all its modifiers, and in this example it would be the three relative clauses inside it. (Which....LAD, Which...grammar, and the elliptical 'that' they receive. oh and the past-participial phrase based...input.)

Can't it be looked at like that?

Thanks,

Donna

please keep it simple stupid for me to understand.