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:
“Fate forces its way to the powerful and violent. With subservient obedience it will assume for years dependency on one individual: Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon, because it loves the elemental human being who grows to resemble it, the intangible element. Sometimes, and these are the most astonishing moments in world history, the thread of fate falls into the hands of a complete nobody but only for a twitching minute.”
—Stefan Zweig (18811942)
“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)
“Cubism had been an analysis of the object and an attempt to put it before us in its totality; both as analysis and as synthesis, it was a criticism of appearance. Surrealism transmuted the object, and suddenly a canvas became an apparition: a new figuration, a real transfiguration.”
—Octavio Paz (b. 1914)