jwschang said:
I thought what I think about "going" was something quite heretical! So there's a serious linguist in this Mr M who has in fact argued this heresy. I was really just curious about the whole thing, especially since "going" is used so often as intention. :roll:
I still can't find the book by M-; but here's something worth noting. 'be going to' has been viewed as a semi-modal since 1962.
Semi modals, for Strang (1962: 147) this group includes: use(d) to, be going to, be (about) to, have to, want to, ought to. For Joos (1968: 22-30) it consists of be to, be going to, be about to, have to, be able to, be supposed to, and used to; for him ought to is a modal proper. Palmer's list, as a final example, comprises be bound to, be able to, have (got) to, be going to, be willing to (1988: 94).
http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/sgramley/Folder-Notes1.html
Also, '..
futures are indicated by using a modal auxliary, will or shall, or
by using a semi-modal construction like be going to.'
http://www.wsu.edu/~gordonl/S2002/326/Verbs.htm#tense
More food: A pair of papers from CLS (Publications from the Nth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society <
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/humanities/cls/>, explicate the semantic and syntactic distinctions between the (American) English usage of 'will' and 'be going to', written by Robert Binnick. They are called, surprisingly, "
Will and Be Going To" and "
Will and Be Going To II", and they were published in the 70's.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/modals.html
Other Papers worth the read
Tense and Modals Tim Stowell, UCLA
http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/stowell/Stowell-Tense&Modals.pdf
On the Structural Properties of Modals
http://www.bogglesworld.com/glossary/modals.htm
Properties of English Modals (cross-cultural study)
http://www.uqu.edu.sa/majalat/humanities/vol14/f9.htm
Semi-auxiliaries
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~xtag/tech-report/node182.html
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~xtag/tech-report/node184.html
jwschang said:
From what I understand, an Absolute phrase is a phrase construction, as distinguished from a Noun phrase which is referring to usage. Absolute phrases, Infinitive phrases, Continuous Participle phrases all can be used as a Noun phrase, as in:
(A true friend) is hard to come by. (Absolute phrase as Noun)
(To do it now) is most advantageous. (Infinitive phrase as Noun)
(Waiting for people) can be quite vexing. (Participle phrase as Noun).
Could we then call 'Waiting for people' a gerund phrase instead of the long 'a participle phrase (functioning) as a noun'?
jwschang said:
Again, from what I understand, construction classification is based on the word that heads the phrase (except for Absolute phrases).
Actually, there is a term for absolute phrases: nominal absolutes. :wink:
jwschang said:
I think of an Absolute phrase as consisting of a noun or nouns and its modifiers, such as: A shrewd businessman..., My work finished (noun "work", modifiers "my" and "finished")
So, is
My work finished, I went home an absolute phrase functioning as a adjective or is it a an adjective phrase functioning as an adjective? That is,
My work having been finished = ? phrase
jwschang said:
Some books don't (or fail to) distinguish between classification by construction on the one hand, and classification by usage on the other.
Isn't that the honest truth. 8)
jwschang said:
The usage classification is not a problem, since it is no more than saying what part of speech the phrase is being used as: noun, adjective, adverb. The construction classification can be a problem of proliferation of types of phrases. For example,
1. (Running at full stretch), he caught up with the bus.
2. (Suddenly turning the corner), he ran into me.
(1) is a Participle phrase, but (2)?
(2) takes the form of a participle phrase. As for its function, I feel that in knowing that adverbs like 'suddenly' are sentencial (can occur at the beginning or end of a sentence), I'd switch it around so as to find the true structure: "turning the corner suddenly" = participle phrase functioning as a (help?).
jwschang said:
If we say (2) is an Adverb phrase (headed by adverb "suddenly") then there is no end to the types of construction. Personally, I would regard (2) as a Participle phrase (but preceded by an adverb).
Ok. Its form is that of a participle, but what's its function? It modifies 'ran', so its an adverb in function?
jwschang said:
Another example,
3. (Taken by surprise), they......
4. (Secretly produced in backyards), the.....
I would regard both (3) and (4) as a Participle phrase.
So would I. But, again, though, what is its function? Consider,
Searching diligently, he soon found the lost coin.
"Searching diligently" modifies the verb 'found', so we know it functions as an adverb (not an adverb
phrase), an adverb. "Searching diligently" is made up of a participle (Searching) and an adverb (diligently). The head of that phrase is "Searching", we know this because we can move "diligently" around. Since the head of the phrase is a participle, we have two choices of form: Adjective phrase and Noun phrase (gerund). Adjectives are modified by adverbs, whereas noun are never modified by adverbs, yet
Searching diligently is something I did last weekend" functions as a Noun phrase, a gerund. The reason being is that it refers to a thing. In contrast, "
Searching diligently, he soon found the lost coin" functions as a
(help?)
jwschang said:
The problem with construction classification is that, to be meaningful it must have a consistent basis, and to be practical you should not have a whole proliferation of it.
I'm not sure if I read that the way you intended, so bare with my stupidity here. Words and phrases are categorized according to form and then analysed based on their function. A prep phrase can have only one form, yet more than one function. That system is not only 'practical' it's economical.
jwschang said:
For example, if we regard "A shrewd and careful businessman" as an Adjective phrase (by construction, not usage) just because it's headed by the article "A", then there's no end to it. So, I regard it as an Absolute phrase.
I see what you mean. Linear parsing. If, so, then, wouldn't it be Article phrase?
Seriously, though, since Article phrases do not exist, and "a" pairs with nouns, Noun phrase would be the next best choice, I agree.
jwschang said:
For very good reasons, the two classifications don't overlap:
(A) Construction:
1. Absolute phrase
2. Preposition phrase
3. Infinitive phrase
4. Participle phrase (Continuous or Perfect Participle)
(B) Usage:
1. Noun phrase
2. Adjective phrase
3. Adverb phrase
What's the good reason?
Moreover, could you offer some examples illustrating the difference between a participle phrase functioning as an adjective, a noun, and an adverb?
jwschang said:
Where and how does a "verb phrase" fit? "I want (to learn to fly)". I'd say this is an Infinitive phrase (by construction) used as a Noun phrase (as object of "want").
Interesting. Infinitives are tradionationally classified as verbals, the same category as gerunds. Interesting.
This was very interesting. Thank you