The Dependency Grammar Analysis
The discussion in the preceding section has demonstrated that in order for phrase structure grammars to address inverse copular constructions, they must augment their theoretical apparatus in significant ways. This necessity is due to their almost unanimous assumption that basic clause structure contains a finite VP constituent in English (and many other languages).
In contrast to phrase structure grammars, dependency grammars are NOT challenged by inverse copular constructions in the same way because they do not acknowledge the existence of a predicate VP constituent. Instead, they position the (finite) verb as the root of all clause structure, whereby subject NP and predicative expression are equi-level dependents of this root. What this means for the analysis of inverse copular constructions is that there is no motivation to force these constructions to somehow fit the structure of canonical SCP copular clauses (subject-copula-predicative expression), for there is no predicate VP present to begin with. The following dependency trees illustrate the point:
Since there is no VP constituent present in the sentences with canonical order on the left, there is no reason to add additional theoretic apparatus to accommodate the inverse copular construction on the right. What happens is that the subject and predicative expression switch positions, whereby due to the relatively flat structure, this switch does not result in a discontinuity. The integrity of the basic hierarchical structure remains consistent across the two variants.
Read more about this topic: Inverse Copular Constructions
Famous quotes containing the words dependency, grammar and/or analysis:
“For in all the world there are no people so piteous and forlorn as those who are forced to eat the bitter bread of dependency in their old age, and find how steep are the stairs of another man’s house. Wherever they go they know themselves unwelcome. Wherever they are, they feel themselves a burden. There is no humiliation of the spirit they are not forced to endure. Their hearts are scarred all over with the stabs from cruel and callous speeches.”
—Dorothy Dix (1861–1951)
“Grammar is a tricky, inconsistent thing. Being the backbone of speech and writing, it should, we think, be eminently logical, make perfect sense, like the human skeleton. But, of course, the skeleton is arbitrary, too. Why twelve pairs of ribs rather than eleven or thirteen? Why thirty-two teeth? It has something to do with evolution and functionalism—but only sometimes, not always. So there are aspects of grammar that make good, logical sense, and others that do not.”
—John Simon (b. 1925)
“Ask anyone committed to Marxist analysis how many angels on the head of a pin, and you will be asked in return to never mind the angels, tell me who controls the production of pins.”
—Joan Didion (b. 1934)