## Discontinuity in English

## Introduction

In this paper we offer a sample of the grammar of English that we are presently writing for the Danish Research Council for the Humanities. The section that we have chosen to present here is on discontinuity - a topic  that  rarely  receives  separate  attention,  even  in  comprehensive grammars of English. Before letting our readers loose on this exciting topic, we would like to offer a brief characterization of the descriptive framework within which our presentation appears.

First of all a note on the syntactic system used in our grammar. We employ a simple form-function notation (for an introduction see Bache elsewhere in this  volume,  Bache  et  al.  1993,  or  Bache  &  DavidsenNielsen  1996).  Discontinuity  is  marked  explicitly  in  the  system  by means of hyphens , as in the following examples:

## (1) Ildiko did not send the letter last night.

<!-- image -->

* Carl Bache Institute of Language and Communication Odense University Campusvej 55 DK-5230  Odense M
* Niels Davidsen-Nielsen Department of English Copenhagen Business School Dalgas Have 15 DK-2000  Frederiksberg

## (2) Have they ever met Francis?

<!-- image -->

## (3) What did she consent to ?

<!-- image -->

In  these  examples,  right-hyphenation  (i.e.  hyphenation after a  label, such as P:g- in example (1)) indicates a discontinuous relationship between the unit it represents in the tree ( did ) and a unit in the subsequent linguistic context ( send ), identically labelled but with left-hyphenation (i.e. a hyphen before the label, such as -P:g in example (1)). Notice that although each part of a discontinous constituent may consist only of one word, as in all of the examples above, we have not yet reached the word level in our analysis of the discontinuous constituent (hence the use of triangles). The internal relationship of the parts that have been separated remains to be specified, exactly as in continuous constituents.

The second point we wish to make before offering our section on discontinuity concerns the general condition of linearity imposed on language. Linearity is obviously an important factor in the organization of  language:  since simultaneity of  expression  is  excluded,  we  can predict that, in compensation, elements that somehow 'belong together' will be placed as closely together in the sequence as possible. Consider e.g. the following sentences:

- (4) Alex, Stephanie and Roger went sailing this morning.
- (5) She almost enjoyed the warm stale sweet air.

In (4) Alex , Stephanie and Roger belong together (in that they all took part in the event expressed by the rest of the sentence, i.e. they all went sailing),  but  since  we  cannot  express  them  simultaneously  they  are instead  placed  as  closely  together  as  possible.  The  same  applies  to warm , stale and sweet in  the  examples  in  (5):  they  belong  together because they perform the same function in the sentence, namely that of describing air .  As  they  cannot  be  expressed  simultaneously  but  are forced into a sequence, they are at least placed closely together. Given the condition of linearity, it is thus in a sense natural that words that belong  together  should  be  placed  together  in  the  sequence  of  words making  up  the  sentence.  In  this  way  we  can  say  that  the  necessary linearity  in  the  organization  of  language  leads  to  the  principle  of proximity . On the basis of this principle we choose as our descriptive point of departure to regard continuity as more basic than discontinuity .

The third and final point concerns constituent order. In our grammar we  operate  with  the  following  seven  basic  sentence  structures  (involving obligatory constituents only):

| Structure   | Examples                                        |
|-------------|-------------------------------------------------|
| S P         | Nothing happened.                               |
| S P A       | He squeezed between two motor-cars.             |
| S P O       | You must persuade her.                          |
| S P Cs      | She proved surprisingly uncooperative.          |
| S P Oi Od   | You do me a very great honour.                  |
| S P O Co    | He had knocked two opponents totally senseless. |
| S P O A     | We must put some flesh on your bones.           |

These structures are all declarative, active and positive.

Since we have chosen continuity and the seven structures as basic, any  instance  of  discontinuity  and/or  departure  from  the  constituent order  in  the  seven  structures  requires  careful  explanation.  Thus,  for example, a sentence like Jack I never met , which has the order O S (A) P, and which differs from the basic S (A) P O pattern in having a fronted object, is explained in terms of thematization: the object is a marked theme. Similarly, in Ildiko did not send the letter last night with the discontinous predicator did ... send , the discontinuity is explained with reference to polarity: standard clausal negation in English is achieved by letting the adjunct NOT intervene between the operator and the rest of P,  thereby  creating  discontinuity  in  P.  If  there  is  no  operator,  DO is inserted as a dummy operator (DO-support). Note that since NOT is an optional  adjunct,  standard  clausal  negation  does  not  affect  the  basic constituent  order  in  the  example:  both  the  positive  and  the  negative version conform to the S P O pattern.

But discontinuity often causes a change also in the basic constituent order.  Thus  in Is  Sally  telling  the  truth? ,  we  have  a  combination  of discontinuity ( Is ... coming ) and inversion of constituent order (P- S -P O). By moving the operator to a position in front of the subject, thereby creating both discontinuity and a change of basic constituent order, we form a YES/NO-interrogative.

With these introductory remarks we now proceed to the section on discontinuity in our grammar, section 5.6, which is the final section in our chapter on constituent order (chapter 5). We offer the section in full, and, except for a few corrections of typological errors and inconsistencies, exactly as it stands in Bache & Davidsen-Nielsen 1996. Crossreferences to other parts of Bache & Davidsen-Nielsen 1996 have been retained.

## 5.6. Discontinuity

It has been pointed out earlier that the forms realizing a constituent tend to stay together rather than to be interrupted by other constituents but that  this  principle  is  often  defeated  by  other  principles  (illocutionary value, highlighting, increasing complexity). In the following sections we shall examine the types of discontinuity found in English and the conditions under which discontinuity occurs.

5.6.1 Discontinuous  clauses .  Arguably  we  have  discontinuous clauses in cases like:

John , I think, never returned to Ireland .

This ,  he  claimed, was  caused  by  the  inefficient  handling  of young criminals .

This continued , she told me, for several minutes .

These sentences contain parenthetical 'matrix clauses' with verbs of conviction or communication. It is tempting to analyse such sentences in terms of discontinuous object clauses, as in e.g.:

<!-- image -->

This proposal reflects our interpretation of the discontinuous clause as somehow the 'logical' object of the verb of conviction or communication.  By  adopting  this  analysis  we  capture  the  obvious  relationship between such examples and continuous alternative expressions like:

I think (that) John never returned to Ireland .

He claimed (that) this was caused by the inefficient handling of young criminals .

She told me (that) this continued for several minutes .

In these examples, it seems, the only possible analysis of the italicized part  is  O:cl.  Note,  however,  that  there  is  a  significant  difference  between the two sets of examples: unlike the continuous object clauses, the discontinuous ones cannot be supplied with an explicit marker of subordination (e.g. *That John, I think, never returned to Ireland ). Thus while the status of the clause as a subclause is clear in the continuous examples, it is at least questionable in the discontinuous examples. Another, related problem with the proposed analysis of the discontinuous cases is that it does not reflect the parenthetical status of the 'matrix'.

If we want to reflect the parenthetical nature of the 'matrix', this can be done by assigning to it instead the status of dependent, adverbial clause  in  relation  to  the  rest  of  the  sentence,  which  accordingly  is analysed as a discontinuous clausal function stack:

<!-- image -->

This analysis, according to which it is the discontinuous clause that is the matrix clause rather than the subclause, is supported by the fact that the parenthetical clause, like many adverbials (e.g. probably ),  can be deleted without this affecting the status or grammaticality of the rest of the sentence ( John never returned to Ireland ).

The only way to avoid recognizing discontinuity in such examples is to treat the parenthetical clauses simply as fully integrated adverbials (like e.g. never ).  But such an analysis is clearly less revealing of the relationships involved than the other proposals.

In relative subclauses there is further evidence for an interpretation involving discontinuous clauses in connection with verbs of conviction or communication. Consider the following examples:

The house that you told me Jack built last year is now put up for sale.

I bought the book that you suggested I should read .

The passage which  he  thought  he  had  referred  me  to had  been  removed.

The discontinuity is here caused by the relativization and fronting of an object or prepositional complement, as in the last example, where we have two discontinuities (a clause and a preposition group):

<!-- image -->

The  subject  and  predicator  are  here  not  as  readily  interpreted  as parenthetical as in main clauses. For this reason, they can hardly be assigned adverbial status.

In interrogative sentences, we get discontinuous clauses in cases like the following:

When did you say he would arrive?

Why did he say she left her husband?

How did you say she packed the suitcase?

Such sentences are strictly ambiguous: the question relates either to the first predicator or to the second, i.e. 'when did you say' or 'when would he arrive'; 'why did he say' or 'why did she leave her husband'; 'how did  you  say'  (e.g.  angrily  or  impatiently)  or  'how  did  she  pack  the suitcase'. If the question relates to the first predicator, there is no clausal discontinuity:

<!-- image -->

If,  however,  the  question  relates  to  the  second  predicator  (i.e.  if  the underlying question is 'why did she leave her husband?', rather than 'why did he say anything about it?), we have a discontinuous clause:

<!-- image -->

The  interesting  feature  of  such  interrogative  sentences  is  that  the question word (e.g. why )  triggers (or attracts) subject-operator inver- sion in the matrix clause, not the subclause, no matter which it relates to semantically. Thus, even when the interpretation is such that we assume an  underlying  question  'why  did  she  leave  her  husband'  rather  than 'why did he say anything about it?', we do not actually say *Why he said did she leave her husband . This, however, fits nicely with the lack of subject-operator inversion in corresponding continuous interrogative subclauses:

He wondered why she left her husband .

Having discussed discontinuous finite clauses, we turn now to discontinuous non-finite clauses. Corresponding to cases with verbs of conviction or communication like John, I think, never returned to Ireland , we get non-finite clauses with a fronted, topicalized constituent of the following type:

John he believed to have returned to Ireland .

This  sentence  is  derived  from He believed John to have returned to Ireland . Notice that the subject-predicator sequence he believed cannot here  be  interpreted  as  parenthetical: *John,  he  believed,  to  have returned to Ireland . There is thus no possibility of analysing he believed as an adverbial.

Topicalization  of  a  constituent  in  a  non-finite  object  clause  may cause discontinuity, irrespective of the nature of the verb in the finite predicator:

This vase I want you to sell to the Americans .

The old lady they saw climbing the stairs with difficulty .

Such  examples  (derived  from I  want  you  to  sell  this  vase  to  the Americans and They saw the old lady climbing the stairs with difficulty ) are fairly marked. Embedded in relative clauses, however, where such topicalization is inbuilt, as it were, we find unmarked cases:

You won't like the essay which you wanted me to submit .

<!-- image -->

As pointed out in section 5.2.3, part of a message may be postponed in order to highlight it and achieve end-weight. This was illustrated by an example like It worries me that the children have not returned (Sp P O Sr),  in  which  the  clause  realizing  the  subject  is  replaced  by  the substitute form it and moved to the end of the sentence. Extraposition, however, is not the only way in which end-focus and end-weight can be achieved. Instead of moving an entire subject clause to the end of the sentence it is possible to divide it and place the part of it following its subject in final position. This happens with TO-infinitive clauses:

- (1) He is believed to be guilty .
- (2) The Kremlin could not be expected to comply with agreements reached under those circumstances .
- (3) She is known to behave rather badly .
- (4) I happen to know him well .
- (5) John seems to take his job too much to heart .
- (6) Alfred appears to be hungry .
- (7) His explanation was hard to believe .

Such  discontinuity  (traditionally  referred  to  as  'nominative  with infinitive') is found in passive sentences (such as (1) to (3)) with verbs like ALLOW, BELIEVE, EXPECT, FIND, HOLD (in the sense of 'consider'), KNOW, SUPPOSE and THINK, in active sentences (such as (4) to (6)) with verbs like APPEAR, HAPPEN, SEEM and in sentences with complements (such as (7)) realized by adjectives (or adjective groups) like DIFFICULT, HARD, EASY, SIMPLE. While extraposition of an entire subject clause is largely  optional  (compare  examples  like It  would  be  awkward  to  go now and To  go  now  would  be  awkward ),  final  placement  of  the predicator  and  any  following  constituents  of  TO-infinitive  clauses  is obligatory  in  examples  like  the  ones  given  above.  For  instance, structures like *He to be guilty is believed and *Alfred to be hungry appears are ungrammatical.

While  end-focus  and  end-weight  are  achieved  both  by  means  of extraposition and by means of discontinuity, the latter strategy serves the  additional  purpose  of  highlighting  the  subject  of  the  subordinate clause  through  placement  initially  in  the  sentence.  For  example,  the speaker gives more prominence to Alfred in choosing Alfred appears to be hungry than It appears that Alfred is hungry .

It does not go without saying that it is the entire TO-infinitive clause which functions as subject in the type of examples discussed here, and that discontinuity is thus in fact involved. It would not be far-fetched to assume instead that it is the (pro)nominal element preceding the finite verb which functions as subject, i.e. that the subject of an example like She is known to behave rather badly is  realized  by  the  pronoun She exclusively. In favour of such an analysis it could be argued that the subject of a nonfinite clause normally takes the objective case (as in I want him to go ) and that this is not the case here. Furthermore, there is concord of number and person, not between the TO-infinitive clause and the finite verb but between the initial element and the finite verb. The type of construction we find is I happen to know him well , not * I/Me happens to know him well , and as subject clauses count as 3rd person singular  for  concord,  this  is  an  argument  against  a  clausal  subject analysis. Thirdly, it is clearly the (pro)noun alone, not the combination of the (pro)noun and infinitive construction which constitutes the topic of the utterance.

Semantically, however, it is clearly the state of affairs described by the entire TO-infinitive clause which is specified by the finite verb. In He is believed to be guilty ,  for  example,  it  is  not  'he'  but  'he  to  be guilty' that is believed. In favour of a clausal subject analysis it may be argued syntactically that there are closely related structures in which it is  rather  obviously  the  entire  clause  which  functions  as  a  sentence constituent.  Corresponding  to  the  passive  sentences  there  are  often active sentences in which a continuous TO-infinitive clause functions as the object ('accusative with infinitive'):

The judge believes him to be guilty

.

We know her to behave rather badly .

Corresponding to  the  active  sentences,  similarly,  there  are  sentences with extraposition in which a continuous THAT-clause functions as the real subject:

It seems that John takes his job too much to heart.

It (so) happens that I know him well. It appears that Alfred is hungry.

For these reasons a clausal subject analysis is here preferred to a nonclausal one. That the subject of the discontinuous TO-infinitive clause takes the subjective rather than the objective case and determines the number and person of the finite verb is assumed to be due to the special condition  that  it  appears  in  the  position  normally  reserved  for  the subject  of  finite  verbs.  The  choice  of  the  subjective  rather  than  the objective case seems to be motivated by position rather than function.

Note  also  that  if  the  subject  test  'Who  or  what  P?'  mentioned  in section 3.2.2 is applied to examples of the type discussed in this section, it will show their subject to be the entire TO-infinitive clause. Applied to sentences like John is believed to be guilty and Alfred appears to be hungry ,  for  instance,  the  questions  'Who  or  what  is  believed?'  and 'Who or what appears?' have to be answered by 'That John is guilty' and 'That Alfred is hungry' and cannot meaningfully be answered by 'John' and 'Alfred' alone.

Since it looks as if the subject of the subordinate clause has been 'raised' into the main clause - note that it displays the defining subject characteristics  A  through  D  mentioned  in  section  3.2.2  -  the  term subject  raising is  used  by  many  grammarians  in  their  account  of sentences of the type discussed in this section.

Discontinuity  is  occasionally  also  found  in  passive  sentences  in which the predicator of the subject clause is an ing participle:

As in the  case  of  the  passive  TO-infinitive  clauses  there  is  an  active parallel here too:

They heard the girl screaming.

As  the  goal  against  which  the  event  described  by heard is  directed appears to be the event described by the girl screaming rather than the person referred to by the girl , it is reasonable to assume that the object is here clausal. In this analysis, the subject of the corresponding passive sentence may be assumed to be the discontinuous ing participle clause The girl ... screaming .

5.6.2 Discontinuous verb groups . Verb groups are very frequently discontinuous.  In  the  first  place  this  is  the  case  in  all interrogative sentences except YES-NO questions with BE as main verb, wh -questions in which the interrogative pronoun realizes (part of) the subject and tag questions (in which the main verb is ellipted):

Did she ever spend the money I gave her?

Is n't there supposed to be a reading here in about twenty minutes?

What will you have ?

How would you suggest that I get in touch with her?

As  pointed  out  in  section  5.2.2,  the  function  of  subject-predicator inversion is here to signal the illocutionary value of the utterance as being typically that of a question. And as the type of inversion involved is partial (see section 5.3.3), verb groups are consistently discontinuous in interrogative sentences.

This is also the case in negative sentences , in which the operator is separated from the rest of the verb group by the negative adverb NOT, and in sentences where other adverbials are placed after the operator:

You have n't missed much.

Other than the title, I do n't know a thing about your book.

I' ve never trusted hand squashers.

I' m only joking .

A  much  less  important  source  of  discontinuity  is  the fronting  of predication stacks illustrated by examples like the following (repeated from our discussion of this subject in section 5.3.7 above):

[ Standing around in the shops] were heavily bearded Jews with long gaberdine coats, wearing thick boots.

Finally, verb groups can be viewed as discontinuous in cases like the following:

Mary called the man up .

Miranda waited diligently on the Wilson family.

They put her behaviour down to lack of confidence.

The incident reminded me of her warning.

Sam cut his sermon short .

For discussion of such complex predicators, see sections 4.3.1 - 4.3.4.

5.6.3 Discontinuous noun and pronoun groups .  While  premodifiers are hardly ever separated from their heads in noun groups, postmodifiers are sometimes postponed in order to observe the principles of end-focus  and  end-weight,  i.e.  for  reasons  of information  structure . Since  postmodifying  clauses  are  typically  longer  and  heavier  than postmodifying  groups,  it  is  mainly  clausal  postmodifiers  which  are separated from their head noun or pronoun. As illustrated by the following  examples,  these  may  be  so-called  appositive  THAT-clauses  (i.e. clauses  which  are  referentially  equivalent  to  the  preceding  head), relative clauses, ing participle clauses and TO-infinitive clauses:

- (1) The rumour spread that the King had been beheaded.
- (2) Peter met a girl/someone last night who lives in Tasmania .
- (3) I saw a woman yesterday carrying a dead baby in her arms .
- (4) The time has come to evict the squatters from our premises .

In (1) and (4) the subject noun (or pronoun) group is so long and heavy and the rest of the sentence (the part realizing the predicator) so short and light that the principle of increasing complexity would be grossly violated  if  the  postmodifying  clauses  were  not  postponed,  i.e.  these sentences would be completely off balance without discontinuity. In (2) and  (3),  on  the  other  hand,  discontinuity  could  be  avoided  without throwing the sentence off balance by moving the adverbial to the initial position,  e.g. Last  night  Peter  met  a  girl/someone  who  lives  in Tasmania . But if the speaker does not wish to give prominence to this part of the message, and if the person named Peter constitutes his communicative point of departure and is thus the topic of his utterance (see section 3.2.2), such fronting would run counter to his communicative intentions.

Like postmodifying clauses, postmodifying groups may be separated from  their  head  noun/pronoun  in  order  to  achieve  end-focus  or  for reasons of end-weight. As appears from the next examples, both preposition groups and nominal modifiers may be postponed in this way:

The entire crew/Everybody has drowned except the captain of the ship .

What business is that of his ?

I pressed the trigger and a hole appeared in his forehead the size of a quarter .

Postponed preposition groups often denote exception and begin with EXCEPT, BUT, SAVE, EXCLUDING or APART FROM.

Not only clauses and groups but also single words may be separated from the noun/pronoun they postmodify. For example, emphatic self -forms (HIMSELF, HERSELF, etc.) can readily be moved from the position right after the noun to the end of the sentence to achieve end-focus:

Helen/She told me the sad news herself .

The boys/They have often made that mistake themselves .

The  degree  of  emphasis  provided  by  the self -form  decreases  with distance from the (pro)noun it postmodifies, compare:

John/He himself read the book several times.

John/He read the book himself several times.

John/He read the book several times himself .

The first of these examples, where there is no discontinuity, is the most emphatic, and the third example, where the distance between head and dependent is the greatest, is the least emphatic (unless the pronoun is pronounced with very heavy stress).

Like self -forms, the quantifying indefinite pronouns ALL, BOTH and EACH can  be  separated  from  their  head  noun  to  give  prominence  to them:

The students have all

My brothers have both understood what you are driving at.

My brothers have each

```
understood what you are driving at. taken a big apple.
```

In these examples, all and both are separated from their head through postponement to the position after the operator of the verb group (compare All the students / Both my brothers ). In the example with each , the only corresponding continuous construction is a pronoun group ( Each of  my  brothers/*Each  my  brothers )  or  a  singular  noun  group  ( Each brother ). Interestingly enough, the separate position typically occupied by these quantifiers is the adverbial central-M position (i.e. between S and P if P is realized by a full verb, or after the operator if P is complex or realized by the primary verb BE; cf. section 5.5.3):

- (1) The students (probably) all understood what you are driving at.
- (2) The students may all have understood what you are driving at.
- (3) The students were all interested in what you are driving at.

Note that EACH, unlike ALL and BOTH, allows adverbial T-position:

- (4) My brothers took a big apple each .

The possibility of inserting probably between The students and all in the first example shows that the pronoun does not simply behave like a post-modifying dependent in a continuous subject group.

On the evidence provided by examples (1) to (4), a possible alternative to an analysis in terms of discontinuity is to interpret ALL, BOTH and EACH when separated from their heads as adverbials .

In  pronoun  groups  we  find  the  same  positions  for  ALL,  BOTH and EACH as in noun groups:

They (probably) all

We have both

They have each

They have taken a big apple each

understood what you are driving at. understood what you are driving at. taken a big apple. .

Notice  that  continuous  constructions  (as  in All  the  boys , Both  my brothers , etc) are not possible with pronominal heads. The only option for the speaker is to promote the dependent pronoun to head in a pronoun group; compare:

*All they understand what you are driving at.

All of them understand what you are driving at.

- *Both we understand what you are driving at.

Both of us understand what you are driving at.

In all the constructions with ALL, BOTH and EACH discussed here, the function of these pronouns is to provide a further specification of the quantification of the head noun/pronoun. An alternative way of offering such specification, especially in spoken or informal English, is right- dislocation, i.e. a kind of discontinuous apposition , where a discontinuous dependent is used which is capable of replacing the head:

The boys left the party, both of them

.

(cf. Both of them left the party )

They understood what you are driving at, all of them.

(cf. All of them understood what you are driving at )

In this way, BOTH and ALL can receive end-focus like EACH (cf. The boys took  a  big  risk  each ).  Unlike  most  other  cases  of  appositional dependents, continuity is only possible if the head of the construction is a pronoun rather than a noun, or if the apposition is clearly marked as parenthetical:

They both of them left the party. *The boys both of them left the party. The boys - both of them left the party. They all of them understood what you are driving at. *The students all of them

understood what you are driving at.

Again it is possible to view the quantifying expression as an adverbial rather than as a dependent in a discontinuous group.

Leaving quantifying dependent pronouns aside, we turn finally to cases of internal discontinuity in noun groups:

The discovery in 1929 of penicillin has saved millions of lives.

While the subject noun group is not interrupted by another constituent here,  the  normal  order the  discovery  of  penicillin  in  1929 has  been changed to give end-focus - in the first of the two tone groups which this  utterance  is  divided  into  at  normal  speech  tempo  -  to  the  word penicillin .  In  noun  groups  of  this  type,  the  two  dependents  are  not coordinated. What we find here is subordination , for while of penicillin is a dependent of discovery only, in 1929 is a dependent of the discovery of penicillin . This is shown in the following tree diagram:

<!-- image -->

This order reflects the normal S P O A order in the clause underlying the  nominalization: Someone  discovered  penicillin  in  1929 .  If  the dependent  preposition  group  in  the  head  stack the  discovery  of penicillin is moved to the position after in 1929 , this head noun group is  realized  discontinuously.  This  is  shown  in  the  next  tree  diagram. Communicatively, the effect of such internal discontinuity is the same as that of many instances of external discontinuity. In either case a part of a message is given extra prominence through postponement.

5.6.4 Discontinuous preposition groups . In wh -questions and relative clauses, the whcomplement of a preposition often leaves the pre-

<!-- image -->

position behind at the end of the clause when it is fronted to clause-initial position:

What did you do that for ?

My computer, which I've had a lot of trouble with , is up for sale.

In  independent  declarative  sentences,  preposition  groups  may  be realized discontinuously if the speaker wishes to highlight the referent of the complement through fronting, i.e. if he seeks to achieve a specific communicative effect:

This well you draw water from .

A construction which looks like a discontinuous preposition group is found in passive sentences of the following type, the active equivalents of which contain a continuous preposition group.

Democracy must be fought for every day. (We must fight for democracy every day.)

The  difference  here  is  that  the  prepositional  complement  appears  to function independently as the subject of the passive sentence, leaving the preposition 'stranded' and to be interpreted either as the realization of an adverbial or as a dependent preposition in a prepositional verb (see section 4.3.2).

If FIGHT FOR is analysed as a prepositional verb, there are of course no preposition groups in the above sentences, whether continuous or discontinuous.  In  that  case We  must  fight  for  democracy  every  day would be analysed as S P O A and Democracy must be fought for every day as S P A.

Finally, it should be mentioned that there is double discontinuity in an example like the following:

Kiri is wonderful to work with .

This sentence may be regarded as derived from It is wonderful to work with Kiri , which in its turn - through extraposition of the subordinate TO-infinitive clause - may be considered derived from To work with Kiri is wonderful . The specific communicative purpose it serves is to topicalize Kiri ,  and this is done by moving the complement of the preposition group realizing the adverbial in the subordinate clause into sentence-initial position (where it ousts the substitute form IT). As a result of this fronting both the subject clause and the adverbial preposition group are realized discontinuously, the former as Kiri ... to work with and the latter as Kiri ... with .

<!-- image -->

5.6.5 Discontinuous adjective and adverb groups .  Adjective and adverb  groups  are  often  realized  discontinuously  in comparative constructions . We shall therefore begin this section by examining some of  the  basic  facts  of  adjective  and  adverb  comparison  in  English.  In comparative  constructions  we  distinguish  three degrees : positive , comparative and superlative . There are two types of formal expression: morphological (or synthetic )  comparison  and syntactic (or analytic ) comparison. The following table summarizes the possibilities:

<!-- image -->

|                          | Positive   | Comparative   | Superlative   |
|--------------------------|------------|---------------|---------------|
| Morphological comparison | ta ll      | taller        | tallest       |
| Syntactic comparison     | beautiful  | morebeautiful | mostbeautiful |
|                          | wisely     | more wisely   | mostwisely    |

A maximal comparative construction consists of three things: a comparative element , an adjective or adverb and a comparative basis . The comparative element is either realized morphologically as an inflection of the adjective or adverb ( -er , -est ) or syntactically as a separate word (the  adverbs more/less or most/least ).  The  comparative  basis  is  the standard  on  the  basis  of  which  the  comparison  is  expressed.  This  is typically realized as a THAN-construction in the comparative degree and an OF-construction in the comparative or superlative degree:

Sally is taller than I am/than me .

Mary danced more beautifully than Jane (did)

John is the brighter of the two

. .

Sam worked the most diligently of them all .

The sentence analysis of morphologically compared adjectives or adverbs is straightforward:

<!-- image -->

While  the  OF-construction  is  always  considered  a  group,  the  THANconstruction may sometimes be interpreted as a clause with THAN as SUB:conj (e.g. than I am ) or as a group with THAN as H:prep (e.g. than me ).

The  sentence  analysis  of  syntactically  compared  adjectives  or adverbs  is  more  complicated  and  may  well  involve  discontinuity.  In constructions like Sally is more beautiful than Jane and Jane danced more  beautifully  than  Sally ,  we  might  simply  treat  the  comparative element ( more )  and the comparative basis (the THAN-construction) as separate dependents of the head adjective or adverb. But there are two alternatives. The first alternative is to group the comparative element and the adjective or adverb together as a H:g followed by the THANconstructions  as  a  DEP:g  or  DEP:cl.  This  solution  is  parallel  to constructions with morphologically compared adjectives and adverbs (i.e. where the comparative element is morphologically 'grouped with' the adjective or adverb). The second alternative is to treat the comparative element and the constructions expressing the comparative basis as a discontinuous dependent of the head adjective or adverb; e.g.:

<!-- image -->

A similar analysis could be postulated for superlative constructions like Sam worked the most diligently of them all with the most ... of them all as a discontinuous dependent of the head adverb diligently .

An argument in favour of treating the construction expressing the comparative basis  as  a  dependent  of  the  comparative  element  rather than of the head adjective or adverb is that it provides a specification of the comparative element. Furthermore, its occurrence is more directly dependent  on  the  occurrence  of  the  comparative  element.  Thus  we cannot say e.g. *Sally is beautiful than Jane or *Sam worked diligently of  them  all .  And  if  we  leave  out  the  construction  expressing  the comparative basis, its meaning is implied only if the comparative element is  present.  Thus Sally  is  more  beautiful implies  e.g. than  Jane whereas Sally  is  beautiful does not. It  therefore  seems  reasonable  to assume that there is a close relationship between the comparative element and the construction expressing the comparative basis, and an obvious  way  to  reflect  this  in  our  analysis  is  to  treat  them  as  grouped together in a discontinuous stack.

Another kind of discontinuity occurs in comparative constructions when another clause function - usually an adverbial - intervenes between the adjective or adverb and the construction expressing the comparative basis:

```
Sally is calmer now than she was yesterday . (S P C- A -C) Mary danced more beautifully last night than ever before . (S P A- A -A)
```

In the first example the adjective group realizing the subject complement is split into two parts by an adverbial, and in the second the adverb group realizing the adverbial (of manner) is split by another adverbial (of time). These discontinuities are motivated by considerations of endweight and end-focus, i.e. they are to do with information structure.

If  a  comparative  adjective  group  containing  a  comparative  basis modifies a noun, it is often realized discontinuously:

Sally is a calmer woman than she was last year .

If sufficiently weighty, such constructions may be realized as a continuous postmodifier in relation to the noun:

Sally is a woman noticeably far more considerate than Mary .

We also find discontinuous adverb groups modifying adjectives:

John is better prepared than his sister .

Not only comparative forms but also superlative forms may be interpreted as discontinuous in examples like the following:

of them all.

Peter has the strongest will

This is the least dramatic anecdote of the ones I've heard .

In such cases, however, the status of the definite article is problematic: does it go with the superlative form or with the noun?

When the comparative basis is an OF-construction we sometimes find topicalization  of  this  construction  with  obvious  discontinuity  as  a result:

Of all the boys Peter was by far the brightest

.

Of the two teams Norwich were the more efficient .

We also find discontinuity in constructions expressing degree which are neither comparative nor superlative:

- (l) Sally is as calm now as she was yesterday . (C:g)
- (2) Mary danced so beautifully last night that people began to cry . (A:g)
- (3) The person who called me was too busy at the time to answer my questions over the phone . (C:g)
- (4) Enough unmarried women turned  up  at  their  house  on  those evenings for me to understand that they had my best interests at heart . (S:g)
- (5) So ardently had he been preaching the efficacy of prayer that he now silently invoked the name of Diana for every desire that passed through his head . (A:g)

In examples (1) to (3), the degree expression is realized discontinuously with an intervening adverbial. In (4) the discontinuity is caused by the postponement of a postmodifier in the subject group. In (5) the head and  premodifier  of  the  italicized  adverb  group  have  been  fronted  in order to highlight that part of the message, and as the adverbial begins with so this fronting is accompanied by partial inversion (see section 5.3.4). In all five examples, the discontinuity is clearly due to factors of weight and balance.

If we analyse constructions with syntactically compared adjectives and adverbs as internally discontinuous (stacking together the comparative element and the comparative basis), it is reasonable also to recognize internal discontinuity in examples (1) to (5), in addition to the discontinuity at clause level. Thus, arguably, in each case the premodifier

( as , so , too , Enough , So ) could be analysed as a head of a discontinuous stack containing a specifying, dependent clause ( as she was yesterday , that people began to cry , to answer my questions over the phone , etc.). On this interpretation, a sentence like Sally is as calm now as she was yesterday would be analysed in this way:

<!-- image -->

Discontinuous adjective groups are not only found in comparative constructions. Adjective groups containing heads like comparable (to ...) , different  (from  ...) , difficult  (to  ...) , easy (to ...) , opposite (to ...) , (im)possible (for , to ...) , preliminary (to ...) , similar (to ...) and suitable (for ...) are often realized discontinuously:

This was only a preliminary little gathering to the one planned for the

It falls into a different category from the rest . I don't imagine she was an easy person to live with . autumn .

Considerations of weight and end-focus may lead to continuous postmodification instead:

It falls into a category very different from the rest

I don't imagine she was a person in any way easy to live with

. .

This  was  only  a  little  gathering supposedly  preliminary  to  the  one planned for the autumn .

## References

- Bache, C. (1996):  'A  presentation  of  a  pedagogical  sentence  analysis  system',  this volume, pp. 11-35.
- Bache,  C.,  M.  Davenport,  J.  M.  Dienhart  &  F.  Larsen  (1993): An  Introduction  to English Sentence Analysis , 2nd edition revised. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
- Bache, C. & N. Davidsen-Nielsen (1995): Grammar Compendium .  Odense: English Department, Odense University.