## Presentation of a pedagogical sentence analysis system

## 1. Introduction

The sentence analysis system that I want to present in this paper 1 is the result  of  work  that  began  back  in  the  early  days  of  the  English Department  at  Odense  University,  Denmark,  in  the  mid-seventies, when the late Professor Hans Hartvigson decided to fight a noble battle against  the  widespread  ignorance  of  basic  grammatical  facts  among new generations of young and hopeful English students - students who claimed  never  to  have  heard  of  the  pluperfect,  or  the  subjunctive, students who did not know the subtle difference between 'predicate' and 'predicative', and who did not cherish the vital distinction between a noun and a subject, between form and function. This dismal state of affairs has changed, mostly thanks to Professor Hartvigson. He was the prime mover in setting up a new introductory course in grammar, and in preparing suitable teaching materials (cf. Hartvigson et al. 1977). With Leif Kvistgaard Jakobsen, John Dienhart, Fritz Larsen and others, he started  the  work  on  sentence  analysis  that  eventually  led  to  the publication in 1991 of An Introduction to English Sentence Analysis by Mike Davenport, John Dienhart, Fritz Larsen and myself - an exercise book which has now appeared in a second, revised (1993) edition. An interactive program for computer aided instruction in this approach to sentence analysis was devised as early as 1983 (cf. Davenport et al. 1984). While the system may naturally be challenged theoretically, it works very well pedagogically: our students actually learn to analyse sentences  as  a  prerequisite  to  reading  and  understanding  standard university grammars, and some of them even think it is good fun!

1 I  would  like  to  thank  Niels  Davidsen-Nielsen,  John  Dienhart,  Peter  Harder,  Leo Hoye,  Fritz  Larsen,  Christian  Heyde  Petersen  and  Marianne  Stølen  for  useful comments on earlier presentations of the system and the concept of 'stacking'.

* Carl Bache Institute of Language and Communication Odense University Campusvej 55 DK-5230  Odense M

In the following I shall offer a presentation of a slightly modified version  of  our  sentence  analysis  system,  the  version  that  Professor Niels  Davidsen-Nielsen  and  I  are  using  in  a  new  grammar  project funded by the Danish Research Council (cf. Bache & Davidsen-Nielsen 1995). I would like also to review some of the characteristic features of our system in a broader syntactic context, especially because it differs from  current  syntatic  theory  and  practice  in  a  number  of  important ways. Finally I shall introduce the concept of 'stacking' which I find very  useful  in  the  analysis  of  some  challenging  types  of  examples which the system cannot handle unless modified in some way.

## 2. An elementary sentence analysis system.

Let me begin by offering an introduction to our approach to sentence analysis. We draw a basic distinction applying to all levels of analysis between  the form and  the function of  constituents.  We  have  at  our disposal a reasonably small number of both form terms and function terms for the description of each and every constituent. The Appendix provides an overview of all the terms used in our system. Let me briefly draw attention to some of the more important ones. We recognize five basic sentence functions:

```
[1] S = subject Jack left P = predicator Jack left O = object Jack left his wife A = adverbial Jack left her last year C = complement Jack was pretty foolish
```

We operate with four main types of form:

```
[2] w = single word Jack, left g = group of words his wife, last year, pretty foolish cu = compound unit The old man and his sister left cl = clause The old man and his sister left
```

Single words are further specified according to word class as follows:

```
[3] n = noun car, letter, party, idea v = verb write, be, receive, hear
```

| adj   | =   | adjective   | long, old, afraid, big   |
|-------|-----|-------------|--------------------------|
| adv   | =   | adverb      | slowly, gently, again    |
| pro   | =   | pronoun     | he, she, who, any, this  |
| prep  | =   | preposition | by, at, to, from, in     |
| conj  | =   | conjunction | that, because, if        |
| art   | =   | article     | the, a(n)                |

In  addition  there  are  interjections  (intj),  numerals  (num)  and  the infinitive marker (infm). Notice the use of capital letters for functions and lower-case letters for forms.

The  two  types  of  relation  'subordination'  and  'coordination'  are specified in this way:

- [4] Subordination:

SUB =

subordinator (He said that he liked her)

- [5] Coordination:

CO = coordinator

(The old man and his sister)

CJT = conjoint

(The old man and his sister)

To show the illocutionary value of an utterance we replace the top label, 'Sent' (which represents the sentence as a whole), with the following labels for utterance functions:

- [6] Main utterance functions:

STA = statement

John left

QUE = question Did John leave?

DIR = directive Get out!

EXC = exclamation How wonderful you are!

For our analysis of a constituent we select both a function term and a form  term.  We  employ  two  different  techniques  in  our  structural representations: linear analyses and tree diagrams , exemplified in [7] and [8]. The two techniques are purely notational variants, i.e. different ways  of  showing  the  same  structure.  In  a  linear  analysis  (which  is convenient for simple or partial analyses in run-on texts), we use square brackets  to  indicate  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  constituents.  The function  term  and  the  form  term  are  separated  by  a  colon,  with  the function term to the left of the colon and the form term to the right. In [7] there is a linear analysis of a simple sentence:

- :
- [7] Linear analysis of Everybody liked chocolate S:pro [everybody]  P:v [liked]  O:n [chocolate]

The tree diagram, which is a conventional form of plotting syntactic relationships within a sentence, offers a nice overview of an analysis, as in [8]. The lines slanting downwards from the uppermost constituent indicate a 'consist-of' relationship. Instead of the colon convention, we use the 'function-over-form' convention. Thus the tree diagram in [8] should be read in this  way:  we  have  a  sentence  which  consists  of  a subject realized by the pronoun Everybody , a predicator realized by the verb liked and an object realized by the noun chocolate .

<!-- image -->

The interesting thing about form and function is that there is no one-toone relationship between them: given the function of a constituent you cannot  predict  the  form,  and  vice  versa.  With  few  exceptions,  any function  can  be  realized  by  any  form  type,  and  any  form  type  can assume any function.

Let us look at another, more complex example:

[9]

<!-- image -->

This sentence is a statement realized by a clause (STA:cl). The clause consists of a subject, a predicator, an indirect object and a direct object. All main types of form are present in [9]: for example, the predicator and the indirect object are realized by single words, the subject of the main  clause  and  the  predicator  of  the  object  clause  are  realized  by groups, the direct object is realized by a clause, and the subject of the direct  object  clause  is  realized  by  a  compound  unit.  Each  of  the sentence functions in [9] could have been realized by other form types. For example, the single pronoun I might have been subject instead of the  noun  group Her  father .  The  verb  group had  told could  have replaced  the  single  verb told. The  indirect  object  pronoun me could have  been  replaced  by,  say,  a  compound  unit Sally  and  Bob .  And instead of having a direct object clause, we might have had just a noun group the truth . What all this goes to show is that there are in principle few  restrictions  on  what  combinations  of  form  and  function  are possible.

Similarly, virtually any illocutionary value can be realized by any form  type  (cf.  Bache  et  al.  1993:205ff,  Bache  &  Davidsen-Nielsen 1995:103ff):

| [10]   | STA:cl   | James left Brisbane yesterday.   |
|--------|----------|----------------------------------|
|        | STA:g    | In London.                       |
|        | STA:cu   | John and Sarah.                  |
|        | STA:intj | Yes.                             |
| [11]   | QUE:cl   | Will you join me tonight?        |
|        | QUE:g    | From whom?                       |
|        | QUE:cu   | When and where?                  |
|        | QUE:adv  | Why?                             |
| [12]   | DIR:cl   | Listen to me.                    |
|        | DIR:g    | After him!                       |
|        | DIR:cu   | Smile and be happy.              |
|        | DIR:adv  | Down!                            |
| [13]   | EXC:cl   | What a fool he is!               |
|        | EXC:g    | Good Lord!                       |
|        | EXC:cu   | Damn and blast!                  |
|        | EXC:intj | Wow!                             |

When an utterance function is  realized  by  a  clause,  it  is  possible  to subclassify  the  clause formwise as  declarative  (decl),  interrogative

(inter), imperative (imp) or exclamatory (excl). Though these clausal form types relate in an obvious way to the illocutionary functions (as we see in [10] to [13] above), there is no strict one-to-one correspondence.  For  example,  the  declarative James  left  Brisbane yesterday will be interpreted as having the illocutionary value QUE if pronounced with rising intonation.

In short, our system is a fairly simple but flexible one which will cope  nicely  with  a  good  many  ordinary  utterances  and  written sentences.

## 3. Special features

While  our  system  is  pedagogically  attractive,  it  differs  considerably from mainstream syntax in a number of important ways:

- A) No transformations . Note first of all that we do not operate with transformations or conversions of structures of any kind. Our analysis yields a relatively pure form of surface structure. When I say 'relatively pure' it is because we occasionally allow 'missing forms' in examples like: The agent (that) we met last night / I parked my car behind John's (car) / Jack became president and Ann (became) vice-president / She told us (that) she wanted to come , cf. Bache et al. 1993:85ff, Bache & Davidsen-Nielsen 1995:81ff).
- B) No predicate .  Note next that we do not operate with a predicate. Traditionally, the predicate is a  super-function,  or  metafunction, comprising the predicator plus all subsequent functions in the clause. For example, in Everybody liked chocolate (cf. [8] above), the predicate consists  of  the  predicator  verb liked and  the  direct  object  noun chocolate. In Her father told me that Jack and Jill had disappeared (cf. [9] above), the predicate contains the predicator verb told , the indirect object pronoun me and the direct object clause that Jack and Jill had disappeared . In traditional syntax, the primary syntactic division of a sentence is into subject and predicate. This division is simply taken for granted by most modern syntacticians. For example, in early transformational  syntax,  a  sentence  like The  cat  caught  the  mouse would be analysed as in [14] (see e.g. Jacobs & Rosenbaum 1968):

<!-- image -->

In this analysis the predicate is marked as a VP which contains the verb caught and the noun phrase the mouse . In our sentence analysis we do not normally divide the sentence into subject and predicate but simply skip the predicate level.

C) Multibranching . The third characteristic of our system that I would like  to  mention  is  that  it  allows  complex  constituents  to  divide  into more that just two daughter constituents. In our view, constituents are potentially multibranching. The  binary  principle,  to  which  many syntacticians are attracted, is of course nice and simple, and it is very much  in  fashion  these  days  in  computer  and  digital  technology. However, we believe language to be potentially more complex. The unbearable lightness of the binary principle is clear if you consider e.g. Radford's  X-bar  analysis  of  the  noun  group a  tall  dark  handsome stranger in [15] (cf. Radford 1980:104):

<!-- image -->

(X-bar analysis provides a notation system for marking different levels of group-like structures within groups: double-bars indicate a superordinate level,  single-bars  intermediate  levels,  and  'no  bars'  the terminal lexical level.)

In  our  system a possible analysis of this noun group is offered in [16]:

[16]

<!-- image -->

In this particular case I think it is clear that our analysis is preferable to Radford's: the three adjectives seem to be paratactically related, i.e. to be at the same level in relation to stranger. Note that we do not change the  meaning  of  the  noun  group  if  we  separate  the  adjectives  with commas and/or and :

- [17] She was visited by a tall dark handsome stranger
2. = She was visited by a tall, dark and handsome stranger

In other noun groups, we have hypotaxis, as in the following example:

- [18] The envious Republican senators complained
2. ≠
3. The envious, Republican senators complained

Without the commas, envious either offers a description of the Republican senators present in the context or it describes a subclass of the Republican senators: some but not all the Republican senators are envious. In other words, envious either describes or subcategorizes Republican senators . By contrast, when envious and Republican are separated by a comma, the two adjectives relate individually to the head noun senators. The implication here is rather that the envious senators present in the context happen to be also Republicans. If we want to be able to reflect this subtle difference between hypotaxis and parataxis, one way of doing it is to have both multibranching and binary branching as options. Note that our recognition of multibranching is not simply a question of 'maximal bracketing' in notational opposition to 'minimal bracketing' (cf. Halliday 1994:20ff), though this opposition is a valid consideration. We claim that certain structures cannot be represented appropriately by means of binary branching.

- D) No non-branching constituents . In our system, unlike most other systems, there are no non-branching constituents, except at the terminal word level,  i.e.  the  level  at  which  lexical  insertion  takes  place.  It  is interesting to compare a typical X-bar analysis of e.g. Jack loves Sally in [19] with our analysis of the same sentence in [20]:

[19]

<!-- image -->

<!-- image -->

Instead of saying that we do not operate with non-branching nodes we can say that we automatically prune non-branching nodes. Pedagogically, it is a relief not having to explain why Jack and Sally are constituents at three different levels, as in the X-bar analysis in [19] (N, N single bar and N double bar). In our model, we say things more directly: Jack is a noun with subject function and Sally is a noun with object function.

- E) What is a group? The next feature that I would like to mention here concerns the identity and nature of groups. As will be clear from the analyses offered so far, we take a rather unusual stand on this issue. We say that a group is a group. A group is not a word or a clause. What is more, we say that the head of the group determines its subclassification: if the head of a group is a noun, the group is a noun group; if the head of a group is a verb, the group is a verb group, if the head of a group is an adjective, the group is an adjective group, and so forth. This is all very unorthodox. In classical generative transformational grammar, to pick on a very influential school of linguistic thought, a noun phrase may be anything: a single pronoun, a pronoun group, a single noun, a noun  group,  an  adjective  group,  even  a  clause.  Compare  the  two transformational phrase structure analyses in [21a] with our analyses in [21b]:

[21a]

<!-- image -->

In the transformational analysis of He left , He is first analysed as an NP, which strictly speaking it is not; then, at a lower level of analysis, it is marked as a PRO. In our analysis, we do not beat about the bush, but stick to the simple fact: He is a pronoun with subject function. In the transformational analysis of To see her is to love her, To see her is also initially analysed as an NP, which strictly speaking, it is not. Then, at a lower level, its real nature is revealed: it is a clause; to love her receives a similar analysis. In our system, we say things more up front: To see her is a clause with subject function and to love her is a clause with complement function. The two transformational analyses provide far more of a pedagogical challenge than our analyses, to put it in positive terms.  By  assigning  both  function  and  (precise)  form  labels  to constituents,  our  system  captures  more  explicitly  the  distributional patterns merely implied by traditional phrase structure analysis.

F) Functions . Finally, maybe the most obvious difference between our system and the other systems that we have looked at is the inclusion of functions,  the  fact  that  we  specify  not  only  the  form  but  also  the function  of  all  constituents  in  a  sentence.  Do  we  really  need  these functions? As indicated in my discussion of [21a] and [21b] above, the assignment of function labels gives us the freedom to be more precise in our assignment of form labels. But arguably this freedom comes at a high  price.  Chomsky  has  always  argued  against  the  assignment  of function terms to constituents because functional values, he claims, can be deduced from purely formal properties and are therefore redundant (see  e.g.  Chomsky  1986:59ff).  For  example,  any  NP  immediately dominated by S is a subject, any NP immediately dominated by VP is an  object  (cf.  e.g.  [14]  above).  However,  this  argument  rests  on  the presence  of  the  predicate  VP  as  a  valid  constituent.  In  other  words, Chomsky's approach may work with the reservations noted for his own phrase structures but not for the ones offered in our model. To avoid circularity, external evidence must be provided for the existence of the predicate. Even though such evidence is not too difficult to find, we hold that function terms are useful, and even essential in a pedagogical  sentence  analysis  system.  Without  them  we  cannot  establish  a natural  link  between  sentence  analysis  and  the  more  specific  grammatical  rules  governing  the  use  of  language.  Imagine  a  student's grammar of English which does not refer to subjects, direct and indirect objects, subject and object complements, heads, dependents, etc.

Before I go on to discuss the problem of how to deal with predicates, let  me briefly summarize the characteristic features of our system as presented so far:

## Unlike other systems, our system:

- [22] a) has no transformations or similar interstructural devices
- b) does not operate with the predicate
- c) allows multi-branching as well as binary branching
- d) has no non-branching nodes except at word level
- e) treats a group as a group, a clause as a clause, a word as a word
- f) specifies both the form and the function of every constituent.

## 4. The pros and cons of operating with the predicate

There is a very long tradition for treating the subject and the predicate as the primary constituents of the sentence. This tradition probably goes all  the  way  back  to  Plato's  and  Aristotle's  ' ónoma'  and  'rhema',  as Robins (1967:26ff) has pointed out. In more recent times, the subject and the predicate have been treated in more pragmatic terms as representing  'topic'  and  'comment',  respectively.  Scholars  rarely,  if  ever, question the legitimacy of operating with the predicate. Even Roman Jakobson seems to take its status as a universal category for granted. He says: "To instance simple relations among grammatical universals, we may cite the difference between the classes of nouns and verbs ... This difference is correlated but never merges with the likewise universal difference of two syntactic functions -subject and predicate" (1963:265).

Let us look more closely at some of the syntactic evidence for the existence of the predicate:

- 1) Coordination  of  predicates,  as  in Jones  [left  his  wife],  [sold  the house]  and  [moved  to  LA] .  Conventionally,  if  you  can  coordinate something, it must be a unit of some sort.
- 2) Fusion  of  a  predicator  verb  and  a  following  noun  (sometimes referred to as object incorporation), as in

The incident took place before noon. (happened)

John caught sight of Bob. (spotted, sighted)

I gave her a kiss. (I kissed her)

I took my leave . (I left )

Such fusion is, if  not  predictable,  at  least  more  easily  accounted  for within a predicate framework. Constituents contain elements which are closely related in some sense. A close relation may develop into actual fusion.

- 3) AUX representation of predicates: certain pro-forms are capable of representing whole predicates:

For years he wanted to win the race and he finally did. Will he propose marriage to her? Well, he may.

They are having a nice time in London. Are they really!

In  each  of  these  examples,  an  auxiliary  verb  ( did,  may and are , respectively) represents a whole predicate. For example, did represents won the race or did win the race.

I think it is clear, on the basis of such evidence, that the predicate is not  only  an  important  pragmatic  unit  -  the  'comment'  -  but  also  a syntactic  unit  which  cannot  be  ignored.  Nevertheless,  I  support  the view  that  the  predicate  should  not  be  treated  as  a  regular  sentence constituent in our sentence analysis. There are three reasons for this:

- 1) Although the predicate may have a reasonably clear function (i.e. that  of  'comment'),  there  are  no  regular  form  types  realizing  the predicate. Unlike other functions it seems typically to be realized by combinations  of form  types, each serving more  specific clause functions (i.e. predicator, object, adverbial, complement). This is why it is tempting to regard the predicate as a superfunction or 'metafunction'.
- 2) In those cases where the predicate is realized simply by a regular form type (a group or a word) as in intransitive constructions like he left, she was laughing, they stopped , etc., its presence creates unnecessary  complexity  by  introducing  a  non-branching  level  of  analysis. Nothing  much  is  gained  by  analysing  e.g. was  laughing first  as  a predicate and then as a predicator.
- 3) There are other cases of closeness between constituents which must be taken seriously if we take the predicate seriously. The predicate is only one out of a number of possible metaconstituents. If we include one, why not the others?

This  last  point  needs  to  be  elaborated.  Closeness  between  constituents  is  often  a  product  of  subordination  or  coordination.  Here  are some examples of closeness between constituents in connection with subordination:

- a) Dependent/head  relations in noun  groups  with hypotactically related adjectives, as in:

[The [envious [Republican [senators]]]] complained

As mentioned earlier, in a sequence of adjectives, some adjectives may be more closely related to the head noun than others. In the example here, Republican  senators is  modified  as  a  unit  by envious. This phenomenon raises the question of what kind of constituent can be used to  reflect  different  degrees  of  closeness  between  a  head  and  its dependents in a noun group. Ideally we should have a metaconstituent to represent complex nominal heads. It is this kind of phenomenon that X-bar  analysis  is  good  at  handling  with  its  intermediate  single-bar levels of structure.

- b) Dependent/head relations in verb groups and predicates:

He [might [drop into a bar]]

The metaconstituent here (drop into a bar) is  the predication (a predication is a predicate minus the operator, see e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 79ff,  120ff).  Note  that  there  is  strong  evidence  for  treating  the  predication as a syntactic unit:

- i. predications may be coordinated:

He [might [drop into a bar] and [down some liquor]]

- ii. predications may be represented by PRO-forms:

I would like to go to Rome and so would my wife.

I gave Joyce a book and so did Bob.

## iii. predications may be fronted:

Awaiting them were a tray of sandwiches, two bottles of wine, the director in uniform, and an exceptionally beautiful girl.

Deny it though he might, he dumped his wife in Paris.

Having offered  some  examples  of  closeness  between  constituents  in connection  with  subordination,  I  now  turn  to  constructions  showing closeness between constituents in connection with coordination:

- a) As we have already seen, constituents consisting of the predicator plus subsequent clause functions (i.e. the traditional predicate) may be coordinated:

Roger [left his wife], [sold the house] and [moved to LA]

The metaconstituent required for the analysis of such examples is the predicate.

- b) Coordination of verb and preceding noun or noun group, as in [John sold] and [Peter bought] the house.

Such examples point to the existence of a metaconstituent consisting of subject and predicator.

- c) Coordination  of  units  consisting  of  nouns  or  noun  groups  with different clause functions:

Jack gave [Belinda a kiss] and [Mary some good advice]

I told [Bob a white lie] but [Jenny the whole truth]

Such examples point to the existence of a metaconstituent consisting of indirect object and direct object.

- d) Coordination  of  units  consisting  of  noun  or  noun  groups  and preposition groups with different functions:

He sent [Jack to London] and [Jenny to Rome]

Such examples point to the existence of a metaconstituent consisting of a direct object and an adverbial.

- e) Coordination of units consisting of nominal constituents and adjectival constituents with different functions:

He painted [the kitchen white] and [the bathroom yellow]

Such examples point to the existence of a metaconstituent consisting of a direct object and an object complement.

These examples by no means exhaust the possibilities.

## 5. Stacking

Having examined some of the problems in connection with the predicate, as well as other instances of closeness between constituents, we are now in a better position to formulate our requirements: what we need  is  a  sentence  analysis  system  which  basically  is  as  simple  as possible and as neutral as possible with respect to different interpretations of syntactic structure. At the same time, however, we need  a  special  descriptive  tool  which  allows  us  to  show  closeness relations between basic constituents.

Now, we already have a very simple and neutral system, namely the system proposed by Davenport, Dienhart, Larsen and myself. As we have  seen,  this  system  does  not  operate  with  the  predicate,  the predication or any other close relations between constituents. It merely offers basic, non-redundant, 'no-frills' analyses. As to the special tool required for the representation of close relations between constituents, I propose that we  employ  the 'stacking' technique developed  by Davidsen-Nielsen and myself in connection with the current grammar project that we are undertaking for the Danish Research Council.

A stack is a collection of constituents somehow belonging together without  obviously  constituting  one  of  the  basic  constituents  of  the sentence  analysis  system.  It  is  a  kind  of  syntactic  'wild  card' a characterization offered by my colleague John Dienhart in the sense that it may represent any metaconstituent. There are form stacks and there are function stacks. A form stack (for which we use the symbol 'x') is a collection of forms constituting a derived, non-basic form type (i.e.  a  form  type  other  than  the  four  basic  form  types  of  the  system mentioned in [2]: group, clause, compound unit and single word). A function  stack  (for  which  we  use  the  symbol  'X')  is  a  collection  of functions  constituting  a  derived,  non-basic  function  (i.e.  a  function other  than  the  functions  already  established  for  the  system,  such  as subject, predicator, object, head, dependent etc.). By using a stack one shows a close relationship which cannot otherwise be captured by the system. The effect of introducing a stack into some constituent level in an analysis of a sentence is to delay the assignment of the basic forms and functions comprised by the stack to a level further down where this assignment is possible or desirable.

Let me offer an example. The basic analysis of a simple example like Roger left his wife looks like the analysis in [23] (note that we use the triangle  to  indicate  that  the  internal  analysis  of  a  constituent  is irrelevant for the argument):

[23]

<!-- image -->

- If,  for  one  reason  or  another,  we  want  to  show  the  predicate  in  our analysis of this example ( left his wife ), it can be done in this way:

[24]

<!-- image -->

In our model, the predicate is not a basic function type and therefore has been treated as a function stack (X). Nor is the constituent left his wif e an established form type: it is not a group, a clause, a compound unit or a single word. We therefore have to treat it not only as a function stack but also as a form stack (x). In the case of the example Roger left his wife , we have a choice between the analysis in [23] and the one in [24]. Sometimes, however, we do not have a choice, e.g. when a sentence contains coordinated predicates as in [25] Roger left his wife and sold the house :

<!-- image -->

Any  strictly  surface  structure  analysis  of  this  example  requires  the assignment of metaconstituent labels. Note that the function stack X and the form stack x are here separated: X represents a non-established function  (coordinated  predicates)  but  this  function  is  realized  by  an established form type, the compound unit (cu). This cu consists of three established  functions:  two  CJTs  and  a  CO.  The  two  CJTs  are  both realized  by  a  non-established  form  type  consisting  of  P  and  O  (the traditional  predicate).  This  is  how  stacking  operates:  by  introducing stacks we delay the analysis of some material until we reach a level where  we  can  handle  the  analysis in terms of our established metalanguage. Capital X is used when it is too early to assign function labels; small x is used when it is too early to assign form labels.

The concept of stacking allows us to offer more precise definitions of two major form types: groups and clauses. As a first approximation, we can say that a group consists of at least a head (H) and one dependent (DEP), while a clause consists of at least two of the following functions:  S,  P ,  Od,  Oi,  Cs,  Co,  A,  SUB.  For  example, the  stranger is  a group  consisting  of  the  head stranger and  the  dependent the. In  the sentence To see her is to love her ,  the  subject To see her is  a  clause consisting of a P (To see) and an Od (her).

To  clarify  what  we  mean  by  the  terms  'group'  and  'clause',  it  is necessary to supplement the minimal requirements ('at least a head and a dependent' and 'at least two clause functions') with the condition that both groups and clauses are maximal forms: for a group to be a group we should not leave out relevant group constituents, and for a clause to be a clause we should not leave out relevant clause constituents. Let me illustrate this by referring once again to the analysis in [24] (Roger left his  wife) .  Why  don't  we  simply  treat  the  predicate left  his  wife as  a clause  rather  than  as  a  form  stack.  It  complies  with  our  minimal condition: it contains at least two clause functions, a P and an Od. The reason  why  we  do  not  treat  the  predicate  as  a  clause  is  that,  in  the particular example under analysis, it is only part of a clause. We have left out a relevant clause constituent, the subject Roger. Unlike clauses, the constituent left his wife cannot contain a subject of its own there already is a subject outside the constituent (in other words, we cannot say e.g. * Roger [Roger left his wife ]). The clause being a maximal form type, we cannot simply leave out a relevant constituent and call left his wife a  clause.  Instead  we  call  it  a  form  stack,  a  metaconstituent containing closely related constituents.

## Consider also an example like

[26] She was often visited by the tall strangers .

In this example we cannot analyse tall strangers as a head group within the group the tall strangers , even though tall strangers might function as  a  whole  group  in  an  example  like Tall  strangers  kept  calling  on Jenny .  The  reason  why tall  strangers cannot  be  analysed  as  a  head group  within  the  italicized  group  in  [26]  is  that  in that  particular example it  is  only  part  of  a  group.  If  we  accepted  it  as  a  group,  we would have to explain why it is incompatible with the definite article (since we cannot say * She was visited by the [the tall strangers] ). In [26]  the  DEP:art the is  a  relevant  group  constituent  in  relation  to strangers or tall strangers and therefore should not be excluded from a group analysis of these units. If in our analysis we want to show that there  is  a  close  relationship  between tall and strangers and  that  the definite article can be interpreted as relating to tall stranger s rather than just to strangers , this can be done by using stacking: tall strangers is on this interpretation an example of H:x.

In other words, a group is the maximal form unit in any given case which can be analysed in terms of a head and one or more dependents. A clause  is  the  maximal  form  unit  in  any  given  case  which  can  be analysed in terms of two or more clause functions. Closeness relations between group constituents within a group or between clause constituents within a clause are handled by the stacking technique.

## 6. Stacking applied

Let me conclude this paper by applying the stacking technique to some of the other problem areas mentioned in section 4 above:

## [27] Predication stacks:

<!-- image -->

## [28] Subordination within nominal groups:

<!-- image -->

## [29] Coordination of stacks consisting of clause functions:

<!-- image -->

## 7. Concluding remarks

Let me finally touch on some of the alternatives to stacking. There are several  possible  ways  of  avoiding  stacks.  Within  the  school  of generative syntax, many of the phenomena that I propose to handle by stacking  could  be  described  in  terms  of  a  strong  transformational component. But recent developments within generative syntax tend to diminish the role of transformations.

Another solution might be to operate with strong filtering devices, i.e. with a reduction model with lots of missing constituents. Thus, an example like He might drop into a bar and down some liquor in [27] would be a reduced version of He might drop into a bar and he might down some liquor . The problem with this approach is that it seems odd to  derive  perfectly  good  sentences  from  more  clumsy,  unnatural sentences.

Yet another possibility is to increase the number of basic form and function terms in our metalanguage to cover all the different derived function and form stacks (such as e.g. predicates, S P collocations, etc.). There are two problems with such an approach: a) the system becomes far more complicated and difficult for students to learn; b) one loses the sense of similarity between different stacks. Different stacks are used for very similar purposes, mainly to show closeness between constituents which are not otherwise always close.

Finally, we might give up the condition that groups and clauses are maximal constituents. In a sense this is exactly what happens in X-bar analysis. Although we could get rid of form stacks in this way, the terms 'clause' and 'group' would be less clearly defined. And we would still need function stacks.

One argument against stacking is that it seems to be a rather ad hoc tool  which  we  use  whenever  there  is  a  need  for  it.  There  can  be  no denying that stacking has been invented in order to solve precisely the problems that our basic sentence analysis system cannot handle. And the  proposed  division  of  labour  between  the  basic  system  and  its extensions  may  well  be  arbitrary  from  a  theoretical  point  of  view. However, from a pedagogical point of view, it is sound to have stacking as  an  extension  of  the  system  rather  than  to  try  to  change  the  basic system itself more radically.

Having said that,  I  believe  that  there  is  nothing  ad  hoc  about  my attempt  to  cope  with  the  individual  problems  touched  upon  in  this paper.  In  English,  predicates,  hypotaxis  and  all  sorts  of  coordinated constituents  are  natural  phenomena  in  need  of  adequate  syntactic representation. We  have  to use some tool to cope with these phenomena, be it stacking or some other device. For the reasons stated, stacking is an attractive option.

## References

- 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.
- Chomsky, N. (1986): Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use . New York: Praeger.
- Davenport, M., J. M. Dienhart & F. Larsen (1984): "Computer Aided Instruction in English  Sentence  Analysis". Bits  and  Bytes 1,  The  English  Department,  Odense University.
- Greenberg, J. H. (ed.) 1968 (1963): Universals of Language . Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.
- Halliday, M. A. K. (1994): An Introduction to Functional Grammar , Second Edition. London, New York, Sydney & Auckland: Edward Arnold.
- Hartvigson,  H.  H.,  J.  M.  Dienhart  &  L.  Kvistgaard  Jakobsen  (1977): Opbyggelige Øvelser i Engelsk Sætningsanalyse . Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.
- Jacobs, R. A. & P. S. Rosenbaum (1968): English Transformational Grammar .  New York: Wiley.
- Jakobson,  R.  (1963):  "Implications  of  Language  Universals  for  Linguistics".  In Greenberg,  J.  H.  (ed.) Universals  of  Language ,  edition  referred  to:  Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T 1968.
- Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik (1985): A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Languag. , London & New York: Longman.
- Radford,  A.  (1981): Transformational  Syntax .  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University Press.
- Robins, R. H. (1967): A Short History of Linguistics . London: Longmans.

## APPENDIX

## FUNCTIONS

X

Function stack forms

| S       | Subject (= Real Subject)             | cl g      | clause group                           | clause group                           | clause group                           | clause group                           | clause group                           |
|---------|--------------------------------------|-----------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
| Sp      | Provisional Subject                  | cu        | compound unit                          | compound unit                          | compound unit                          | compound unit                          | compound unit                          |
| Sr      | Real Subject                         | n         | noun                                   | noun                                   | noun                                   | noun                                   | noun                                   |
| P       | Predicator                           | v         | verb                                   | verb                                   | verb                                   | verb                                   | verb                                   |
| O       | Object (= Real Direct Object)        | adj       | adjective adverb                       | adjective adverb                       | adjective adverb                       | adjective adverb                       | adjective adverb                       |
| Od      | Direct Object                        | adv       |                                        |                                        |                                        |                                        |                                        |
| Oi      | Indirect Object                      | art       | article                                | article                                | article                                | article                                | article                                |
| Op      | Provisional Direct Object            | pro       | pronoun                                | pronoun                                | pronoun                                | pronoun                                | pronoun                                |
| Or      | Real Direct Object                   | prep      | preposition                            | preposition                            | preposition                            | preposition                            | preposition                            |
| A       | Adverbial                            | conj      | conjunction                            | conjunction                            | conjunction                            | conjunction                            | conjunction                            |
| C       | Complement (= Subject Complement)    | infm num  | infinitive marker numeral interjection | infinitive marker numeral interjection | infinitive marker numeral interjection | infinitive marker numeral interjection | infinitive marker numeral interjection |
| Cs Co   | Subject Complement Object Complement | intj decl | declarative clause                     | declarative clause                     | declarative clause                     | declarative clause                     | declarative clause                     |
| SUB     | Subordinator                         | inter     | interrogative clause                   | interrogative clause                   | interrogative clause                   | interrogative clause                   | interrogative clause                   |
|         |                                      | imper     | imperative clause                      | imperative clause                      | imperative clause                      | imperative clause                      | imperative clause                      |
| CO      | Coordinator                          | excl      | exclamatory clause                     | exclamatory clause                     | exclamatory clause                     | exclamatory clause                     | exclamatory clause                     |
| CJT     | Conjoint                             | Ø         |                                        |                                        |                                        |                                        |                                        |
| H DEP   | Head Dependent                       | x         | form stack                             | form stack                             | form stack                             | form stack                             | form stack                             |
| STA QUE | Statement Question                   |           | 'unfinished analysis'                  | 'unfinished analysis'                  | 'unfinished analysis'                  | 'unfinished analysis'                  | 'unfinished analysis'                  |
| COM     | Command                              |           |                                        |                                        |                                        |                                        |                                        |
| EXC     | Exclamation                          |           |                                        |                                        |                                        |                                        |                                        |
| PER     | Performative                         |           |                                        |                                        |                                        |                                        |                                        |

<!-- image -->