Subject-verb inversion in English

src: i.ytimg.com

The subject-verb inversion in English is the type of inversion in which the subject and verb (or the verb chains, catena verbs) alter the canonical order, so that the subject follows the verb (s), for example A lamp standing next to the bed -> In the bedside lamp stands . Inverse subject-verbs are different from subject-inversion inversions because the involved verbs are not auxiliary verbs.

Video Subject-verb inversion in English

Ikhtisar

The following sentences describe the inversion of the subject-verbs. They compare the canonical sequence to the non-standard inversion order, and they also show the fact that the inversion of the subject-verb is usually impossible if the subject is a weak (not pressed) pronoun:

a. Jim is sitting under the tree.

b. Under the Jim Jim tree. - Substitution verbs

c. * Under the tree he sat . - The inversion subjects are not possible with a specific subset of weak subjects

a. The dog came down the stairs.

b. Go down the stairs come the dog . - Substitution verbs

c. * Go down the stairs stairs. - The inversion subjects are not possible with a specific subset of weak subjects

a. Some flowers are inside the vase.

b. Inside the vase there are some flowers. - Reversal of subject-verbs with copula

c. * In the vase are they . - The inversion subjects are not possible with a specific subset of weak subjects

a. Bill says "I'm hungry".

b. "I'm hungry", said Bill . - Substitution verbs

c. "I'm hungry", he said . - Subject-verbs reversals here may be, but less likely, with a specific subset of weak subjects

Verb-subject formation has taken place in b-sentences to emphasize the post-verb subject. Emphasis may occur, for example, to establish the contrast of the subject with another entity in the context of the discourse.

Maps Subject-verb inversion in English

Type of verb-subject inversion

A number of types of verb-subject reversals can be recognized based on the nature of the phrase that precedes the verb and the nature of the verb (s) involved. The following subsections mention four different types of verb-inversion subjects: locative inversion , inversion directive , copular inversion , and query inversion .

Local blocking

Local inversion also occurs in many languages, including Brazilian Portuguese, Mandarin, Otjiherero, Chichewa, and a number of Germanic and Bantu languages. An additional phrase is diverted from its default postverbal position to a preceding verbal position, which causes finite subjects and verbs to be reversed. For example:

a. Lights are placed in the corner.

b. At the corner of place the light . - Local inversion

c. * In the corner of place it . - Locative blocking is not possible with weak subjects

a. Only Larry sleeps under the tree.

b. Under the tree Larry sleeps . - Local inversion

c. * Under the tree she sleeps . - Locative blocking is not possible with weak subjects

The facial expression that evokes a locative inversion is an addition to the location. The locative inversion in modern English is the remainder of the sequence V2 associated with the early stages of the language.

Inversion directive

Steering anversion is strongly associated with locative inversion along the pre-verb expression indicating the location, the only difference being that the verb now becomes a motion verb. Common verbs that allow the inverse directive in English are coming , going , run , etc.

a. Two students come into the room.

b. Into the room came two students . - Inversion instructions

c. * To the room they come . - Inversion directive is not possible with a weak pronoun

subject

a. The squirrel fell out of the tree.

b. Exit the tree fallen squirrel . - Inversion instructions

c. * Exit the fallen tree . - Inversion directive is not possible with a weak pronoun

subject

The inverse expression on the face is a directive expression; It helps to express the movement toward the goal. The following sentence may also be an example of a directive inversion, although a fronted expression expresses time rather than direction:

a. Cheers come after the speech.

b. After the speech comes toast . - Reversal after time expression

Like the locative inversion, the inversion directive is undoubtedly the remainder of the wording of V2 associated with the early stages of the language.

Copular Inversion

Copular Inversion occurs when the predicative nominal position switches to the subject in the clause where copula becomes is a finite verb. The result of this inversion is known as inverted copular construction, for example

a. Bill is our representative.

b. Our representative is Bill . - Copular Inversion

c. * Our representative is him . - Copular Inversion is not possible with the subject of weak pronoun

a. The objection is of concern.

b. Attention is an objection . - Copular Inversion

c. * Attention what is it . - Copular Inversion is not possible with the subject of weak pronoun

This type of inversion occurs with a limited form of copula being . Since English dominantly has an SV sequence, it will tend to see as the subject to which the noun phrase immediately precedes the finite verb. Thus in b-second sentence, Caution is considered the subject, and objection as a predicate. But if someone acknowledges that an inversion of interruption has occurred, one can argue that the objection is the subject, and Attention is predicated. This confusion has led to a focused study of these types of popular clauses. Where there are differences in numbers, the verb tends to agree with the noun phrase that precedes it:

a. Jack and Jill are the problem.

b. The problem is Jack and Jill . - In the inversion analysis, the verb agrees with a clear predicate.

Quotative reversal

In the literature, the inversion of the verb-subject occurs with a verb to speak. The reported speech is produced in its direct form, usually with quotation marks:

a. "We will win", Bill says .

b. "We will win", Bill said . - Quotative inversion

c.Ã,? "We will win", say him . - Quotative inversions are less likely with weak subject words

a. "What's the problem?", Larry asked .

b. "What's the problem?", Larry asked . - Quotative inversion

c. ? "What's the problem?", asks him . - Quotative inversions are less likely with weak subject words

This kind of inversion does not exist in everyday conversations. It happens almost exclusively in a literary context.

src: i.ytimg.com

Many verbs

The verb-subject reversal can sometimes involve more than one verb. In this case, the subject follows all the verbs, which are finite and infinite, e.g.

a. The remains of marijuana consumption have been found under the bed twice.

b. Under his bed has been found the remains of marijuana consumption twice.

c. Under his bed has been found twice the remains of cannabis consumption .

Sentences b and sentence c, where the subject follows all verbs, stand in stark contrast to what happens in the case of subject-auxiliary inversion, which has a subject appearing between the adjacent additional verbs and non-up verbs (s), eg

d. What whatever has been found under the bed?

Furthermore, flexibility across sentences b and sentence c indicates that there is some freedom of word-order in post-verb domains. This freedom is consistent with the analysis in terms of the right shift from the subject, where the heavier constituents tend to follow the lighter ones. The evidence for this claim comes from the observation that the sentence equivalent of c above is not as good as the subject of light:

e.Ã, ?? Under his bed has been found twice hashish .

f. * Under the bed has been found twice it .

These facts clearly distinguish this type of inversion from the inversion of the simple subject-supporters, applicable regardless of the subject's weight:

g. Has it been found under the bed?

Thus, it is not clear from these examples if the lesson-aid inversion is a grammatical phenomenon uniform with the other cases discussed above.

src: study.com

Structure analysis

Like most types of inversion, the verb-subject inversion is a phenomenon that challenges sentence structure theory. In particular, the traditional subject-predicate division of the clause (S -> NP VP) is difficult to maintain in light of the subject-inversion instance of words such as into the forthcoming unicorn room . This kind of sentence is more consistent with the theory that takes the sentence structure to be relatively flat, has no finite verb phrase constituent, ie does not have VP S -> NP VP.

To maintain the traditional subject-predicate division, one must regard motion (or copy) on a large scale. The basic difficulty is suggested by the following trees that represent the phrase structure of the sentence:

This convention is used here where the words themselves appear as labels on nodes in the trees. The tree on the left shows a canonical analysis clause, where the sentence is divided into two direct constituents, subject Bill and the limited VP squatting in the bush . To maintain the integrity of the VP constituent to squat in the bushes , one can assume the rearrangement of constituents in the second sentence on the right, where both crouch and in the bush move out of the VP and up to the structure. The suggested account with the second tree is a type of analysis that is likely to be found in Government Theory and Binding or Minimalist Program. This is a phrase structure account that depends on the mechanism of movement/copying that is not visible below the surface.

The invisible mechanism should do even greater work for the above-mentioned example of marijuana. The sentence (sentence c in the previous section) will require at least five instances of motion/copying to maintain the presence of the underlying constrained VP constituency.

This makes it impossible that the mechanisms discussed above are the correct analyzes for marijuana samples, since this may be produced by the same mechanisms underlying extraposition and heavy NP shifts.

An alternative analysis of the verb-subject inversion rejects the existence of limited VP constituencies. Due to the absence of this constituent, the structure is more flat, which simplifies many things. Sentences in reverse order often will not produce discontinuities, which means the basic hierarchy of the constituent (vertical order) does not change in the canonical and inverted variants. The following trees illustrate this alternative account. The first two trees describe the analysis in orthodox phrase grammar that rejects the presence of limited VP constituencies, and the two second trees describe the analysis in grammatical dependencies. Grammatical dependence rejects the presence of limited VP constituencies.

Since there is no limited VP constituency in these trees, the basic constituent hierarchy remains consistent. What's changed is a linear sequence of constituents. The following trees illustrate a "flat" analysis based on the dependence of marijuana samples.

Due to the lack of limited VP constituencies, the basic hierarchy of constituents is not altered by inversion. However, this analysis does not capture the obvious dependence between the main verb and the subject being reversed.

src: www.thoughtco.com

Note

src: i.ytimg.com

Literature

• Culicover, P. 1997. Principles and parameters: Introduction to syntactic theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Downing, A. and Locke, P. 1992. Grammar: The university course, second edition. London: Routledge.
• Greenbaum, S. and R. Quirk. 1990. Grammar students from English. Harlow, Essex, United Kingdom: Longman.
• GroÃÆ'Ÿ, T. and T. Osborne 2009. Toward the theory of grammatical instability of practical dependencies. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22, 43-90.
• Matthews, P. H. (2007). Syntactic Relations: critical surveys (1. publ. Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBNÃ, 9780521608299. Retrieved 24 August 2012.
• Mikkelsen, Line 2005. Copular clauses: Specification, predication, and equation. Linguistics Today 85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Miller, J. 2011. Introduction is important for syntax. London: continuum.
• Moro, A. 1997. Improved predicate: noun phrase predictive and clause structure theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Osborne, T., M. Putnam, and T. GroÃÆ'Ÿ 2011. The structure of bare phrases, trees without labels, and uncertain syntax: Is Minimalism a dependency grammar? The Linguistic Review 28, 315-364.
• Words, R. S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. 1979. Contemporary English grammar. London: Longman.
• TesniÃÆ'¨re, L. 1959. ÃÆ' â € ° lemÃÆ' Â © nts de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
• TesniÃÆ'¨re, L. 1969. ÃÆ' â € ° lemÃÆ' Â © nts de syntaxe structurale, 2nd ed. Paris: Klincksieck.

Source of the article : Wikipedia