THE TECHNICALITY OF ‘VERBS’IN ENGLISH GRAMMAR
- LIAN HANGLUAH
Traditionally, high school English grammar is perceived as something which we can understand (comprehend) like the other arts subject. An average student like me will by- heart the ‘definition’ and the ‘fill-in the blanks’ given by the teacher. Students with sharp brain will put more vocabulary and definition in their mental lexicon (brain).
As I grew up enrolling in my college and graduation, I realized the complexity of English grammar. It is something which needs to be dealt with rules. Beyond that, it also needs structural and semantical analysis to comprehend its complexity. This paper attempts to posit ‘verb’ as the most crucial constituent (word) in analyzing the sentence formation of English language.
ENGLISH GRAMMAR
Cambridge Dictionary states “grammar is basically the study or use of the rules about how words change their forms and combine with other words to make sentences”. In other words, grammar is the set of rules that govern human language. Relatably, English grammar is the set of rules that governs English language.
ARGUMENT STRUCTURE
Noam Chomsky, an American linguist, coined the term “argument structure” using logic to refer to the required participants of the verbs in order to bring out the meaning of the verb. By definition, argument structure is the obligatory constituents required by the verb to make the complete sense of its interpretation in a sentence. In other word, the verb chose what constituents to be added and even, what not to add in a sentence.
To elucidate the argument structure, let us take the different types of verbs along with examples.
1. In-transitive Verb: Intransitive verb expresses an action without the action passing to a receiver or an object. In addition, intransitive verb does not need an object to make a complete sentence. Hence, In-transitive verb requires only one obligatory subject.
In the following examples, the verb ‘snore’ takes just one subject and no object since the verb is an intransitive verb. Reversely, example 2 takes two obligatory arguments which consist of a subject and an object. Since, the verb ‘snore’ is an intransitive verb, taking two arguments is ungrammatical. In fact, it also has semantic issues, the problem of which will be discussed later in the thematic structure.
Examples:
(1) I snore
Argument Verb
(2) * I snore him
Argument verb Argument
2. Transitive verb: Unlike the intransitive sentence, the transitive verb requires a subject and an object.
In example 3, the verb ‘hit’ requires two arguments: the action doer (subject) and the action or thing undergoing the action (object).
In example 4, the action doer “Thangpu” is mentioned, but the action or thing undergoing the action is not mentioned. Hence, it lacks some information resulting in the ungrammaticality of the sentence.
(3) Thangpu hit the ball
Argument verb Argument
(4) * Thangpu hit
Argument verb
3. Di-transitive verb: In transitive sentence, the verb requires a subject and two objects i.e. direct and indirect object.
In example 5, the verb ‘gave’ is a di-transitive verb which requires one subject, one direct object and one indirect object. To validate the correctness of the sentence, the verb ‘gave’ should raised the questions: who is the one who gives? What is the thing which is given? And to whom was that thing given? The sentence will be considered grammatical if it fulfils the preceding questions. Hence, example 5 is considered grammatical as it fulfils the above questions.
(5) John gave the book to Mary
Argument Verb Argument Argument
Subject Direct Object Indirect object
Conversely, example 6 is ungrammatical since the verb ‘gave’ which is obliged to take two objects take only one object. The questions still remains ‘To whom John gave the book?’. It needs to fulfil the above pertinent questions.
*(6) John gave the book
Argument verb Argument
Subject Direct object
ADJUNCTS
The above discussions on argument structure are obligatory constituents needed in order to produce a right sentence. In line with this, there are some optional constituents that give more information to the obligatory constituents. This optional constituent is known as “Adjuncts”.
Example 7 is grammatical as the obligatory constituents or arguments required by the verb ‘hit’ is inserted in the subject and object. Notably, example 8 provides additional information “hardly” to the verb apart from the obligatory constituents making the sentence more concrete. Hence, it is very much grammatical making the argument more realistic.
(7)Thangpu hit the ball
Argument verb Argument
(8) Thangpu hit the ball hardly.
Argument verb Argument Adjunct
THEMATIC (SEMANTIC) STRUCTURE
The grammaticality of a verb along with its obligatory constituents can be analyzed based on its semanticity (meaning). Significantly, each argument will be assigned a role by the verb. In other words, the obligatory arguments were given a theme (role) that can best relate with the verb. The thematic structure may be elucidated by giving the following examples:
In example 9, the verb ‘snore’ is something which can be experienced by a person. Here, the subject should be an experiencer ‘I’. In fact, ‘snore’ is something which can be experienced by a person without the help of other thing or person. Thus, the word “I snore” is grammatical with ‘I” as the experiencer. On the contrary, example 10 is ungrammatical since the object “him’ has nothing to do with the experiencer, as the verb “snore” is affecting only one person.
(9) I snore
Experiencer verb
(10) *I snore him
Experiencer verb ???
In example 11, the verb “hit” requires two obligatory constituents i.e. the person who hit and the person who is undergoing the action. The thematic role of the person who hit is assigned “AGENT” role and the person who is being hit is assigned the “PATIENT” role.
(11) Thangpu hit Lianpu
AGENT verb PATIENT
On the other hand, example 12 is considered grammatical as it lacks the person who is being hit (PATIENT). The question still remains what Thangpu hit; Is Thangpu hiiting a person or a thing?
(12) *Thangpu hit
AGENT verb
Here, in example 13 the verb “gave” assigned the thematic role to the person who gave, the thing which is being given and to the person the thing is being given. The person who gave is assigned “AGENT” role, the thing which is being given is assigned the thematic role “THEME” and the entity towards which the activity is directed is assigned “GOAL”
(13) John gave the book to Mary
AGENT verb THEME GOAL
Conversely, example 14 is considered ungrammatical as it lacks the entity towards which the activity is directed i.e. GOAL is not mentioned. In addition, the verb “gave” lacks the concrete information to whom the book was given. This led to two pertinent questions: Was the book given to a thing or person? Was it given to a boy or girl?
(14) *John gave the book
Agent verb THEME
CONCLUSION
It is undeniable fact that the foundation of English grammar is inculcated at the high school level in our country. Sadly, the English grammar was taught traditionally like the other arts subject. This hampers the comprehension level of students as the teachers failed to apply the conventional rules of the grammar. As we are venturing into the 21st century, school authorities must be well-informed so as to discern or distinguish which courses are considered as liberal arts and which courses are technical. This is the high time English teachers should be able to reason it out the grammaticality and ungrammaticality of English language precisely using logic. Contextually, the English language can be analyzed structurally and semantically when it comes into sentence formation. By being analytical of the English grammar, I hope and believe our schools will produce more grammarians, writers and orators in the coming years. Some crucial questions are: Are you ready to teach English grammar according to its technicality? Are you ready to alter the teaching techniques of English grammar? The answer heavily relies on you... English grammar teachers, principals, school educators.
References:
Cook, Vivian and Mark Newson. (1996) Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction Second Edition, U.K: Blackwell Publishers
Hageman, Liliane. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory: Second Edition, U.K:Blackwell Publishers.
Lyngdoh, Saralin (2018). Handout notes on Syntax. NEHU, Shillong
www.cambridge dictionary/grammar