Today our task is to discuss BIBER, CONRAD and LEECH's text on Existential there. Please respond to this post.
In term s of syntax, not of semantics, what is the fundamental difference between the grammatical subject and the notional subject in "existential there clauses"?
In my opinion, the fundamental difference is that "there" is a functional word. It developed from the place adverb there, but it no longer has a meaning of place. The notional subject is the noun phrase that funcions logically as the subject of the clause.
There is very cold. (GS) There wasn't anybody here last week. (NS)
In my opinion, the main difference is that the subject in existential there clauses is represented by “there”, functioning as an anticipatory subject , while the notional subject is a logically subject placed towards the end of the clause.
According to what I´ve read The notional subject is the noun phrase that functions as the subject of the clause, being what the clause is about. While Grammatical subject has the function to state the existence/non-existence or occurrence/non-occurrence of something.
Here runs Airan's post I think that is the notional subject is an empty grammatical element as it has no lexical meaning. But still functioning as a subject, or rather, as it is placed before the verb - in declarative sentences - there behaves like a grammatical subject.
So far we have Airan's, Marcia's, Katty's, and Josi's responses.
In all of your responses you have merely quoted the text. As I see it, none of you, with the exception of maybe Katty, who approached the matter more closely, have answered the question. IN TERMS OF SYNTAX, NOT OF SEMANTICS.
THE QUESTION REMAINS! Please consider the SYNTACTIC difference between the two terms which you all have correctly defined based on the text. The answer to my question is not IN the text. You will have to produce it, and use the knowledge we have put up since our first class and the readings we have dealt with so far.
Then, the existencial there - as it developed from the adverb there - is a kind of anticipation of the following noun phrase (typically indefinite) to introduce a new information. It is a way to avoid doubts in the meaning of the sentence (contrast between the adverb there and the existencial there). Am I getting the point?
the existential there has basically two functions. The existential there which no longer has the meaning of place and there as existential is different from the adverb of place in phonologically which the original place meaning is lost and sintatically it function as a subject nore than adverbial.
Airan, yes. Again, the info you present is mainly based on textual linguistics=introduce new information AND on semantics: avoid doubsts in meaning. Of course these fields and perspectives are closely related and even inextricable in language, but the focus of the question is THE SYNTACTIC DIFFERENCE. Of course the order, what comes first, what comes next, is a syntactical fact. However, it does not answer the question.
Responding to Cassia and Bertha: Cassia, you still haven't established the notion of 'notional subject" from which to draw the difference in relation to existential there. Airan's post still remarks the distinction drawing on semantic notions.
Isabella, tell me if I am right, but I do not know how to explain the end of my text. Can you help me? I undestand this is a difference, but I cannot explain if this is the point.
To identify the subject in a sentence, we can use the tag to help. The pronoun we use in the tag, refers to the subject. But if we use a tag in an existential there clause, the pronoun will be the “anticipatory subject”, I mean, there. For example, there is a bird, isn´t there? So, the difference is that the “answer” of the tag is there, and the notional subject, works as the subject but not directly. Besides that, subjects are typically noun phrases, that are minimum composed by a determiner and a noun, while the notional subject is usually an indefinite noun phrase.
Notional subject is a noun phrase functioning as a subject. Existential there, as a grammatical element, can be placed before the verb and also occurs as a subject of a non-finite clause. Is the difference close to those aspects?
Let me know if I understood, In the Grammatical Subject the important is what is happening and in the notional subject the important is what exists, or who is doing the action?
"So, the difference is that the “answer” of the tag is there"
this means that if you draw the tree, .... PLEASE COMPLETE THIS
"and the notional subject, works as the subject but not directly." - The idea that one element works AS another draws on syntax or on the association of syntax WITH semantics? NEW QUESTION: What is the syntactic definition of "subject" of a sentence?
"Besides that, subjects are typically noun phrases, that are minimum composed by a determiner and a noun, while the notional subject is usually an indefinite noun phrase." This is a strictly syntactic description that suggests that "subject" is one thing. Then it adds the adjective "notional" to the concept of "subject. I REPEAT THE QUESTION: What is the syntactic definition of "subject" of a sentence?
Bertha remarks that extistential there is "A GRAMMATICAL ELEMENT". How do you justify the need for a "grammatical element"? What exactly does this particular grammatical element", existential there, DO in the sentence? Why is it "there"? (SORRY, NO PUN INTENDED HERE...)
There is - Verb phrase? A foreigner man in the pub - Noun phrase in the pub - Adjectival Phrase of man - which is a PP - "in" is the preposition and "the pub" is the NP ... ... ...
Josi, these are semantic arguments, linked with meaning, with the logical(=though=idea) connection between what and what else ( BETWEEN WHICH SYNTACTIC ELEMENTS)?
Bertha, if "there" is part of the verb phrase, and supposing the sentence is affirmative, what is the subject of the verb phrase?
Josi, the definition you have provided does not belong to syntax. Furthermore, if the definition is valid, is the subject is still the subject in passive voice VPs?
I believe that in the passive voice the subject changes. For example: The man built that house. Subject= the man. That house was built by the man. Subject=That house. That´s it?
Josi, the answers you provide do not belong to syntax. I recommend that you read again the text by Baker assigned for class 2 so that you clarify your notion of syntax. OF COURSE passive voice CANNOT have as the subject the same lxical item of the corresponding active voice. My previous question was this: if your definition of the "subject " is " what/who DOES sth", it does not matter if the sentence is active or passive, the subject is who/what DOES sth OR IT IS NOT THE SUBJECT OR YET - AND THIS IS MY POINT - YOUR DEFINITION DOES NOT HOLD. The problem is that this definition is neither syntactical nor it holds outside of syntax either. However, what we are discussing here are the following two categories presented by BIBER, CONRAD , LEECH : existential there and notional subject. MY ORIGINAL QUESTION WAS In term s of syntax, not of semantics, what is the fundamental difference between the grammatical subject and the notional subject in "existential there clauses"?
further rephrased as
Please consider the SYNTACTIC difference between the two terms
I thank you all for joining the discussion. I hope you have been teased to go on with the investigation. For the remaining 4 hours to account for the afternoon shift, concentrate on section 12.6, which deals with agreement, and clearly states that THERE is not part of the verb phrase, and explains how verbs behave in existential there constructions.
For next class, please produce the trees you have buit in order to "understand" the syntactic difference between existential there and the notional subject.
An additional teaser: Do BIBER, CONRAD AND LEECH explain anything about "THERE" constructions in sentences like the following?
There still stands on this desk the bowling trophy he won last year.
There ran out of the woods the man we had seen at the picnic.
CLUE: examine the verb in these examples and in the examples in BIBER, CONRAD, LEECH.
I know what syntax is, but I didn´t understand the difference between grammatical and notional subject yet. And I tried to clarify my ideas but I couldn´t yet. I hope that I can understand.
Dear all, I'm happy you're involved with the matter, my posts are provocations, teasers, not aggressions, reprimands, or rebukes.
Josi, both terms are referred to as "subject", only attributed as "grammatical" and "notional", right?
Is the notional subject a grammatical subject? And, again, what is the syntactical definition of the category "subject"? Is notional subject" a syntactic category? Does it show as that in the tree?
ops, it didn't work how it was suposed to... I did the parsing like we did last class but the lay out wrong in may post... I will try in a differente way: EX - there VP - V - is NP - det + N det - a N - man AdjP - foreigner AdjP - PP - P + NP P - in NP - det + N det - the N - pub
I have responded to your requests and questions posted as a commentary to the opening post.
ResponderExcluirIn my opinion, the fundamental difference is that "there" is a functional word. It developed from the place adverb there, but it no longer has a meaning of place. The notional subject is the noun phrase that funcions logically as the subject of the clause.
ResponderExcluirThere is very cold. (GS)
There wasn't anybody here last week. (NS)
In my opinion, the main difference is that the subject in existential there clauses is represented by “there”, functioning as an anticipatory subject , while the notional subject is a logically subject placed towards the end of the clause.
ResponderExcluirAccording to what I´ve read The notional subject is the noun phrase that functions as the subject of the clause, being what the clause is about. While Grammatical subject has the function to state the existence/non-existence or occurrence/non-occurrence of something.
ResponderExcluirHere runs Airan's post
ResponderExcluirI think that is the notional subject is an empty grammatical element as it has no lexical meaning. But still functioning as a subject, or rather, as it is placed before the verb - in declarative sentences - there behaves like a grammatical subject.
So far we have Airan's, Marcia's, Katty's, and Josi's responses.
ResponderExcluirIn all of your responses you have merely quoted the text. As I see it, none of you, with the exception of maybe Katty, who approached the matter more closely, have answered the question.
IN TERMS OF SYNTAX, NOT OF SEMANTICS.
THE QUESTION REMAINS!
Please consider the SYNTACTIC difference between the two terms which you all have correctly defined based on the text.
The answer to my question is not IN the text. You will have to produce it, and use the knowledge we have put up since our first class and the readings we have dealt with so far.
Then, the existencial there - as it developed from the adverb there - is a kind of anticipation of the following noun phrase (typically indefinite) to introduce a new information. It is a way to avoid doubts in the meaning of the sentence (contrast between the adverb there and the existencial there). Am I getting the point?
ResponderExcluirAiran's point still in the SEMANTIC field right?
ResponderExcluirthe existential there has basically two functions. The existential there which no longer has the meaning of place and there as existential is different from the adverb of place in phonologically which the original place meaning is lost and sintatically it function as a subject nore than adverbial.
ResponderExcluirAiran, yes.
ResponderExcluirAgain, the info you present is mainly based on textual linguistics=introduce new information
AND on semantics: avoid doubsts in meaning.
Of course these fields and perspectives are closely related and even inextricable in language, but the focus of the question is THE SYNTACTIC DIFFERENCE. Of course the order, what comes first, what comes next, is a syntactical fact. However, it does not answer the question.
Responding to Cassia and Bertha:
ResponderExcluirCassia, you still haven't established the notion of 'notional subject" from which to draw the difference in relation to existential there.
Airan's post still remarks the distinction drawing on semantic notions.
grammatical subject
ResponderExcluirA foreigner man goes in the pub.
NOUN PHRASE = A MAN
and the notional subject
There is a foreigner man in the pub.
NOUN PHRASE = A FOREIGNER MAN
THERE IS = ?
That's exactly my point. Let's explain this now.
ResponderExcluirCan you draw the tree for each of the sentences in your examples? The TASK is meant for you all!!!!
Isabella, tell me if I am right, but I do not know how to explain the end of my text. Can you help me? I undestand this is a difference, but I cannot explain if this is the point.
ResponderExcluirTo identify the subject in a sentence, we can use the tag to help. The pronoun we use in the tag, refers to the subject. But if we use a tag in an existential there clause, the pronoun will be the “anticipatory subject”, I mean, there. For example, there is a bird, isn´t there?
So, the difference is that the “answer” of the tag is there, and the notional subject, works as the subject but not directly.
Besides that, subjects are typically noun phrases, that are minimum composed by a determiner and a noun, while the notional subject is usually an indefinite noun phrase.
Notional subject is a noun phrase functioning as a subject. Existential there, as a grammatical element, can be placed before the verb and also occurs as a subject of a non-finite clause. Is the difference close to those aspects?
ResponderExcluirLet me know if I understood, In the Grammatical Subject the important is what is happening and in the notional subject the important is what exists, or who is doing the action?
ResponderExcluirMarcia and Bertha
ResponderExcluirI quote Marcia
"So, the difference is that the “answer” of the tag is there"
this means that if you draw the tree, .... PLEASE COMPLETE THIS
"and the notional subject, works as the subject but not directly." - The idea that one element works AS another draws on syntax or on the association of syntax WITH semantics?
NEW QUESTION: What is the syntactic definition of "subject" of a sentence?
"Besides that, subjects are typically noun phrases, that are minimum composed by a determiner and a noun, while the notional subject is usually an indefinite noun phrase."
This is a strictly syntactic description that suggests that "subject" is one thing. Then it adds the adjective "notional" to the concept of "subject.
I REPEAT THE QUESTION: What is the syntactic definition of "subject" of a sentence?
Bertha remarks that extistential there is "A GRAMMATICAL ELEMENT". How do you justify the need for a "grammatical element"? What exactly does this particular grammatical element", existential there, DO in the sentence? Why is it "there"? (SORRY, NO PUN INTENDED HERE...)
I am trying to build the tree...
ResponderExcluirThere is a foreigner man in the pub
There is - Verb phrase?
A foreigner man in the pub - Noun phrase
in the pub - Adjectival Phrase of man - which is a PP - "in" is the preposition and "the pub" is the NP ... ... ...
Katy's sentence:
ResponderExcluirTHERE WASN'T ANYBODY HERE LAST WEEK (S)
THERE WASN'T = first part
ANYBODY HERE LAST WEEK = second part
So, a sentence with existencial there can be followed by a noun phrase?
Josi, these are semantic arguments, linked with meaning, with the logical(=though=idea) connection between what and what else ( BETWEEN WHICH SYNTACTIC ELEMENTS)?
ResponderExcluirBertha, if "there" is part of the verb phrase, and supposing the sentence is affirmative, what is the subject of the verb phrase?
Subject is who/what makes the actions inside the sentence, isn´t it?
ResponderExcluirAiran
ResponderExcluirMUST BE, RIGHT? What is the NP in your example? Still, where does "there" fit in your tree?
Este comentário foi removido pelo autor.
ResponderExcluirJosi, the definition you have provided does not belong to syntax. Furthermore, if the definition is valid, is the subject is still the subject in passive voice VPs?
ResponderExcluirTHERE WASN'T ANYBODY HERE LAST WEEK (S)
ResponderExcluirTHERE WASN'T = VP
ANYBODY = NP
But, in English, we have the order:
S= NP + VP + complement
How do we build these trees then?
That's precisely what I'm, asking you to do!
ResponderExcluirTeacher, I think the THERE modifies the verb IS...
ResponderExcluirI think the subject is "a foreing MAN in the pub" or maybe just "a foreing MAN" or maybe just "MAN"...
I believe that in the passive voice the subject changes. For example: The man built that house. Subject= the man. That house was built by the man. Subject=That house. That´s it?
ResponderExcluirJosi, the answers you provide do not belong to syntax. I recommend that you read again the text by Baker assigned for class 2 so that you clarify your notion of syntax. OF COURSE passive voice CANNOT have as the subject the same lxical item of the corresponding active voice. My previous question was this: if your definition of the "subject " is " what/who DOES sth", it does not matter if the sentence is active or passive, the subject is who/what DOES sth OR IT IS NOT THE SUBJECT OR YET - AND THIS IS MY POINT - YOUR DEFINITION DOES NOT HOLD.
ResponderExcluirThe problem is that this definition is neither syntactical nor it holds outside of syntax either. However, what we are discussing here are the following two categories presented by BIBER, CONRAD , LEECH : existential there and notional subject. MY ORIGINAL QUESTION WAS
In term s of syntax, not of semantics, what is the fundamental difference between the grammatical subject and the notional subject in "existential there clauses"?
further rephrased as
Please consider the SYNTACTIC difference between the two terms
FIVE MORE MINUTES TO GO.
ResponderExcluirI thank you all for joining the discussion. I hope you have been teased to go on with the investigation. For the remaining 4 hours to account for the afternoon shift, concentrate on section 12.6, which deals with agreement, and clearly states that THERE is not part of the verb phrase, and explains how verbs behave in existential there constructions.
For next class, please produce the trees you have buit in order to "understand" the syntactic difference between existential there and the notional subject.
An additional teaser:
Do BIBER, CONRAD AND LEECH explain anything about "THERE" constructions in sentences like the following?
There still stands on this desk the bowling trophy he won last year.
There ran out of the woods the man we had seen at the picnic.
CLUE: examine the verb in these examples and in the examples in BIBER, CONRAD, LEECH.
Enjoy your weekend, it's 25C here in BH.
I know what syntax is, but I didn´t understand the difference between grammatical and notional subject yet. And I tried to clarify my ideas but I couldn´t yet. I hope that I can understand.
ResponderExcluirBerta. I think everybody got notions about the content.
ResponderExcluirI think there modifies the verb is, as there - alone is an adverb... but how? That's the teacher's questions...
There is a foreigner man in the pub
ResponderExcluirEX VP NP – Det + N
there V a man
is AdjP AdjP
Adj PP
foreigner P NP
in the pub
Dear all, I'm happy you're involved with the matter, my posts are provocations, teasers, not aggressions, reprimands, or rebukes.
ResponderExcluirJosi, both terms are referred to as "subject", only attributed as "grammatical" and "notional", right?
Is the notional subject a grammatical subject? And, again, what is the syntactical definition of the category "subject"? Is notional subject" a syntactic category? Does it show as that in the tree?
ops, it didn't work how it was suposed to...
ResponderExcluirI did the parsing like we did last class but the lay out wrong in may post...
I will try in a differente way:
EX - there
VP - V - is
NP - det + N
det - a
N - man
AdjP - foreigner
AdjP - PP - P + NP
P - in NP - det + N
det - the N - pub
Keep going, Airan, please everybody review and contribute to Airan's suggestion of tree design.
ResponderExcluirAiran's suggestion? What suggestion?
ResponderExcluircheck his description of a tree, that is the su ggestion. and now, please, all, keep track of Bertha's suggestion too.
ResponderExcluiryou can try to draw your tree, save it as jpg or any image format, post it on your blog and leave the link here so that we all can follow it.
MY MISTAKE the tree description was posted by Bertha only. My apologies.
ResponderExcluirand still, what modifies a verb is an adverb, and it is established that there in existential there constructions is not an adverb.
I don't know about you, bur I love the chase...