verbal phrase parsing

[donnach]

What's the main verb in the following sentences:

She's looking after the kids.

1. 'is looking after' is the verb?

I've decided to give up smoking.

2. 'have decided' is the verb?

3. 'to give up' is an infinitive serving as object of 'decided'?

4. 'smoking' is the gerund object of verbal 'to give up'?

Thanks,

Donna

[fluffyhamster]

Although 'to look after sb' is phrasal in nature (and far more of a semantic unit to my mind than, for example, 'to look (at)', which is given inconsistent treatment in the LDOCE4 at least*), for the purposes of parsing it seems that the main verb is only considered to be 'looking' and that the 'after the kids' is a prepositional phrase making up the remainder of the sentence. But then, if we said it's by rights She/is/looking after//the kids rather than She/is/looking//after/the kids, then would we by analogy be stuck with She/is/looking at/the painting, structurally speaking?

BTW, are you aware of this, Donna?
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?t=2611

For 2-4, your analysis seems correct (as the parser mentioned above will confirm), but again, 'have decided' is a verb phrase rather than a verb, in which 'decided' is the main verb; 'to give up smoking' as a whole is a subordinate clause (calling it an object may be OK, but if you substituted 'something' I'd then want to know what it is that you have specifically decided to... (or that you will..., or on ...ing (etc?)), so 'to decide sthg' is sort of dictionaryese that is too opaque for real life or, I would argue, even parsing!

Sorry, just half-thinking aloud here about what grammatical terminology I myself use comfortably and consistently, 'object' to me ends up needing to be something more concrete than a subordinate clause - 'smoking' (or cigarettes, tobacco etc) is better in this regard for me (as a "genuine" object of '...to give up ~'); that is, in conversation, somebody could suddenly shout, 'OK, I've decided - (it's) potatoes!' (=that we're gonna have for dinner), or something, which is most certainly an object following the verb 'decide' LOL.

*Search the entry for 'look' in the LDOCE4 online and note the examples at sub-entry number 1, then at the "phrasal verb" entry about halfway down the page.
http://pewebdic2.cw.idm.fr/

[donnach]

Thanks, I did take a look at the Longman's entry you mentioned and bookmarked both sites.
But, my question to you now is, how can 'to give up smoking' be a subordinate clause? It starts with a coordinate conjunction and has no subject. And what would the verb be in that clause, 'give'?

Thanks,

Donna

And, what would be the use for naming something a phrasal verb if it isn't included in the verb phrase when parsing? I am sure there is a use, I just don't know what it is.

[fluffyhamster]

But, my question to you now is, how can 'to give up smoking' be a subordinate clause? It starts with a coordinate conjunction and has no subject. And what would the verb be in that clause, 'give'?

Oops, I should've probably said something like dependent/embedded non-finite thingy (clause? See below) acting as a complement of 'decided'. (I knew my thinking about objects would get me all confused, because the optionality of the complement there after 'decided' put a break of sorts into my thinking). Are complement clauses a type of subordinate clause (it doesn't help that non-finite clauses are often called, well, clauses rather than "embedded constituent phrases of a larger unit")?* Or maybe I am "thinking" (groping?) my way towards less traditional analyses which 'assign every verb its own clause' (paraphrasing stuff that Trask wrote here, I can type it up if you like, and see what you make of it). (All of this is of course just a way of saying that I agree (having been helpfully reminded by you!) that clauses usually have (=need) a subject and finite verb (if they are to stand alone as independent clauses)).

Anyway, take some or all of what I say with a pinch of salt from now on and wait instead for grammar boffs like ouyang or SJ to come along and set you (or rather me!) straight!

And, what would be the use for naming something a phrasal verb if it isn't included in the verb phrase when parsing? I am sure there is a use, I just don't know what it is.

I'd like to know, too!

Boy, it's like I at least need a complete grammar refresher course! (The problem though is in finding the one book which really nails all this stuff...my grasp therefore remains shaky at best).

*Trask implies so by referring in the entry SUBORDINATE CLAUSE to COMPLEMENT CLAUSE, and in the latter noting the possibility of less traditional analyses (continue reading the main text of this post now!).

[donnach]

What you are saying does help me and is appreciated. It's just a weenie bittie smidge about my head, like a parrot trying to communicate with a high schooler, that's all. And I can be a persistent question-asker. I may squawk a lot but I'll learn it eventually!

[fluffyhamster]

If anyone's a parrot around here, it's me, Donna! (I tell you what A said, but usually it's only ever a few scattered phrases - I need to stick with each grammar book the whole way through and learn their complete language(s)/terms until I really have mastered them!). I think you'll soon be teaching me a thing or two if you keep your current rate of research up!

[fluffyhamster]

And, what would be the use for naming something a phrasal verb if it isn't included in the verb phrase when parsing? I am sure there is a use, I just don't know what it is.

Actually, this is one more example of how terminology isn't always as clear as it seems (that is, it is not immediately obvious that verb+verb(+verb, up to five elements, remember) is a different kind of "verb phrase" to the more technical (generative?) use of 'verb phrase/VP' (which is virtually equivalent to the predicate (i.e. verb(s) and its/their complementation, as a glance at the topmost VP node in the trees produced by the parser linked to above will show); so the concept 'verb phrase' is not as simple as, say, 'noun phrase', and is certainly not always to be taken as meaning a combination of 'verb' plus 'phrase'. (Then there is SFG's use of 'groups' as opposed to 'phrases').

Note however that although 'the predicate of a sentence is always a VP, VPs* can also occur in non-predicate position': Wanting to try on some bikinis, Susie looked for the changing room.

*That's what Trask calls the item that comes before the comma in the example there, even though it is detached from the VP proper! (What would you call it? A non-finite verb phrase? A non-finite adverbial phrase, or clause? Or a participle clause? Aargh!!! ).

[fluffyhamster]

First, a quick recap:

What's the main verb in the following sentences:
I've decided to give up smoking.
2. 'have decided' is the verb?
3. 'to give up' is an infinitive serving as object of 'decided'?
4. 'smoking' is the gerund object of verbal 'to give up'?

For 2-4, your analysis seems correct (as the parser mentioned above will confirm), but again, 'have decided' is a verb phrase rather than a verb, in which 'decided' is the main verb; 'to give up smoking' as a whole is a subordinate clause

But, my question to you now is, how can 'to give up smoking' be a subordinate clause? It starts with a coordinate conjunction and has no subject. And what would the verb be in that clause, 'give'?

(See below the vvv, and my following post, regarding this, all I'll say right here is that 'give up' is again a pretty tight semantic unit, like 'look after' before).

Oops, I should've probably said something like dependent/embedded non-finite thingy (clause? See below) acting as a complement of 'decided'.

OK, now for the actual post!
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Hi again, Donna! I've just dug out the two books that will make it much clearer quite where I was coming from, and should therefore provide you with a better, fuller answer:

To-clause To-clauses (sometimes called infinitive clauses) are non-finite subordinate* clauses with a variety of roles. They are mainly complement clauses, completing the meaning of a verb, adjective or noun in the main clause.
1) To-clauses completing the meaning of the verb function as direct object, subject complement or subject in the main clause. They are particularly common in direct object position: He likes to knit quickly; She hadn't planned to cook tonight; She always remembers to smile.

catenative (n. & adj.) (A lexical verb) that is capable of linking with a following verb.

(a) Strictly, with a directly following dependent verb e.g. want (to go); begin (walking); get (hurt).

[Chance juxtapositions are not catenative. Contrast: We stopped + to talk to the old man (=in order to talk) with We stopped talking to the old man (catenative); You only helped me + to satisfy your own conscience (=in order to satisfy) with You only helped me to answer one question (catenative)**

(b) (Popularly.) More widely, including the above types of verb and similar verbs with an object e.g. want (them to go); watch (them go/going); have (the house painted).

Some of these are classified in different ways in different grammars.]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

main verb ..... In a catenative verb phrase, the first lexical verb is the main verb: I have been meaning to telephone you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to-infinitive ... The to-infinitive (or a to-infinitive clause) is used: after many catenative verbs (I want to know); .....

* At the entry for 'Subordinate clause' Pearce states that they are also known as dependent clauses.

** Note that catenatives do not need a 'to' intervening between them and the verb following them. You might like to try removing it (and perhaps also any intervening object) from all four of these examples (including from the supposedly non-catenative, as well as the supposedly catenative, in the latter pair of contrasting examples) and seeing if the results are acceptable and meaningful.

[fluffyhamster]

Actually, it seems a bit wierd to me to say that the main verb in a catenative verb phrase is the first one, where a complement is or seems obligatory:

*I want
I want to know

*I've been meaning
I've been meaning to call

*I meant (but ellipted 'to say' meaning would be OK: I mean(t), it's just...)
I meant to call

In independent verb phrases the final (or sole) verb is the main verb, and it might simplify things to call the final verb in at least* obligatory verb complements the main verb also - or am I missing something here?

Then again, in speech there are pauses, and sometimes listings, that can break things up:

I meant...to call...to telephone...are synonyms... ( )

I'll stop being silly now.

*There can't be that many examples of non-catenative "chance juxtapositions", can there? And then (like I implied in my previous post), I wonder how many are actually processed in only the one way or the other (versus in a "grey thoughtless blur"). (Obviously, examples like 'We stopped talking to the old man' are only processed in one way because they can only form the indivisible unit for that particular meaning).

[donnach]

Wanting to try on some bikinis, Susie looked for the changing room.

*That's what Trask calls the item that comes before the comma in the example there, even though it is detached from the VP proper! (What would you call it? A non-finite verb phrase? A non-finite adverbial phrase, or clause? Or a participle clause? Aargh!!! ).

[/quote]

I would call "wanting to try on some bikinis" a present participial (and therefore adjectival) phrase modifying Susie. On the phrase level 'wanting' has a noun object "to try on" , which is itself composed of the infinitive 'to' plus the stem 'try' plus 'on' because 'try on' is a phrasal verb, and 'bikini' is the object, on the phrase level, of 'to try on'.
What thinks you about my parsing?

I do not see 'wanting' as a gerund subject and 'to try on' as a verb, which is how I would have to see it, from what I've learned so far, in order to call it any type of clause, since how I've learned it is that a clause always requires both a subject and a verb.

What do you think?

Donna

[fluffyhamster]

Heh, I wasn't really being too serious there with my "test" there (having bunged it on the end of the post as a footnote). But how you've analyzed everything seems fine, actually it's pretty much exactly how ouyang would:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewt ... 7045#37045

[fluffyhamster]

the Comprehensive Grammar (cf. p. 1156) explicitly mentions two complementary analyses of verb-preposition combinations, so that a sentence like 'She looked after her son' can be analysed either as 'S-V-A' ('She - looked - after her son') or as 'S-V-O' ('She - looked after - her son').

http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/13/13-1853.html