Б. А. Ильиш строй современного английского языка Учебник
| Вид материала | Учебник |
- Advanced English Course: Лингафонный курс английского языка. Арс, 2001; Media World,, 641.95kb.
- Программа дисциплины опд. Ф. 02. 3 Лексикология английского языка, 112.16kb.
- Н. Н. Этимологические основы словарного состава современного английского языка. М.,, 8.77kb.
- Рабочая программа дисциплины лексикология современного английского языка наименование, 245.25kb.
- Программа дисциплины дпп. Ф. 08. 3 Грамматика Цели и задачи дисциплины, 108.5kb.
- Вопросы по курсу «Теоретическая лексикология современного английского языка» 2007, 39.13kb.
- С. Ф. Леонтьева Теоретическая фонетика английского языка издание второе, ■исправленное, 4003.28kb.
- Встатье рассматривается многокомпонентное словосочетание современного английского языка, 194.54kb.
- Межотраслевая полисемия в терминологической системе современного английского языка, 924.34kb.
- Библиотека филолога и. Р. Гальперин очерки по стилистике английского языка, 6420.74kb.
SOME GENERAL REMARKS
ON SYNDETIC COMPOSITE SENTENCES
SYNTACTICAL CONNECTIONS OF SUBORDINATE CLAUSES
With some types of subordinate clauses the question may be raised, whether they are connected with the head clause as a whole, or with some part of it. Of course this question does not arise with reference to subject and predicative clauses, for example: they quite obviously refer to the head clause as a whole. 1
But most types of subordinate clauses have to be considered from this point of view. Since it is by no means certain that there are clear objective criteria to be applied in every particular case, and since the decision in some cases may prove arbitrary, it is as well to set down in advance what our method is going to be in such cases. It would appear that there are two methods to choose from: (1) we may decide that we will consider a subordinate clause to be subordinated to the whole main clause unless there are objective signs to show that it is subordinated to one part of it, or, (2) we may decide that we will consider a subordinate clause to be subordinated to a part of the head clause unless there are clear objective signs to show that it is subordinate to the main clause as a whole. Now, the second alternative does not appear to be convincing. Subject clauses and predicative clauses, which require no special consideration from this viewpoint, are clearly subordinated to the sentence as a whole, and this indeed appears the chief and essential kind of subordination. We will accordingly settle on the first alternative and state that we will consider a clause as subordinated to the whole unless there is clear evidence that it is subordinated to some part of the head clause. Such a decision will make our task easier and will at the same time point out in advance the degree of arbitrariness inherent in this problem.
Let us begin by two types which present least difficulty from this viewpoint, namely by attributive and appositional clauses. These
1 In speaking about subject clauses and predicative clauses, we are faced with a peculiar difficulty. There appears to be some contradiction between the subject and predicate being the main parts of the sentence, and subject and predicative clauses being subordinate clauses: a subordinate clause is said to be the main part of the sentence. However, it appears that this difficulty is to be met by observing that the notions of main and secondary parts of a sentence and those of co-ordinate and subordinate clauses belong to different aspects of syntactic theory: if a clause (e.g. the clause Whoever said this...) cannot exist outside a certain type of context (e.g. Whoever said this must have been misinformed) we call it a subordinate clause, even though it represents the subject of the complex sentence. That is to say, a subject clause (and a predicative clause, too) should be called a subordinate clause on the grounds given above. However, this question certainly requires further analysis.
Syntactical Connections of Subordinate Clauses 307
o
bviously belong to a part of the head clause, namely the word denoting the thing which is further characterised in the attributive or appositional clause. If the part of the sentence to which an attributive clause belongs is dropped, the attributive clause must obviously be dropped along with it, as without that part there is nothing left for it to be attached to.The same reasoning applies to appositional clauses. They refer to an abstract noun, which is a part of the head clause, and would have to go if that noun were dropped. It is another clear case of a subordinate clause connected with one part of the head clause, not with the head clause as a whole.
Now let us consider the adverbial clauses. Here matters are somewhat less clear, as different types of adverbial clauses appear to be different from this viewpoint. With temporal, causal concessive, conditional, and resultative clauses, it is obvious that they belong to the head clause as a whole, not to any particular part of it. Let us consider a complex sentence with a conditional clause, that is, a conditional sentence, as an example. Take the sentence And if you tell father, he might tell the police, and set them hunting for them. (R. MACAULAY) There would not seem to be any doubt that the conditional clause belongs to the head clause as a whole. There is no reason to say that it belongs only to the predicate of the head clause. And the same will be true of other types of adverbial subordinate clauses which we have just mentioned.
Doubts are possible about clauses of manner and comparison. As a clause introduced by the conjunction than is necessitated by the comparative degree alone, and would be absolutely impossible in its absence, the conclusion seems to impose itself that the clause belongs to that part of the head clause which is expressed by the adjective or adverb in the comparative degree. (If it is an adjective, it may be either a predicative, or an attribute; if an adverb, it can only be an adverbial modifier of some kind.)
Now we proceed to object clauses, and this part of the problem appears to be the most difficult. For instance, in the sentence He bought what he wanted, does the object clause what he wanted belong to the head clause as a whole, or to the predicate bought alone? Or again, in the sentence She may marry whom she likes, does the object clause whom she likes belong to the head clause as a whole, or to the predicate may marry alone? There appears to be no clear evidence either way. On the one hand, it may be argued that the object clause is a part of the sentence just as an object is part of a simple sentence; it may also be pointed out that there is some parallelism between a subject clause and an object clause; compare, for instance, What he knew worried him and He told me what he knew. On the other hand, it may be argued that the object clause fully depends on the predicate verb and must go if that verb
308 Some General Remarks on Syndetic Composite Sentences
i
s dropped. For want of unmistakable evidence either way, let us apply the principle agreed and draw the conclusion that an object clause belongs to the head clause as a whole.Parenthetical clauses, in the vast majority of cases, refer to the head clause as a whole. They express the speaker's or writer's attitude to the statement contained in the head clause. However, there may be sentences in which the parenthetical clause refers not to the whole of the head clause but only to some fraction of it. Here are two examples: Fleda found Mrs Gereth in modest apartments and with an air of fatigue in her distinguished face — a sign, as she privately remarked, of the strain of that effort to be discreet of which she herself had been having the benefit. (H. JAMES) The parenthetical clause as she privately remarked refers only to the loose apposition a sign... discreet (with the attributive clause of which... the benefit belonging to it). Yes, but I hadn't heard from you then that you could invent nothing better than, as you call it, to send him back to her. (Idem) Such cases appear to be very rare.
THAT-CLAUSES
From a purely descriptive viewpoint, we can establish a category of clauses beginning with that. An analysis of the surrounding elements (the context) is needed to find out whether that in a given case is a demonstrative pronoun, a relative pronoun, or a conjunction, and what kind of clause is introduced by it. We will not at present dwell on the question how we have found out that the word that opens a clause (that would necessitate some additional investigation which does not belong here); we will consider it as settled that it does come at the beginning of a new clause, and we will limit ourselves to the study of the questions indicated above.
Let us first take two examples of sentences with clauses introduced by that: (1) And he had heard that the house was costing Soames a pretty penny beyond what he had reckoned on spending. (GALSWORTHY) (2) The light fell on her soft, delicate hair, that was full of strands of gold and of tarnished gold and shadow. (LAWRENCE) To determine what the word that is in each case and what sort of clause it introduces, let us examine the context more closely. In the first sentence that is preceded by had heard (a form of the verb hear) and followed by a noun with its article (the house), after which comes was costing (a form of the verb cost). This is enough to make it clear that that is a conjunction: it cannot be either a relative or a demonstrative pronoun, for the following reasons. It cannot be a relative pronoun because there is no noun either immediately before it or, indeed, anywhere before it; it cannot be a demonstrative pronoun because there is no noun immediately after it: the word immediately following is the definite
That-Clauses 309
a
rticle, and this makes it clear that the word that is not a demonstrative pronoun. So it can only be a conjunction.As the clause introduced by the conjunction that immediately follows a form of the verb hear, the clause can only be an object clause (provided we accept the view of object clauses laid down on page 281).
In our second example things are quite different. The word that immediately follows the noun hair and is followed by a form of the verb be and the adjective full. The preceding noun hair does not in itself give any decisive information about the status of the word that: it may, in different contexts, be either a relative pronoun, or a demonstrative pronoun (for instance, in the context she did her hair that day, or she did her hair, that being essential for ... etc., or it may be a conjunction, for example, in the context she did her hair that she might look... etc.). It is the words that come after that which are decisive: the words was full show that the word that is not a conjunction: if it were a conjunction there would be no subject in the subordinate clause, and the predicate was full must have a subject coming before it. That might after all be a demonstrative pronoun; if this were so, the clause which begins here would be an independent clause and the sentence a compound sentence. This is, however, most unlikely, as such a use of the demonstrative that in this context would be stylistically awkward. So the only likely possibility is, that that is the relative pronoun, and the clause which begins here, a relative attributive clause.
As may be seen from these examples, quite a number of factors have to be taken into account if we are to find out by reasoning what part of speech the word that is in each case and what kind of clause it introduces.
A somewhat similar analysis might be given of clauses introduced, for instance, by the word when. This would show whether it was an adverb or a conjunction, and what kind of subordinate clause it introduced. The latter question (about the kind of clause) would also have to be considered with clauses introduced by the conjunction whether, and possibly with some other types of clauses too.
In dealing with syntactical connections within a complex sentence, it will be well to bear in mind that special cases are always possible, which cannot be foreseen by any general theory. Thus, a very peculiar use of conjunctions is seen in the following complex sentence: He did not know why, exactly, he wrote, he said, unless perhaps that she might know to what extent he was guilty in that he could not bring himself with any sincerity to repent a sin that had for him such charm and value. (BUECHNER) The conjunction unless would seem to introduce a clause, as it always does. But in this sentence unless is followed by perhaps, after which a clause
310 Some General Remarks on Syndetic Composite Sentences
b
egins which is introduced by the conjunction that. It is quite clear from the predicate of this clause (might know) and also from the adverb why in the object clause why, exactly, he wrote, that this that-clause is a clause of purpose. But what, then, is the function of the conjunction unless? Its function would be clear if the sentence ran like this: He did not know why, exactly, he wrote, he said, unless perhaps it were that she might know..., or, alternatively, He did not know why, exactly, he wrote, unless perhaps he wrote that she might know... In each of these variants the conjunction unless would introduce a subordinate clause of its own, to which the clause of purpose would, in its turn, be subordinated. In the original text unless in a peculiar way connects with the head clause a clause of purpose which already has its own conjunction, namely, that.PARALLELISM OF SYNTACTIC FUNCTIONS
When we set out to characterise the syntactic function of some word, phrase, or clause, we are often at a loss for want of objective criteria which would justify this or that view of their function, and we are often reduced to subjective opinions, often incompatible with one another, instead of reaching conclusions binding on every one. The result is that the whole sphere to which such a question belongs, begins to look like one inaccessible to scientific treatment, and we either reconcile ourselves to this state of things, or else we decide that the question had better be dropped altogether.
Among these questions is that of the function of subordinate clauses in a complex sentence. In more than one case the description of a subordinate clause as belonging to this or that type appears to be a scholar's private opinion rather than anything else. We must therefore attach special value to any objective criterion that might be discovered here, and we must be on a constant look-out for such criteria.
Now, a very valuable criterion in this sphere is parallel use of a subordinate clause and of a word or phrase in the same syntactic function. If the syntactic function of the word or phrase has been established — and this is in many cases an easier thing to do than with subordinate clauses — the function of the subordinate clause may be defined on this ground with a much greater degree of objectivity than on any other. Unfortunately, cases of this kind do not seem to be frequent. The more value should be attached to the few cases that there are.
The following sentence affords a clear example of parallelism: For himself, he did not mind this but if she made silly jokes about the old ladies at Potter's Farm he would get angry and then Mummy would say all that about his having to learn to take a joke and about his being highly strung and where could he have got it froom, not
Parallelism of Syntactic Functions 811
f
rom her. (A. WILSON) Towards the end of it there are three parts connected by the conjunction and: ...all that about his having to learn to take a joke and about his being highly strung and where could he have got it from, not from her. So the syntactical function of the three parts (1) about his having to learn to take a joke, (2) about his being highly strung, (3) where could he have got it from, not from her, are bound to be the same. So a clause is shown to be on the same syntactical level as the two prepositional phrases introduced by about. If we agree that the two prepositional groups, joined as they are to the words all that, are on that account to be considered as attributes, the subordinate clause is bound to be an attributive clause.A parallel use of a word and a clause is found in the following passage: "I have heard that something very shocking indeed will soon come out in London." Miss Tilney, to whom this was chiefly addressed, was startled, and hastily replied, "Indeed! — and of what nature?" "That I do not know, nor who is the author." (J. AUSTEN) This extract is interesting in more than one respect. On the one hand, the demonstrative pronoun that is here used to replace a clause, as implied from the question "...of what nature?" The full answer might have been "Of what nature it is, I do not know." On the other hand, in the last sentence of the extract, the object that is connected with the clause who is the author by the co-ordinating conjunction nor, which shows that they are parallel elements of the sentence, standing in the same relation to the predicate do not know. Again, if we term the pronoun that an object, there seems no valid reason for denying the status of object to the clause who is the author.
A similar parallel use of a secondary part of a sentence and of a subordinate clause is also seen in the following example: During the evening, and until they finally went to bed at midnight, Judith attempted several times to get Eve to tell her what kind of job she had and about the kind of work she did, but Eve always laughed and said it was too unimportant to discuss at a time like that when they had not seen each other for so long and had so many interesting things to talk about. (E. CALDWELL) There are two cases of such parallel use in this sentence. (1) The adverbial modifier during the evening and the subordinate clause until they finally went to bed at midnight are joined together by the conjunction and. Their similarity in meaning is seen from the fact that they are both introduced by words referring to time (during and until) and both contain nouns expressing temporal units (evening, midnight). So if we term the phrase during the evening an adverbial modifier of time, there is every reason to term the clause an adverbial clause of time. (2) With the verb tell there are two syntactical units denoting the contents of the action denoted by this verb: the subordinate clause
312 Some General Remarks on Syndetic Composite Sentences
w
hat kind of job she had, and the phrase about the kind of work she did, and they are also joined together by the conjunction and. Their closeness in meaning is also shown by the fact that the subordinate clause contains the words kind of job, and the following phrase the words kind of work (job and work being of course synonyms), though this lexical closeness is not here essential to prove the syntactical parallelism of the two units. Again, if we term the phrase about the kind of work she did an object, there is every reason to term the subordinate clause an object clause.What had seemed his defeat, her unsuccessful reaction to his account of Bone in the chapel, could be altered completely now by her consent. (BUECHNER) The two syntactical elements, the subordinate clause what had seemed his defeat, and the phrase her unsuccessful reaction to his account of Bone in the chapel, are clearly connected with each other. Probably the best way to take this connection is to say that the phrase her... chapel is an apposition to the subordinate clause, which then apparently must be the subject clause: if both the clause and the phrase are dropped there will be no subject in the sentence; and if the clause alone is dropped, the phrase will be the subject in its place, which of course is quite the rule with an apposition to the subject, in whatever way it may happen to be expressed.
COMPLEX SENTENCES AS A WHOLE
Of course a complex sentence does not always consist of one main and one subordinate clause. It may contain two, three, or more subordinate clauses, which may or may not be connected with one another. Two subordinate clauses are connected with one another if they belong to the same type (for example, if they are both object clauses). In that case they may be joined by a co-ordinating conjunction (and, but, or). We can see an example in the following sentence: He thought what a handsome pair they made, Lucien and his mother, and how the abbe had no chance at all with them. (R. MACAULAY)
Another type of structure is seen when the subordinate clauses are not connected with each other. For instance, one of two attributive clauses within a complex sentence may modify one part of the head clause, and the other attributive clause may modify another part: On the contrary, here I have everything that disappointed me without anything that I have not already tried and found wanting. (SHAW)
In a similar way two adverbial clauses within a complex sentence may belong to different homogeneous predicates in the head clause, etc.
It is obvious that many varieties are here possible.
Complex Sentences As a Whole 313
A
nd again, the subordinate clauses contained in one complex sentence may have different functions: one may be attributive, another an object clause, a third may be adverbial, and so forth.So far we have only considered complex sentences with subordinate clauses of the first degree, that is, clauses immediately subordinated to the main clause. However, that is far from being the only possible structure of a complex sentence. A subordinate clause may in its turn have another clause subordinated to it, that is, a subordinate clause of the second degree. That clause of the first degree to which another clause (of the second degree) is subordinated, has thus a twofold syntactical connection: on the one hand, it is a subordinate clause with reference to the main clause, and on the other, it is a head clause with reference to the second-degree subordinate clause. This may be seen, for example, in the following complex sentence: Across her face there was passing a constant stream of infinitesimally delicate changes of expression, the most minute possible contraction of the brows or pursing of the lips, which gave an indication of restlessness that, if at any moment these movements became more marked, would shift into a complete picture of misery. (R. WEST) In this sentence there is an attributive clause of the first degree, an attributive clause of the second degree, and a conditional clause of the third degree.
Many questions remain to be solved concerning the types of clauses which may be subordinates of the first degree and have at the same time further subordinates of the second and higher degrees attached to them, etc. It also remains to be seen whether, for instance, interrogative or imperative clauses can be met with as subordinate clauses of different degrees, etc.
There may also be homogeneous clauses, that is, two or more subordinate clauses, connected either with or without a conjunction, and performing the same syntactical function in the sentence. These clauses may or may not be introduced by the same subordinating conjunction or connective.
Thus, in the following example there are three homogeneous subject clauses. Why Motley had told him, why he must ridiculously, having no rights, question her, and what she might answer were problems he had tried since his first enlightenment to thrust from him. (BUECHNER) That the three clauses are homogeneous is clearly shown by the fact that there is the conjunction and between the second and the third of them, and also by the fact that the predicate of the head clause is were problems, with its link verb in the plural. The words introducing the three clauses are only partly alike: why for the first clause, why for the second, but what for the third.
In our next example the conjunction as introduces the two homogeneous predicative clauses: All this was as it had always been, as it should be, and there was even a special gift, as he crossed between
314 Same General Remarks on Syndetic Composite Sentences
t
he statues, a huge and moving point of gray between the immobility of gilt and bronze, and proceeded to the side-street that led to the garage. (BUECHNER) The semantic connection between the two predicative clauses is of course quite clear: the first of them states the fact that the thing had always been so, and the second confirms that this was not a fortuitous but a necessary phenomenon due to certain laws. This example illustrates another point, too: it shows that an as-clause can also be predicative (besides being adverbial or attributive).It is time now to examine the base of the division of conjunctions into co-ordinating and subordinating ones and of clauses into co-ordinated and subordinated ones.
In trying to answer this question we must of course take into account the grammatical structure of the language which we are analysing. Thus, in Modern German the difference between coordinate (or independent) and subordinate clauses is quite plainly expressed by the difference in word order: in a subordinate clause the finite verb predicate invariably comes at the end while in an independent clause the finite verb predicate comes either after the subject, or after an initial secondary part. Accordingly, in German, those conjunctions are termed subordinating, which introduce clauses with word order typical of subordinate clauses.
In a language which does not have any such distinction in word order this criterion is of course inapplicable and we must look for some other. There would seem to be three criteria which are actually applied but not always clearly formulated as such, namely (1) the function of the clause as compared to the corresponding element in a simple sentence, (2) the lexical meaning of the conjunction itself, (3) the possibility or impossibility of the clause in question being used outside the syntactical context in which it is usually found.
We can also say that the following question is of some importance here: which is the guiding factor, that is, do we call a conjunction subordinating because it introduces subordinate clauses or do we call a clause subordinate because it is introduced by a subordinating conjunction, or do both these considerations stand, as it were, on the same level, so that they go hand in hand, without either of them being dependent on the other? It would seem that in different cases this question is treated differently. It seems on the whole to amount to a problem of mutual relations between a lexical and a syntactical, that is, a grammatical, factor.
Let us first consider the question of conjunctions as such. What reasons have we, for instance, for saying that the word though is a subordinating conjunction? Let us take the lexical side of the question first. Though expresses a concessive relation, that is, it expresses a relation between two actions (or situations, etc.), of
Complex Sentences As a Whole 315
w
hich one is an obstacle to another, and that obstacle proves insufficient to actually prevent the action from being performed (or the situation from arising). The action is performed in spite of the obstacle stated in the though-clause. We infer from this analysis that the though-clause contains some secondary point, whereas the clause with which it is connected contains the main point in the sentence: 1 if the though-clause were dropped the information about the action which was performed after all would remain all the same. So the reasoning seems to be this: the conjunction though expresses a relation between two actions which stand on an unequal footing; consequently it is a subordinating conjunction and the clause it introduces is bound to be a subordinate clause.The question can also be approached from the syntactic angle. Namely, we can apply the test whether a unit introduced by the conjunction though can exist separately, as an independent sentence. If we try to isolate the though-clause making part of the above example we shall find that it cannot,2 and we shall conclude that though is a subordinating conjunction.
In studying the structure of complex sentences, an important question arises which has been dealt with by various authors recently, namely the question whether a subordinate clause is or is not necessary for the subordinating clause.
Here we must distinguish between two basically different cases, A certain type of subordinate clause may be either absolutely (grammatically) necessary, that is, without it the subordinating clause could not exist at all, or it may be relatively (semantically) necessary, that is, the subordinating clause might exist without it, but the meaning of the sentence would be completely changed, or even it might become almost meaningless. There may probably also be intermediate cases.
Let us first consider some examples of sentences where the subordinate clause is not at all necessary to make the subordinating clause possible. "And you scowled at Jack as if you wanted to kill him." (BRAINE) The subordinate clause could quite easily be omitted. "And you scowled at Jack" would be quite a satisfactory sentence. The same may be said of the sentence Now 1 was out I didn't know what to do. (LESSING) Omitting the subordinate clause
1 This should not be taken to mean that the though-clause cannot in certain circumstances be the rheme of the sentence as a whole. That can be the case when the main action is known already and the new information conveyed in the sentence is about the obstacle which proved unable to prevent it.
2 In making this assertion here we merely rely upon our own speech instinct, which of course is not sufficient proof. To prove the point we ought to study a sufficient amount of texts and to find that in fact no such though- sentences occur there.
316 Some General Remarks on Syndetic Composite Sentences
w
e get the sentence I didn't know what to do, which is quite acceptable. A last example is: Suddenly I heard a tap-tap tapping that got louder, sharp and clear, and I knew before I saw her that this was the sound of high heels on a pavement though it might just as well have been a hammer against stone. (Idem) Here three subordinate clauses can be dropped without making the remaining sentence impossible: Suddenly I heard a tap-tap tapping (. . .), and I knew (...) that this was the sound of high heels on a pavement (...), whereas the clause that this was the sound of high heels on the pavement cannot be dropped, as without it the verb knew would not make sense. In this case, then, the object clause that — pavement is absolutely (grammatically) necessary: its omission would destroy the whole sentence.Now some examples of absolutely necessary subordinate clauses. I felt as if I'd been taken by the scruff of the neck and dropped through a sky of hands and each hand, Alice's; I looked at the cigar and remembered that I'd given up smoking. (BRAINE) The object clause cannot be omitted: a sentence I looked at the cigar and remembered would not make sense.
The same can be said about the sentence She was sure that Susan wouldn't marry me, and she was sure that she could hold me. (BRAINE) If both subordinate clauses are dropped, we get the text She was sure, and she was sure, which is obviously impossible.
Now for some examples of clauses which are relatively (semantically) necessary. The time it took to cross the space of rough grass to the door of the little house was enough to show Dorothy was right. (LESSING) If we drop the subordinate clause we get the text: The time was enough to show Dorothy was right, which is grammatically satisfactory, but leaves the meaning obscure: what time was enough to show that she was right? Here, then, it is a case of a subordinate clause which is semantically necessary, although the grammatical structure as such could well do without it. The same can be said of the following sentence. Though spring had come, none of us saw it. (LAWRENCE) Grammatically the sentence None of us saw it is faultless, but semantically it is unsatisfactory, because we do not see what is meant by it. This pronoun replaces the substantive spring which is used in the subordinate clause (an adverbial clause of concession).
It may not always be equally easy to distinguish between grammatical and semantic necessity of a clause, but the principle of distinction should be clear enough.
Let us consider one more example. She looked at him, as he lay propped upon his elbow, turning towards hers his white face of fear and perplexity, like a child that cannot understand, and is afraid and wants to cry. (Idem) Let us make the following experiment: first drop the second-degree subordinate clause and then
Compound-Complex Sentences 317
b
oth of them. Dropping the second-degree clause, we get the sentence She looked at him, as he lay propped upon his elbow, turning towards hers his white face of fear and perplexity, like a child (...). This is satisfactory, though the point of the phrase like a child remains somewhat obscure. If both clauses are dropped the sentence runs like this: She looked at him, which is quite satisfactory in every respect.Such analysis should of course be pursued further, and this would probably yield valuable information concerning both the grammatical and the semantic structure of sentences.