He's telling us there's a whale out there for us. - Is "out there" an adverbial?

[Phaedrus]

i. Thus, in a Reed and Kellogg diagram, the sentence would be analyzed as "Twenty persons were [existed] there (in the room)." "There" is "a pure adverb denoting place."

ii. The expletive "there" would be placed on its own separate line.


Source: Homer C. House and Susan Emolyn Harman, Descriptive English Grammar (copyright 1931 and 1950), page 169.

I have finally started to explore the Reed–Kellogg sentence-diagramming system in earnest, having been mildly inclined to do so for years, while being steeped in Chomskyan tree-diagramming. Unfortunately, both types of diagramming can present challenges for elegant online display, since, unless one has an easy-to-use diagramming software program, one must have fairly specialized computer knowledge to produce typed diagrams.

That's why I was delighted yesterday to come upon LetsDiagram.com, which allows one to drag and manipulate Reed–Kellogg diagram elements, and then save and download what one has produced. I should be grateful if TheParser could inspect my diagram below for "There were twenty persons there" and see if this is what he was visualizing when describing House and Harman's parsing. This is my second attempt at a Reed–Kellogg diagram.

[TheParser]

NOT A TEACHER

Hi,

1. To the best of my knowledge, that is exactly correct. What a beautiful diagram! Thanks!

a. It shows the student where every word belongs.

2. When I first became a member, there was a teacher who used to regularly post Reed and Kellogg diagrams in the diagramming forum. I was among the members (and presumably guests) who found his analyses fascinating. I am so delighted that you are now considering its merits, for it forces one to parse each word.

a. In all fairness, however, many (most?) teachers feel that it is a waste of time and effort and that it does little to improve the English of learners. A few of us respectfully disagree.

[PaulMatthews]

The problem with so many diagrams is that they don't help learners to understand the structure of clauses. The Reed-Kellogg is probably the worst of all systems, which explains why it never caught on. The system it advocates is odd to say the least, particularly as it fails to give the constituent structure and makes no mention of categories (parts of speech), and functions (subj, obj, comp. etc.)

I've attached a 'conventional' tree for the example "There were twenty persons there", which expresses in graphic form information about the function and category of the various units or constituents (i.e. words, phrases, clauses, etc.). The constituents are given two labels: the first indicates their function, the second gives their category.

Compare this tree to the Reed-Kellogg diagram and see which is the more meaningful. I'd be very surprised if anyone prefers the latter.

Note that I have simplified the tree somewhat, without affecting its usefulness.

[Phaedrus]

The problem with so many diagrams is that they don't help learners to understand the structure of clauses. The Reed-Kellogg is probably the worst of all systems, which explains why it never caught on.

I'd say that Reed–Kellogg diagramming system forces learners to find the subject and the predicate of finite clauses, along with their respective heads and modifiers. Why do you say that it never caught on? It has been around for over 150 years. Though no longer used in mainstream pedagogy, the system still has its adherents. I believe the most recent textbook using the Reed–Kellogg diagramming system is the ninth edition of Kolln and Funk's Understanding English Grammar (2011).

The system it advocates is odd to say the least, particularly as it fails to give the constituent structure and makes no mention of categories (parts of speech), and functions (subj, obj, comp. etc.)

I can't argue with you about its failing to give the constituent structure; however, students who learn the system learn that the noun that is placed on the main line before its divider is the simple subject, and that what comes on the other side is the predicate. The main verb with its auxiliaries (if it has any) are placed to the right of the line dividing the subject from the predicate. Slanted lines coming off the main line denote modifiers. Articles, adjectives, and prepositional phrases are all represented as modifiers. Presumably, the student learns in class that words like "a" and "the" are articles and are distinct in their grammatical category from words like "in" and "on," even though they all appear on slanted lines in the diagram. The system also provides for possessives, expletives, conjunctions.

Compare this tree to the Reed-Kellogg diagram and see which is the more meaningful. I'd be very surprised if anyone prefers the latter.

It is a lovely tree that you have drawn. To give the Reed–Kellogg diagram the benefit of the doubt, however, I believe it does capture one feature that your tree does not. It displays that the underlying subject of the sentence is twenty persons. In your tree, there is nothing which determines subject-verb agreement. Why should there not be followed by was? *There was twenty persons there. The diagram provides no hint. Were I to do a tree analysis of the sentence, it would require more than one tree, or at the very least arrows indicating movement and added material, to show that There were twenty persons there derives from Twenty persons were there.

[IsaacZ]

So is it a conclusion that "out there" is an adverbial as long as it is used in a there be structure?

[Tdol]

I'd say that Reed–Kellogg diagramming system forces learners to find the subject and the predicate of finite clauses, along with their respective heads and modifiers. Why do you say that it never caught on?

I taught for twenty years before I heard of diagramming. I first heard of it when I was asked to proofread a text about it. It didn't catch on greatly in the UK.

[PaulMatthews]

[1] There is a shark out there.
[2] I saw a shark out there.


In both cases "out there" is a locative adjunct.

In neither case is "a shark out there" a noun phrase, a constituent. In [1] for example, the noun phase complement of "be" is "a shark".

[IsaacZ]

[1] There is a shark out there.
[2] I saw a shark out there.


In both cases "out there" is a locative adjunct.

In neither case is "a shark out there" a noun phrase, a constituent. In [1] for example, the noun phase complement of "be" is "a shark".

What about these ones?

So much writing out there in the world and who wants to read it?
Like any other person out there, I fall into habits, good and bad.
Just about every database out there has tools for doing this.
Nobody out there can get more from that group of players.
This seems to be one of the oldest cliches out there, but in my experience it works.

Please help analyse their functions. Thanks.

[IsaacZ]

[1] There is a shark out there.
[2] I saw a shark out there.


In both cases "out there" is a locative adjunct.

In neither case is "a shark out there" a noun phrase, a constituent. In [1] for example, the noun phase complement of "be" is "a shark".

We don't use locative adjunct in our teaching.

We use five basic sentence structures (plus There be) to deal with every sentence. They are:

S V P
S V
S V O
S V O O
S V O C

S for Subject
V for Verb
P for Predicative   
O for Object
C for Complement

Three other members can appear in a sentence to make it longer with more details. They are:

attribute  
adverbial
appositive 


If we are limited to the above system, with no mentioning of locative adjunct, do you think it is possible that "out there" can be used as an post-attribute somehow?

[PaulMatthews]

We don't use locative adjunct in our teaching.

Adjunct is another term for adverbial.