In linguistics, an adjunct is an optional, or structurally dispensable, part of a sentence, clause, or phrase that, if removed or discarded, will not otherwise affect the remainder of the sentence. Example, In the sentence John helped Bill in Central Park, an adjunct is not an argument, and an argument is not an adjunct. The argument–adjunct distinction is central in most theories of syntax and semantics, the terminology used to denote arguments and adjuncts can vary depending on the theory at hand. Some dependency grammars, for instance, employ the term circonstant, the area of grammar that explores the nature of predicates, their arguments, and adjuncts is called valency theory. Predicates have valency, they determine the number and type of arguments that can or must appear in their environment, the valency of predicates is investigated in terms of subcategorization. Take the sentence John helped Bill in Central Park on Sunday as an example, in Central Park is the first adjunct. on Sunday is the second adjunct.
An adverbial adjunct is an element that often establishes the circumstances in which the action or state expressed by the verb takes place. The following sentence uses adjuncts of time and place, notice that this example is ambiguous between whether the adjunct in the garden modifies the verb saw or the noun phrase the dog. The definition can be extended to include adjuncts that modify nouns or other parts of speech, an adjunct can be a single word, a phrase, or an entire clause. Single word She will leave tomorrow, phrase She will leave in the morning. Clause She will leave after she has had breakfast, most discussions of adjuncts focus on adverbial adjuncts, that is, on adjuncts that modify verbs, verb phrases, or entire clauses like the adjuncts in the three examples just given. Adjuncts can appear in other domains, that is, an adnominal adjunct is one that modifies a noun, for a list of possible types of these, see Components of noun phrases. Adjuncts that modify adjectives and adverbs are occasionally called adadjectival and adadverbial, the discussion before the game – before the game is an adnominal adjunct.
Very happy – very is an adadjectival adjunct, too loudly – too is an adadverbial adjunct. Each of the adjuncts in the examples throughout this article is a constituent, adjuncts can be categorized in terms of the functional meaning that they contribute to the phrase, clause, or sentence in which they appear. The ladder collapsed because it was old, Concessive – Concessive adjuncts establish contrary circumstances. Lorna went out although it was raining, Conditional – Conditional adjuncts establish the condition in which an action occurs or state holds. I would go to Paris, if I had the money, Consecutive – Consecutive adjuncts establish an effect or result
The grammatical category associated with comparison of adjectives and adverbs is degree of comparison. The usual degrees of comparison are the positive, which denotes a property, the comparative, which indicates greater degree, and the superlative. Some languages have forms indicating a large degree of a particular quality. Other languages can express lesser degree, e. g. beautiful, less beautiful, one preposition, has a superlative form, as in Find the restaurant nearest your house. Comparatives and superlatives may be formed morphologically, by inflection, as with the English and German -er and -st forms, or syntactically, as with the English more. Common adjectives and adverbs often produce irregular forms, such as better and best and less and least in English, most if not all languages have some means of forming the comparative, although these means can vary significantly from one language to the next. Comparatives are often used with a conjunction or other means to indicate with what the comparison is being made, as with than in English, als in German.
In Russian and Greek this can be done by placing the compared noun in the genitive case, with superlatives, the class of things being considered for comparison may be indicated, as in the best swimmer out of all the girls. Languages possess other structures for comparing adjectives and adverbs, English examples include as, А few languages apply comparison to nouns and even verbs. One such language is Bulgarian, where expressions like по̀ човек, най човек, по-малко човек and по̀ обичам, for instance, May the better man win would be considered correct if there are only two individuals competing. However, this rule is not always observed in informal usage and this is a common rhetorical device used to create an implication of significance where one may not actually be present. Although such usage is common, it is sometimes considered ungrammatical, English has two parallel systems of comparison, a morphological one formed using the suffixes -er and -est, with some irregular forms, and a syntactic one, formed with the adverbs more and most.
Some adjectives, e. g. polite, can use either form, morphological comparison uses the suffixes -er and -est. These inflections are of Germanic origin and are cognate with the Latin suffixes -ior and -issimus and Ancient Greek -īōn and they are typically added to shorter words, words of Anglo-Saxon origin, and borrowed words which have been fully assimilated into the English vocabulary. Usually the words which take these inflections have fewer than three syllables and this system contains a number of irregular forms, some of which, like good and best, contain suppletive forms. This series can be compared to a system containing the diminutives less and this system is most commonly used with words of French or Latin derivation, with adjectives and adverbs formed with suffixes other than -ly, and with longer, technical, or infrequently used words. Some adjectives, the absolute or ungradable adjectives do not appear to logically allow degrees, such words are routinely and frequently qualified in contemporary speech and writing.
This type of usage conveys more of a figurative than a literal meaning, because in a literal sense
An inflection expresses one or more grammatical categories with a prefix, suffix or infix, or another internal modification such as a vowel change. For example, the Latin verb ducam, meaning I will lead, includes the suffix -am, expressing person, the use of this suffix is an inflection. In contrast, in the English clause I will lead, the lead is not inflected for any of person, number, or tense. The inflected form of a word contains both one or more free morphemes, and one or more bound morphemes. These two morphemes together form the inflected word cars and its categories can be determined only from its context. Requiring the forms or inflections of more than one word in a sentence to be compatible with each other according to the rules of the language is known as concord or agreement. For example, in the choir sings, choir is a singular noun, languages that have some degree of inflection are synthetic languages. These can be inflected, or weakly inflected. Languages that are so inflected that a sentence can consist of a highly inflected word are called polysynthetic languages.
Languages such as Mandarin Chinese that never use inflections are called analytic or isolating, in English most nouns are inflected for number with the inflectional plural affix -s, and most English verbs are inflected for tense with the inflectional past tense affix -ed. English inflects verbs by affixation to mark the person singular in the present tense. English short adjectives are inflected to mark comparative and superlative forms, in addition, English shows inflection by ablaut and umlaut, as well as long-short vowel alternation. For example, wrote, written Sing, sung Foot, feet Mouse, mice Child, children For details, see English plural, English verbs, and English irregular verbs. When a given word class is subject to inflection in a particular language, words which follow such a standard pattern are said to be regular, those that inflect differently are called irregular. For instance, many languages that feature verb inflection have both regular verbs and irregular verbs, in English, regular verbs form their past tense and past participle with the ending -d, thus verbs like play and enter are regular.
However, there are a few hundred verbs which follow different patterns, such as sing–sang–sung and keep–kept–kept, irregular verbs often preserve patterns which were regular in past forms of the language, but which have now become anomalous. Example, Latin dīcō, dīcere, dīxī, dictum > Spanish digo, dije, strong vs. weak inflection—Sometimes two inflection systems exist, conventionally classified as strong and weak. Ancient Greek verbs are likewise said to have had a first aorist, suppletion—The irregular form was originally derived from a different root
In linguistics, branching refers to the shape of the parse trees that represent the structure of sentences. The direction of branching reflects the position of heads in phrases, English has both right-branching and left-branching structures, although it is more right-branching than left-branching. Some languages such as Japanese and Turkish are almost fully left-branching, some languages are mostly right-branching, for example, Arabic. Languages typically construct phrases with a word and zero or more dependents. The following phrases show the heads in bold. On a DP-analsyis, the phrase the house would be right-branching instead of left-branching, left- and right-branching structures are illustrated with the trees that follow. The first group of trees illustrate left-branching, The upper row shows the structures. In the constituency-based structures, left-branching is present in so far as the daughter is to the left of the head. In the corresponding dependency-based structures in the row, the left-branching is clear, the dependent appears to the left of its head.
The following structures demonstrate right-branching, The upper row shows the constituency-based structures. The constituency-based structures are right-branching insofar as the daughter is to the right of the head. This right-branching is completely visible in the row of dependency-based structures. The -examples contain one instance of right-branching and one instance of left-branching, the head appears in a medial position, which means that the phrase combines both types of branching. Note that the -trees contain a PP phrase that is an instance of pure right-branching, the nature of branching is most visible with full trees. The following trees have been chosen to best illustrate the extent to which a structure can be entirely left- or entirely right-branching. The following sentence is completely left-branching, the constituency-based trees are on the left, and the dependency-based trees are on the right, The category Po is used to label possessive s. The following sentence is completely right-branching, Most structures in English are, not completely left- or completely right-branching, in the big picture, right-branching structures tend to outnumber the left-branching structures in English, which means that trees usually grow down to the right.
The X-bar schema combines left- and right-branching, the standard X-bar schema has the following structure, This structure is both left- and right branching
In linguistics, clusivity is a grammatical distinction between inclusive and exclusive first-person pronouns and verbal morphology, called inclusive we and exclusive we. Inclusive we specifically includes the addressee, while exclusive we specifically excludes the addressee, some African languages make this distinction, such as the Fula language. No European language outside the Caucasus makes this distinction grammatically, clusivity paradigms may be summarized as a two-by-two grid, In some languages, the three first-person pronouns appear to be unrelated. This is the case for Chechen, which has singular so/со, exclusive txo/тхо, in others, all three are related, as in Tok Pisin singular mi, exclusive mi-pela, and inclusive yu-mi or yu-mi-pela. However, when one of the plural pronouns is related to the singular. In some dialects of Mandarin Chinese, for example, inclusive or exclusive 我們／我们 wǒmen is the form of singular wǒ I. However, in Hadza it is the inclusive, ’one-be’e, which is the plural of the singular ’ono I and it is not uncommon for two separate words for I to pluralize into derived forms having a clusivity distinction.
For example, in Vietnamese the familiar word for I pluralizes to inclusive we, in the Kunama language of Eritrea, the first person inclusive and exclusive distinction is marked on dual and plural forms of verbs, independent pronouns, and possessive pronouns. Where verbs are inflected for person, as in Australia and much of America, several Polynesian languages, such as Samoan and Tongan, have clusivity with overt dual and plural suffixes in their pronouns. The lack of a suffix indicates the singular, the exclusive form is used in the singular as the normal word for I, but the inclusive occurs in the singular. In theory, clusivity of the person should be a possible distinction. Many other linguists take the more neutral position that it could exist but is not currently attested. Clusivity in the person is conceptually simple but nonetheless if it exists is extremely rare. Hypothetical second-person clusivity would be the distinction between you and you and you and someone else whom I am not addressing currently and these are often referred to in the literature as 2+2 and 2+3, respectively.
Horst J. Simon provides an analysis of second-person clusivity in his 2005 article. The inclusive–exclusive distinction occurs nearly universally among the Austronesian languages and the languages of northern Australia and it is widespread in India, and in the languages of eastern Siberia, such as Tungusic, from which it was borrowed into northern Mandarin Chinese. In indigenous languages of the Americas it is found in half the languages. It is found in a few languages of the Caucasus and Sub-Saharan Africa, such as Fulani and Khoekhoe
There are two competing notions of the predicate in theories of grammar. The competition between two concepts has generated confusion concerning the use of the term predicate in theories of grammar. This article considers both of these notions, the second notion was derived from work in predicate calculus and is prominent in modern theories of syntax and grammar. In this approach, the predicate of a sentence mostly corresponds to the verb and any auxiliaries that accompany the main verb. The predicate in traditional grammar is inspired by propositional logic of antiquity, a predicate is seen as a property that a subject has or is characterized by. A predicate is therefore an expression that can be true of something, the expression is moving is true of anything that is moving. It is the understanding of predicates in English-language dictionaries, the predicate is one of the two main parts of a sentence. The predicate must contain a verb, and the verb requires or permits other elements to complete the predicate and these elements are objects and adjuncts, She dances.
– verb-only predicate Ben reads the book, – verb-plus-direct-object predicate Bens mother, gave me a present. – verb-plus-indirect-object-plus-direct-object predicate She listened to the radio, – verb-plus-prepositional-object predicate They elected him president. – verb-plus-object-plus-predicative-noun predicate She met him in the park, – verb-plus-object-plus-adjunct predicate She is in the park. – verb-plus-predicative-prepositional-phrase predicate The predicate provides information about the subject, such as what the subject is, what the subject is doing, the relation between a subject and its predicate is sometimes called a nexus. A predicative nominal is a phrase, such as in George III is the king of England. The subject and predicative nominal must be connected by a linking verb, a predicative adjective is an adjective, such as in Ivano is attractive, attractive being the predicative adjective. The subject and predicative adjective must be connected by a copula and this traditional understanding of predicates has a concrete reflex in all phrase structure theories of syntax.
These theories divide the generic declarative sentence into a phrase and verb phrase. The subject NP is shown in green, and the predicate VP in blue, most modern theories of syntax and grammar take their inspiration for the theory of predicates from predicate calculus as associated with Gottlob Frege. This understanding sees predicates as relations or functions over arguments, the predicate serves either to assign a property to a single argument or to relate two or more arguments to each other
Focus is a grammatical category that determines which part of the sentence contributes new, non-derivable, or contrastive information. Focus is related to information structure, contrastive focus specifically refers to the coding of information that is contrary to the presuppositions of the interlocutor. Related terms include Comment and Rheme, information structure has been described at length by a number of linguists as a grammatical phenomenon. Lexicogrammatical structures that code prominence, or focus, of information over other information has a particularly significant history dating back to the 19th century. Lambrecht in particular distinguishes three types of focus constructions, predicate-focus structure, argument-focus structure, and sentence-focus structure. Focus has linked to other more general cognitive processes. Standard generative approaches to grammar argue that phonology and semantics cannot exchange information directly, syntactic mechanisms including features and transformations include prosodic information regarding focus that is passed to the semantics and phonology.
Focus may be highlighted either prosodically or syntactically or both, depending on the language, in syntax this can be done assigning focus markers, as shown in, or by preposing as shown in, I saw f. f, I saw. In, focus is marked syntactically with the subscripted ‘f’ which is realized phonologically by a pitch accent. Clefting induces an obligatory intonation break, therefore, in, focus is marked via word order and a nuclear pitch accent. Speakers can use pitch accents on syllables to indicate what word are in focus, new words are often accented while given words are not. The accented word forms the focus domain, not all of the words in a focus domain need be accented. The focus domain can be broad, as shown in, or narrow, as shown in and. Did you see a dog or a grey cat. Did you see a dog or a black dog. The question/answer paradigm shown in – has been utilized by a variety of theorists to illustrate the range of contexts a sentence containing focus can be used felicitously, the question/answer paradigm has been used as a diagnostic for what counts as new information.
For example, the pattern in would be infelicitous if the question was ‘Did you see a grey dog or a black dog. ’. In and, the accent is marked in bold
In linguistics, an argument is an expression that helps complete the meaning of a predicate, the latter referring in this context to a main verb and its auxiliaries. In this regard, the complement is a related concept. Most predicates take one, two, or three arguments, a predicate and its arguments form a predicate-argument structure. The discussion of predicates and arguments is associated most with verbs and noun phrases, although other syntactic categories can be construed as predicates, arguments must be distinguished from adjuncts. While a predicate needs its arguments to complete its meaning, the adjuncts that appear with a predicate are optional, most theories of syntax and semantics acknowledge arguments and adjuncts, although the terminology varies, and the distinction is generally believed to exist in all languages. Dependency grammars sometimes call arguments actants, following Tesnière, the area of grammar that explores the nature of predicates, their arguments, and adjuncts is called valency theory.
Predicates have a valence, they determine the number and type of arguments that can or must appear in their environment, the valence of predicates is investigated in terms of subcategorization. The basic analysis of the syntax and semantics of clauses relies heavily on the distinction between arguments and adjuncts, the clause predicate, which is often a content verb, demands certain arguments. That is, the arguments are necessary in order to complete the meaning of the verb, the adjuncts that appear, in contrast, are not necessary in this sense. The subject phrase and object phrase are the two most frequently occurring arguments of verbal predicates, the old man helped the young man. Each of these sentences contains two arguments, the first noun being the argument, and the second the object argument. Jill, for example, is the argument of the predicate likes. When additional information is added to our three example sentences, one is dealing with adjuncts, e. g. Jill really likes Jack, Jill likes Jack most of the time.
Jill likes Jack when the sun shines, Jill likes Jack because hes friendly. The added phrases are adjuncts, they provide information that is not necessary to complete the meaning of the predicate likes. One key difference between arguments and adjuncts is that the appearance of an argument is often obligatory, whereas adjuncts appear optionally. While typical verb arguments are subject or object nouns or noun phrases as in the examples above, the PPs in bold in the following sentences are arguments, Sam put the pen on the chair. Larry does not put up with that, Bill is getting on my case
Case is a special grammatical category whose value reflects the grammatical function performed by a noun, adjective, participle or numeral in a phrase, clause, or sentence. In some languages, pronouns, determiners, prepositions, numerals and their modifiers take different inflected forms depending on what case they are in. Distinctions can be seen with the pronouns, forms such as I, he and we are used in the role of subject, whereas forms such as me, him. A language may have a number of different cases, commonly encountered cases include nominative, accusative and genitive. A role that one of these languages marks by case will often be marked in English using a preposition, as a language evolves, cases can merge, a phenomenon formally called syncretism. More formally, case has been defined as a system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads, cases should be distinguished from thematic roles such as agent and patient. They are often related, and in languages such as Latin several thematic roles have an associated case.
Languages having cases often exhibit free word order, because thematic roles are not required to be marked by position in the sentence. The English word case used in this sense comes from the Latin casus, the Latin word is a calque of the Greek πτῶσις, ptôsis, lit. falling, fall. The sense is that all cases are considered to have fallen away from the nominative. This picture is reflected in the word declension, from Latin declinere, to lean. The equivalent to case in several other European languages derives from casus, including cas in French, caso in Spanish, the Finnish equivalent is sija, which can mean position or support. Although not very prominent in modern English, cases featured much more saliently in Old English and other ancient Indo-European languages, such as Latin, Ancient Greek, and Sanskrit. Among modern languages, cases still feature prominently in most of the Balto-Slavic languages, with most having six to eight cases, as well as Icelandic and Modern Greek, in German, cases are mostly marked on articles and adjectives, and less so on nouns.
Case is based fundamentally on changes to the noun to indicate the role in the sentence. This is not how English works, where word order and prepositions are used to achieve this, Modern English has largely abandoned the inflectional case system of Indo-European in favor of analytic constructions. The personal pronouns of Modern English retain morphological case more strongly than any other word class, for other pronouns, and all nouns and articles, grammatical function is indicated only by word order, by prepositions, and by the genitive clitic -s. The oblique case, used for the direct or indirect object of a verb, for the object of a preposition, for an absolute disjunct, the genitive case, used for a grammatical possessor
In linguistics, conjugation is the creation of derived forms of a verb from its principal parts by inflection. Agglutinative and polysynthetic languages tend to have the most complex conjugations albeit some fusional languages such as Archi can have extremely complex conjugation, typically the principal parts are the root and/or several modifications of it. All the different forms of the same verb constitute a lexeme, the term conjugation is applied only to the inflection of verbs, and not of other parts of speech. Conjugation is the name for a group of verbs that share a similar conjugation pattern in a particular language. For example, Latin is said to have four conjugations of verbs and this means that any regular Latin verb can be conjugated in any person, tense and voice by knowing which of the four conjugation groups it belongs to, and its principal parts. A verb that does not follow all of the conjugation patterns of the language is said to be an irregular verb. The system of all conjugated variants of a verb or class of verbs is called a verb paradigm.
Indo-European languages usually inflect verbs for several categories in complex paradigms, although some. This is usually the most irregular verb, the similarities in corresponding verb forms may be noticed. Some of the conjugations may be disused, like the English thou-form, or have meanings, like the English you-form. 1 Archaic, used only with the pronoun thou,3 In the bokmål written standard. 4 In the nynorsk written standard and vere are both alternate forms. 6 eínai is only used as a noun,8 In the Tosk and Geg dialects, respectively. 9 Existential, هست has another meaning, usage of is considered to be rural, now. See, Indo-European copula Verbal agreement or concord is a construct in which properties of the subject and/or objects of a verb are indicated by the verb form. Verbs are said to agree with their subjects, many English verbs exhibit subject agreement of the following sort, whereas I go, you go, we go, they go are all grammatical in standard English, she go is not. Instead, a form of the verb to go has to be used to produce she goes.
On the other hand I goes, you goes etc. are not grammatical in standard English
In linguistics, volition is a concept that distinguishes whether the subject, or agent of a particular sentence intended an action or not. Simply, it is the intentional or unintentional nature of an action, volition concerns the idea of control and for the purposes outside of psychology and cognitive science, is considered the same as intention in linguistics. Volition can be expressed in a language using a variety of possible methods. These sentence forms usually indicate that an action has been done intentionally. There are various ways of marking volition cross-linguistically, when using verbs of volition in English, like want or prefer, these verbs are not expressly marked. Other languages handle this with affixes, while others have complex consequences of volitional or non-volitional encoding. The way a particular language expresses volition, or control, in a sentence is not universal, neither is any given linguists approach to volition. Linguists may take a primarily semantic or primarily syntactic approach to understanding volition, still others use a combination of semantics and syntax to approach the problem of volition. A semantic approach to a problem is motivated by the notion that an utterance is composed of many semantic units.
Each of these plays a role in the overall meaning of an utterance. The effect of this is such that when a unit is changed or removed. A semantic approach to volition disregards any structural consequences and focuses primarily on speaker-meaning, for example, when a language uses affixation to encode volition, such as in Sesotho, it is possible to analyze the volitional component while overlooking the structural changes. Such an analysis would simply test the difference with or without the volitional affix. The hallmark of an approach to any problem is that it acknowledges various levels of structure. In his analysis of the Squamish language, Peter Jacobs examines how transitive predicates are marked according to the degree of control an agent has over an event. Jacobs argues that the relationship between a predicate and its interpretation is determined by syntax. As limited control predicates are associated with aspect, a reading is obtained. In these constructions, the speaker conveys that the agent managed to complete something despite a lack of control, with control predicates, the object agreement is associated with the VP, so a non-telic reading is obtained