Auxiliary Verb.. and Tree diagrams..

[Andraste]

Hi

I have yet to figure out how auxiliary verbs fit themselves into tree diagrams.
I am assuming - ah example: "Chelsea was kissed by a stranger" that "Chelsea" would go under NP, while "was kissed by a stranger" would then go under the VP. Or would the auxiliary "was" be by itself in the Sentence, and not be under any NP or VP's?

So it would end up something like (I cannot figure out how to draw a diagram so I hope this is understandable):

S ->NP ->|N -> N -> "Chelsea."
Also off S -> VP
VP splits into the auxiliary "was", and another VP which contains "kissed by a stranger."

Does this actually make any sense, or should I attempt to clarify?

Thanks in advance.

 

[corum]

 

[Andraste]

Okay... so why then is the auxiliary verb not classified under the VP?

 

[corum]

Okay... so why then is the auxiliary verb not classified under the VP?

Try some constituent tests and you will see.

 

[Frank Antonson]

Corum,

Could you explain what you mean by those constituent tests? In American grammar "was" would certainly be called part of the verb phrase -- a helping verb helpling the main verb to form the passive voice.

 

[corum]

Chelsea was kissed by a stranger.

Transformational grammar is based on the idea that all phrases in all languages look the same:

Concentrate on the position of the conjugated auxiliary 'be' relative to the specifier 'not'.
Since the specifier is the leftmost slot in a phrase, and the passive auxiliary
can only precede the specifier position in a grammatical sentence, transformational grammar places auxiliaries in inflectional phrases (IP) outside verb phrases (VP).

Chelsea was not kissed. :tick:
Chelsea not was kissed. :cross:

 

[corum]

Chelsea was kissed by a stranger.
Chelsea was not kissed by a stranger.

I know that the two sentences are different, but 'not' does not affect where the auxiliary should belong.

 

[Andraste]

Great... Now, I'm confused. Before I had some idea and now I have no idea where auxiliary verbs go. *sigh* ...

Alright:

Chelsea was what? [Kissed by a stranger] <--- this all goes under VP right?
Though then the "was" IS outside the VP structure... am I getting this close at all?
Who was kissed? [Chelsea] <--- Chelsea = N.
But then the "was" and "kissed"... ARGH.

Help. Please?

 

[corum]

Great... Now, I'm confused. Before I had some idea and now I have no idea where auxiliary verbs go. *sigh* ...

Alright:

Chelsea was what? [Kissed by a stranger] <--- this all goes under VP right?

Sorry, not right. was is not a linking verb in the sentence and what follows is not a predicate nominative.

Exactly! That is what I say too!

Though then the "was" IS outside the VP structure... am I getting this close at all?
Who was kissed? [Chelsea] <--- Chelsea = N.
But then the "was" and "kissed"... ARGH.

hmmm.

Help. Please?

What would you like to know?

 

[corum]

Otago. Nice place!

 

[Frank Antonson]

Reed-Kellogg seems SO much easier!

 

[corum]

Chelsea was kissed by a stranger.
Chelsea was not kissed by a stranger.

I know that the two sentences are different, but 'not' does not affect where the auxiliary should belong.

Look at this:

By a stranger was kissed Chelsea.

You may well ask with some justification: Is "By a stranger" not part of the VP? It should not be, some may say, because it precedes the passive auxiliary. The question rightfully arises: What happened that "by a stranger" is part of the VP no more? How can we account for that? Or is there some inconsistency in TG? No, there is not.

The rearranged sentence is the result of two constituent movements:

1. NP (Chelsea = subject) extraposition
2. PP (by a stranger = adjunct) topicalisation

 

[Frank Antonson]

Corum,

I don't know what you put on the Kipling thread, but it is blocked here in school. I'll have to look at it when I get home.

Frank

 

[corum]

Corum,

I don't know what you put on the Kipling thread, but it is blocked here in school. I'll have to look at it when I get home.

Frank

Do not worry. ;-)

 

[Frank Antonson]

I've had a look at it, was impressed, and replied.

 

[Andraste]

Okay.. so the auxiliary verb is a helper verb, but it only goes under VP when it is a linking verb?

 

[Frank Antonson]

I am not sure about this, but I think "linking verb" and "helping verb" are American terms and may not work so well in the lexicon of tree diagramming. Within the realm of Reed-Kellogg they are simple, clear, and easily understood terms. I think the British would talk about "auxiliary" and "copulative" here.

 

[corum]

Linking verbs are not helping verbs. They do not help (other) verbs.

In TG,

He is happy is parsed thus:

He = NP
is happy = VP
happy = adjunct

 

[Frank Antonson]

I agree that linking verbs are not helping verbs. Though, it can get confusing in a sentence like "I will have been being a UsingEnglish.com user for a year's time in another month" since forms of the verb "to be" can be either helping verbs or linking verbs. Future perfect tense, progressive form. Add to that the passive voice and it can really get crazy.