Can I ask you a question about this assignment I have. The question says: The following sentence has an argument and an adjunct: A New York man shot three men at 12pm. Use though-preposing test to distinguish between the argument and the adjunct. please can you explain
Thanks for revision! But there’s a question: if you say that ‘on the couch’ is an adjunct, how can that be possible for it to appear in the subject position then, when making Passive - ‘The couch was (probably) slept on by Ari.’?
hallo! im currently studying linguistics and here is what my prof has to say about it: there are some sentences that contains OBLIGATORY adverbial/adjunct phrases, so that when removed, the sentence sounds a bit incomplete. Eg, She did not go [to the concert]. [to the concert] is typically an adverbial phrase/adjunct but without it, the sentence is a bit incomplete. Because of this, we call it obligatory adverbial phrase. This allows the phrase to have some object argument features. The concert was not gone to by her. Hope this helps!
Hello! I am not studying linguistics at uni, I am doing it on my own! There is a problem in what you are saying: the verb ‘sleep’ is an ergative verb, so ‘on the couch’ is its adjunct, but the verb ‘go’ is an unaccusative verb and PP is its complement. So, my question is still here: how can a PP adjunct become the subject, as it is not a verb valent?!! Adjuncts cannot be obligatory and that’s the point. If you talk about elements that can’t be dropped out, that means they are complements. Your example: She didn’t go to the concert. ( where ‘she’ is given ‘theme theta role’ and ‘to the concert’ - ‘a goal theta role’, so you can get a sentence like: To the concert went Sarah. (Changed a bit for some reasons, you should know which)! Thanks for your effort to help get the point! :))) as for your sentence ‘The concert was not gone to by her’ sounds rather ungrammatical for Passive is a tool to reduce verb valency dropping ‘agent theta role’, but as she is not the agent of the verb ‘to go’, so cannot appear as ‘by PP’! Unaccusative verbs are passive in their meaning!!! (English is not my native tongue as you might have noticed, but I do hope I know it well enough, though still there are a lot of questions I come across. So, thanks again!
@@user-ti8kp7dd3m mm i guess my point is that its a special case. Most PP adjuncts cannot be passivized, thats true but since languages are never absolute, this kinds of cases do crop up. In any case, [on the bed] is still considered adjunct but as you can see, it does not follow exactly the pattern of passivation like normal object arguments do. Jane ate [the apple] -> [the apple] was eaten by Jane. The boy kicked [the football] --> [the football] was kicked by the boy *She slept [on the bed] --> [On the bed] was slept by her (which sounds odd). So if it helps, if you are strict with the rules of passivation (meaning that you have to shift the entire constituent to the front), the PP adjunct does not fulfil the rules, but if you are ok with relaxing the rules a bit, then its also alright with some linguists to consider it a special case and go along with the term obligatory adverbial phrase. Hope this helps betterrrrrr
Thank you so much ❤ I'm from Morocco and I have an exam soon . That really helped . Very appreciated ❤
How you can know who is the predicator if you have nouns, adjectives, prepositions and verbs? How to know what is in this case?
thank you sooooo much, I have a presentation next week and you saved me!
Thanks for the refresher!
Thaaanks!
What is an "argument" in that grammatical sense, and is there any other easier term for what you're explaining?
Lovely. It's so useful. Thanks
Thank you!
Really appreciate your help, it was wonderful, and this vedio has the best explanations.
Can I ask you a question about this assignment I have.
The question says:
The following sentence has an argument and an adjunct:
A New York man shot three men at 12pm.
Use though-preposing test to distinguish between the argument and the adjunct.
please can you explain
This helped thank you.
Show is an object here.
Jasmine watched the show.
Thanks for revision! But there’s a question: if you say that ‘on the couch’ is an adjunct, how can that be possible for it to appear in the subject position then, when making Passive - ‘The couch was (probably) slept on by Ari.’?
hallo! im currently studying linguistics and here is what my prof has to say about it: there are some sentences that contains OBLIGATORY adverbial/adjunct phrases, so that when removed, the sentence sounds a bit incomplete.
Eg, She did not go [to the concert].
[to the concert] is typically an adverbial phrase/adjunct but without it, the sentence is a bit incomplete. Because of this, we call it obligatory adverbial phrase. This allows the phrase to have some object argument features.
The concert was not gone to by her.
Hope this helps!
Hello! I am not studying linguistics at uni, I am doing it on my own! There is a problem in what you are saying: the verb ‘sleep’ is an ergative verb, so ‘on the couch’ is its adjunct, but the verb ‘go’ is an unaccusative verb and PP is its complement. So, my question is still here: how can a PP adjunct become the subject, as it is not a verb valent?!! Adjuncts cannot be obligatory and that’s the point. If you talk about elements that can’t be dropped out, that means they are complements. Your example: She didn’t go to the concert. ( where ‘she’ is given ‘theme theta role’ and ‘to the concert’ - ‘a goal theta role’, so you can get a sentence like: To the concert went Sarah. (Changed a bit for some reasons, you should know which)! Thanks for your effort to help get the point! :))) as for your sentence ‘The concert was not gone to by her’ sounds rather ungrammatical for Passive is a tool to reduce verb valency dropping ‘agent theta role’, but as she is not the agent of the verb ‘to go’, so cannot appear as ‘by PP’! Unaccusative verbs are passive in their meaning!!! (English is not my native tongue as you might have noticed, but I do hope I know it well enough, though still there are a lot of questions I come across. So, thanks again!
@@user-ti8kp7dd3m mm i guess my point is that its a special case. Most PP adjuncts cannot be passivized, thats true but since languages are never absolute, this kinds of cases do crop up. In any case, [on the bed] is still considered adjunct but as you can see, it does not follow exactly the pattern of passivation like normal object arguments do.
Jane ate [the apple] -> [the apple] was eaten by Jane.
The boy kicked [the football] --> [the football] was kicked by the boy
*She slept [on the bed] --> [On the bed] was slept by her (which sounds odd).
So if it helps, if you are strict with the rules of passivation (meaning that you have to shift the entire constituent to the front), the PP adjunct does not fulfil the rules, but if you are ok with relaxing the rules a bit, then its also alright with some linguists to consider it a special case and go along with the term obligatory adverbial phrase.
Hope this helps betterrrrrr
Great explanation. You made it easy to get it. Thank you
Generative Grammer?