Can someone please diagram this sentence?
According to Quirk et al., (1985), adverbials can be categorized into four classes according to their affinity with the rest of the containing sentence:
- adjunct
- subjunct
sentence adverbials:
- conjuncts
- disjunct
Among these, only the class of adjuncts have parity with other sentence elements such as subject, object, complement.
Like subject, object, and complement, and unlike the other three types of adverbials, they can be the focus of cleft sentences:
The conditions for workers were unsafe there.
It is
the condition for workers that were unsafe there. -- subject focus
It is
unsafe that the condition for workers were there -- complement focus
It is t
here that the condition for workers were unsafe -- adjunct focus
The parallel between adjunct and other sentence constituents extends also to contrast in alternative interrogation or negation:
Were
the conditions for workers safe there or were
something else safe? -- subject contrast in alternative interrogation
Were
there or were
here the conditions for workers safe? --adjunct contrast in alternative interrogation
The conditions for workers were safe
there but not
here. -- adjunct contrast in alternative negation.
Irrespective of their position, adjuncts come within the scope of predication ellipsis or pro-forms, exactly like other constituents that follow the operator (the first tensed auxiliary in a sentence):
The condition for workers were safe there and the condition for employers were safe there.
=
There, the condition for workers were safe and so were the condition for employers.
Furthermore, like subject, object, and complement, adjuncts can be too elicited by question forms:
What was safe there? The condition for workers. = subject
What was the condition for workers like? Safe. = complement
Where was the condition for workers safe? There. = adjunct
We have more than enough empirical evidence that 'there' in your sentence is a "normal adverbial", adjunct. It modifies the verb, "were".
Your diagram is: