Sentence Analysis

[Nalapoe]

Hello,
I would love to have some feedback on this, please. It's been bugging me for a while!
The sentence is: " Reading the newspaper, I was struck by the difference between fact and fiction. "
This is how I analysed it:

* "Reading the newspaper" is a participial clause acting as an adjective modifying "I", the subject.
This is the confusing part. "struck" seems to be an adjective to me, but it might as well be part of the verb, "was struck".. The problem is that, defining "was struck" will help me analyse the prepositional phrase "by the difference" .

If "struck" is an adjective, then "by the difference" is an adjective modifying struck. But, if "was struck" is a verb, then the prep. phrase cannot be an adjective since adjectives do not modify verbs. And according to my knowledge, there are two types of prepositional phrases, adjectives and adverbs. Following this respect, the prep. phrase is an adverb. If this is the case, then what kind of adverb is it?


What do you think?

 

[MikeNewYork]

"Reading the newspaper" is not a clause; it is a participial phrase. You are correct that it is adjectival. The phrase "was struck" is a passive voice verb. That would make your prepositional phrase an adverb. I don't think it matters what type of adverb it is.

 

[PaulMatthews]

"Reading the newspaper" is not a clause; it is a participial phrase. You are correct that it is adjectival. The phrase "was struck" is a passive voice verb. That would make your prepositional phrase an adverb. I don't think it matters what type of adverb it is.

Sorry, but the first part of your reply is incorrect. It's neither a phrase nor adjectival.

"Reading the newspaper" is a gerund-participial clause. Like most non-finite clauses, it is subjectless, but the missing subject is retrievable by looking at the subject of the matrix clause, so it's obviously "I".

You must remember that unlike phrases, clauses express a subject-predicate structure; in this case the subject is "I" and the predicate is "reading the newspaper".

The clause itself is a supplementary adjunct; it doesn't modify anything, but simply adds useful, though non-essential, information about the situation. It's easy to tell it's a supplement because it's set off with a comma, and in speech it would be marked off by a slight pause.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I don't recognize "non finite clauses". For me, a clause has a subject and verb (not a verbal).

 

[MikeNewYork]

I understand the there are many who accept non-finite clauses. But there are many who do not.

 

[PaulMatthews]

I don't recognize "non finite clauses". For me, a clause has a subject and verb (not a verbal).

But it does have a subject and verb. The subject is "I" and the verb is "reading". The fact that it's a secondary (untensed) verb-form makes no difference (other than that the clause is called non-finite); it's still a verb, and in the OP's example it even has a direct object, i.e. "newspaper".

The term 'non-finite clause' is very widely used nowadays - you'll find it any good grammar book or other resource. As I said, most non-finite clauses have no overt subject, but we understand them as having subjects. In the OP's example, the missing subject "I" is easily retrievable from the matrix clause.

The use of the term 'phrase' (for these clauses) dropped out of the system quite some years ago, though you'll still find it in schoolbooks and on some Mickey Mouse grammar websites, but scholarly grammar has moved on and if you want to take grammar seriously, you just have to move with the times. And, believe it or not, it actually makes parsing easier - let's be thankful for that!

 

[PaulMatthews]

Quite.

So, Paul, what you wrote hereis too dismissive. What Mike wrote is not incorrect in some schools of grammar.

I think we all need to be aware that there is no universally accepted list of definitions of grammatical terms.

Very few schools of grammar still call them phrases. Grammar is a science and like all sciences, improvements in the way we see and analyse things inevitably occur slowly and surely, but the term "phrase" for sequences that contain non-finite verb-forms disappeared many years ago. Of course, you'll still find it used in schoolbooks and beginners' grammar websites, but we're talking scholarly grammar here (aren't we?) and it simply makes no sense to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that the modern approach doesn't exist, or for some reason is inferior.


I always ask dissenters: "when you go into hospital for that all-important prostate operation, would you prefer the surgeon to be using the latest 21st-century techniques, or those used 100 years or more ago which have been proved to be unreliable and inferior?" Usually does the trick!

 

[Tdol]

I see your point, but even within the context you mention, it doesn't hold that much water- ask any oncologist how many of their patients also try alternative medicines and approaches. In language, there is still a lot of disagreement- the scientists leading the charge have not managed to convince everyone, so we have to navigate seas where there are different routes. Throughout the world people are taught grammatical stuff that I think is wrong, but when someone starts asking a question about the future tense, which I don't agree with, I don't try to make them see the error of their ways before anything else. Pragmatics is as relevant to grammar as meaning IMO. :up:

 

[PaulMatthews]

I see your point, but even within the context you mention, it doesn't hold that much water- ask any oncologist how many of their patients also try alternative medicines and approaches. In language, there is still a lot of disagreement- the scientists leading the charge have not managed to convince everyone, so we have to navigate seas where there are different routes. Throughout the world people are taught grammatical stuff that I think is wrong, but when someone starts asking a question about the future tense, which I don't agree with, I don't try to make them see the error of their ways before anything else. Pragmatics is as relevant to grammar as meaning IMO. :up:

Alternative medicines in the operating theatre. I don't think so. Let's talk about non-finite clauses:

It's all about evidence. Clauses take subjects:

"For Iran to develop nuclear weapons would be terrible".
"Just imagine Iran developing nuclear weapons".

Those are clearly clauses.

They take all the usual clause modifiers, such as adverbs:

"For Iran to eventually develop nuclear weapons in a few years would be terrible".
"Just imagine Iran actually developing nuclear weapons".

They can contain auxiliary verbs:

"For Iran to have been developing nuclear weapons for years would not surprise me".
"Just imagine Iran having been developing nuclear weapons for years".

Perhaps most tellingly, they can be negated:

"For Iran not to develop nuclear weapons would be terrible".
"For Iran to not just develop nuclear weapons but test them would beterrible".
"Just imagine Iran never developing nuclear weapons".

And in the case of the subjectless versions:

"to develop nuclear weapons"
"developing nuclear weapons"

Same thing: they can contain auxiliary verbs and adverbs. And although they don't have subjects, they are understood as if they did (even if the subject may be understood to be "some arbitrary person").

The evidence seems pretty overwhelming to me. But of course, when did evidence ever matter to the purveyors of 18th-century grammar in 21st-century websites and books?

 

[Tdol]

And is it our task to look down on those that have been exposed to 18th-century grammar? The evidence often seems overwhelming to me, but I also know that not everyone sees it that way. I would question your premise about it being all about evidence, because I see a lot of sincere, interested people who don't get the picture you're seeing. It is more a question of persuasion if you want it to work, and I don't see much evidence of that here. We can all have our opinions of old-fashioned textbooks, but they do result in real people holding views. It is simple to imagine a world where they don't exist, but that is not the world many live in. Piscean and MikeNewYork have very little in common in terms of views of grammar, but there is some respect there on both sides. I can't help thinking that this is not such a terrible thing. I also used to think that it was simply a matter of presenting the facts as I saw them, but now I see it as more complex.

 

[PaulMatthews]

And is it our task to look down on those that have been exposed to 18th-century grammar? The evidence often seems overwhelming to me, but I also know that not everyone sees it that way. I would question your premise about it being all about evidence, because I see a lot of sincere, interested people who don't get the picture you're seeing. It is more a question of persuasion if you want it to work, and I don't see much evidence of that here. We can all have our opinions of old-fashioned textbooks, but they do result in real people holding views. It is simple to imagine a world where they don't exist, but that is not the world many live in. Piscean and MikeNewYork have very little in common in terms of views of grammar, but there is some respect there on both sides. I can't help thinking that this is not such a terrible thing. I also used to think that it was simply a matter of presenting the facts as I saw them, but now I see it as more complex.

Well, I think my last post was intended to "persuade".

Those that don't 'get the picture' are usually not looking at grammar in a scholarly way, and have probably never seen, let alone considered, any evidence for analysing things in a certain way. And I certainly don't want the surgeon operating on me to be indecisive about the correct procedure.

And it's a very sad day if MikeNewYork's view of relative clauses was considered an acceptable one. He makes a clear error in what he says; that is not acceptable to those who take grammar seriously. Even those clueless clowns Strunk & White didn't make that error.

 

[Tdol]

that is not acceptable to those who take grammar seriously. Even those clueless clowns Strunk & White didn't make that error.

Many learners don't take it as seriously as you would have them do, but we have to deal with the consequences of their learning. And if you think that calling people clueless clowns is persuasion, you may need to invest in a new dictionary. I didn't say that I agreed with Mike's view, but I am certainly not about stamping it out, or the views of the people who have struggled to learn under the blinkered 18th-century views of most coursebooks. We deal with learners here, not ideological purity. We accept that people who we think talk crap have a right to do so. And all sides agree with that. We are a forum- a public debating area, where anyone can speak, no matter how different, dated, stupid or ignorant. And we generally also try to respect our opponents, though we don't always succeed. I have known Mike and disagreed with him on many things for over a decade, but it would be a far far sadder day for me if his views were regarded as beyond the pale and inadmissible, and I would not dismiss them as sub-clueless clownery.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Many learners don't take it as seriously as you would have them do, but we have to deal with the consequences of their learning. And if you think that calling people clueless clowns is persuasion, you may need to invest in a new dictionary. I didn't say that I agreed with Mike's view, but I am certainly not about stamping it out, or the views of the people who have struggled to learn under the blinkered 18th-century views of most coursebooks. We deal with learners here, not ideological purity. We accept that people who we think talk crap have a right to do so. And all sides agree with that. We are a forum- a public debating area, where anyone can speak, no matter how different, dated, stupid or ignorant. And we generally also try to respect our opponents, though we don't always succeed. I have known Mike and disagreed with him on many things for over a decade, but it would be a far far sadder day for me if his views were regarded as beyond the pale and inadmissible, and I would not dismiss them as sub-clueless clownery.

It has nothing to do with ideological purity; it's much simpler than that. It’s about giving as far as possible the right answers to questions raised by those who take the trouble to come on this website and ask them. I notice that you make no mention of them, yet surely they are paramount, the ones who matter most. They want solid answers that they can rely on, not a mixed bag of differing opinions, some of which are likely to be flat wrong. Learners who read certain posts on here could in some instances be misinformed and go away with the wrong answers, and that surely must be unacceptable. Don't you think they deserve better, at least to expect some expertise based on modern scholarly grammar? I do.

I’m not saying that all the posts are nonsense – quite the reverse – but to deny the existence and universal acceptance of non-finite clauses is to display a considerable degree of ignorance of modern-day grammar. And similarly it can’t be acceptable to declare as nonsense (in another thread) the fact that the relative clause in an integrated construction combines with the noun it modifies which then becomes the head of the NP.

Do you really consider it right that posting such downright wrong answers should be allowed purely to satisfy the assertion that everyone is entitled to do so simply because this is a forum? Because that is what you are tacitly condoning.

I enjoy studying mathematics and I think have reached a reasonable level of proficiency, but I don’t consider myself to have sufficient knowledge or qualifications to answer questions on maths websites. I have to recognise my limitations in that respect. I wish others would do the same when it comes to English grammar.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Paul, this forum is mainly for people interested in learning English as a second or foreign language, not for people who are studying English grammar on a university linguistics course. (We do have a Linguistics


forum if you'd like to start a 'scholarly' discussion there.) Most members are more interested in how to speak and write English as correctly as possible than in learning the academic terminology in vogue at the moment.

Whether we like it or not, most teaching/learning materials available in most of the world use a rather more traditional terminology. It does not benefit our members to be told that the terminology is outdated if they understand the concept - unless of course they are studying linguistics,



Paul, you have been a member for one day, and submitted six posts. Don't you think it might be an idea to get a feel of how this forum works before giving your opinions on people who have posted thousands of helpful responses here over, in some cases, fourteen years?

I don't agree with you first points. Relative and non-finite clauses are very basic subjects that are universally dealt with quite competently in most grammars and other resources. So I find it difficult to accept that in 2016, despite all that information being available, some people still can't accept the existence of non-finite clauses and fail to grasp such simple matters as the syntax of relative clauses. I put it down to the fact that some people simply refuse to read modern grammars, articles, papers etc., firmly believing that tradition grammar can't possibly be wrong.

I feel sorry for the OPs who received radically conflicting answers to their questions and hence went away still not knowing for certain the correct answers to their questions - they deserve better. That's where forums like this fail.

I'll take a look at the Linguistics Forum.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Whose system did "phrase" drop out of? Not mine for sure. For me, "non-finite" did not improve or simplify anything. There are 134,000,000 hits on Google for "verbals". It is a well-established concept.

 

[Turner]

Reading the newspaper has a logical or semantic connection with the rest of the sentence but has no grammatical link with the sentence. This being the case, it would be hard to consider the phrase an adjunct clause. Without it, the sentence loses its context that has been originally conceived.


Replacing the participial clause with: “Watching the movie version, I was struck by the difference between fact and fiction” . . . . shows that the dilemma was not caused by reading the newspaper. The context is different but the logical feature is kept intact. In terms of semantic congruity the last phrase could stand on its own without the other ( reading the newspaper) but it will leave a dangling statement where the cause of being struck by the difference. . . . is the primary concern. Without this concern, we can then say that (reading the newspaper) can be eliminated—which justifies your adjunct clause contention.


Most grammar books consider this construction as chiefly found in literary English.
However, it is encountered in everyday conversation. Some reference books call this “absolute construction” which is comprised by an independent clause and main clause as in:


Walking slowly along the sidewalk, the baby held tightly in her arms.
Flailing her arms up in the air, she cried over the loss of her son.


I agree that these labels (terminologies) have been imposed upon us by early philologists, now called linguists, grammarians and lexicologists. . . and any self-proclaimed expert (which most of what we see here) could easily come up with his or her term as one sees fit. There is no clearing house for disagreements in English or an authority who could refute or sanction such use if someone comes up with something—unlike other sworn-in professions.
Inflexibility over the use of a certain phrase or even naming it differently deprive learners and researchers the opportunity to dig deeper into the less understood part of language.
Granted, there are grammar rules that we have to follow to make ourselves understandable—and that's what we call syntax.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I have tremendous respect for both Piscean and Tdol. We disagree at times but mostly about terminology. I use the terminology that works for me. Paul Matthews can use what works for him.

 

[Tdol]

I see neither an independent nor a main clause there.

I am waiting for the next bit with that example.

 

[PaulMatthews]

I see neither an independent nor a main clause there.

The element that Turner is claiming to be an absolute clause (i.e. Walking slowly along the sidewalk) is not in fact an absolute construction. By definition, an absolute clause has a subject, is subordinate in form and has no syntactic link to the main clause. This example is subordinate, but it has no subject and it does have a syntactic link in that its subject is located in the main clause.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Reading the newspaper has a logical or semantic connection with the rest of the sentence but has no grammatical link with the sentence. This being the case, it would be hard to consider the phrase an adjunct clause. Without it, the sentence loses its context that has been originally conceived.

I don’t see why you say that. It most certainly has a grammatical link with the sentence by virtue of its subject being located in the matrix clause. It’s an adjunct because it’s grammatically optional, but it’s not of the modifying kind which are tightly integrated into the structure of the clause; rather it’s just loosely attached, separated by a comma in writing and marked off by a slight pause in speech. Which is why it’s called a supplementary adjunct. Importantly, an adjunct is grammatically optional, but that doesn’t mean that it is not necessary to convey the intended meaning.

Some reference books call this “absolute construction” which is comprised by an independent clause and main clause as in:

Walking slowly along the sidewalk, the baby held tightly in her arms.
Flailing her arms up in the air, she cried over the loss of her son.

I don’t consider either of those examples to be absolute clauses. In my experience, an absolute clause is one that has a subject, is subordinate in form but has no syntactic link to the main clause. In those examples, the adjuncts do have syntactic links to the main clauses in that their subjects are to be found in them.