Syntactic Rules Analysis

2078 Words 9 Pages
Analysis of Syntactic Rules Every language has many syntactic rules that govern how sentences should be formed. These syntactic rules not only help speakers of that language consistently generate grammatical sentences in their mind, they also allow them to identify those that are ungrammatical. However, not every speaker is consciously aware of all the syntactic rules he or she follows. Sometimes speakers learn these rules subconsciously as they gain experience in using their language. They learn which sentence structures are acceptable in certain situations, and they also learn which sentences are ungrammatical syntactically even though they are comprehensible semantically. Nevertheless, it is important for language speakers to understand …show more content…
The placement of complicated adjective phrase
2. Transformation of a complicated determiner phrase following the form “that + a sentence”
3. Dative alternation and the placement of direct and indirect pronouns
4. The placement of simple vs complicated determiner phrases
Although these linguistic patterns can be explained with different syntactic rules, they all follow a similar motivation to help ease our comprehension of sentences with complicated constituents.
When we analyze sentences in English, we begin with understanding certain morphemes. We then combine these morphemes to form constituents that function as a single unit. We often follow syntactic rules that tells us how we should combine these morphemes. If we combine the morphemes differently, we would often come to an ungrammatical sentence. Consider the following sentences:
(1) A. The party is looking for a capable candidate.
B. *The party is looking for a candidate capable.
C. *The party is looking for a capable of winning candidate.
D. The party is looking for a candidate capable of
…show more content…
Without either one of them, the verb gave would not make sense. For example, both I gave Bill Weathersby. and I gave a pony. are ungrammatical. Additionally, the sentences above follow either the structure “I gave + Indirect Object + Direct Object” or the structure “I gave + Direct Object + to + Indirect Object”, which is a case of dative alternation displayed in sentence A and B. However, the issue occurs when we try to use direct and indirect object pronouns in these sentence structures. First, many people would agree that when the direct and indirect object pronoun are the same, we should avoid using both direct and indirect object pronoun in a sentence. The sentence would become confusing and the hearer would not be able to distinguish direct and indirect object pronoun. For example, consider the sentence I gave the dog a bone. If we use it for both the dog and a bone, the sentence would become I gave it it, which is confusing and ungrammatical. Now let’s consider sentence C, D, E, and F. In sentence C, the pronoun ’im is used to represent Bill Weathersby, and it is grammatical. However, when ’im shifts to the back of the sentence in sentence D, the sentence becomes ungrammatical. A similar situation is observed in sentence D and F. In sentence F, the pronoun it is a pony, but when it shifts to the back of the sentence in

Related Documents