Page last modified: May 08, 2002
CP Coding Questions
Click questions to jump to answers and discussion below.
- In "I want more juice with cookies" how should "with cookies" be coded?
- In "sometimes he's mean to me" how should "mean to me" be coded?
- When is "there" an existential subject and when is it a locative adverb?
- How is "go"+verb coded when it is used to mark future time?
- In "I wanna play with playdough" how is "play with" coded?
- How are multi-word proper nouns coded?
- How does PROPH treat palatal fronting?
Answers and Discussion
In "I want more juice with cookies" is "with cookies" a postmodifying prepositional phrase, an object complement (telling you more about the juice), or an adverbial of manner (how I want more juice)?
I think a case can be made for either the first or third interpretations. My own preference is for adverbial of manner. Usually, NPPrNP constructions further specify the head noun in the first NP, e.g., "I like cookies with chocolate chips." I don't see that going on here. The test for object complements, which this sentence fails, is that a copula can be inserted between the two clause elements, e.g., "I called him a fool" (= he is a fool). [shl]
In "Sometimes he's mean to me" is "mean to me" all together the Complement, containing two different phrase types (and Adj P for "mean", and a Prep P for "to me"). I can't think of other instances where a clause constituent is realized by two different phrase types, so I'm thinking the clause constituent analysis must be wrong?
This is a case where the adjectival complement is postmodified by a phrase. It's tallied at Stage VI on the LARSP profile chart. See these readings: CGCE 352-357; GALD 80; PLD 37-38. [shl]
With existential "there," sometimes there does seem to be a locative connotation, as in "There's my book!" Would you still call it an S (seems like you have to)? What about "Here's my book?" I call these both SVC structures, but my students don't like it, since the S is so A-like. Can you say it is an S clause constituent realized by and AdvP at the phrase level, or do you think of "there" and "here" in these cases as nouns meaning "in that place" or "in this place."
I consider this use of "there" to be locative, not existential. In Spanish (and probably many other languages) the two uses are realized with different verbs, so whenever I'm in doubt, I think about how the utterance would be translated. "There's a book" would be "aqui esta un libro", not "hay un libro". In addition, I look at "there's a book" and see the utterance "my book is there" with the Subject and Adverbial clause elements transposed. Thus, my analysis is AVS, which is then profiled on the chart as SVA. [shl]
One key to noting instances of existential "there" involves changing the sentence from a declarative to an interrogative. In the sentence, if "there" is existential in "There's my book" this would lead to the question, *is there my book? This clearly is wrong. Consequently, "there" must be locative and adverbial rather than serving as existential subject. Try this with any other sentence that you know is truly existential, e.g., "there's a snake in your ear" ---> "is there a snake in your ear?" In sum, if there is the subject, it should act like it. If it's not, it shouldn't behave as the subject in question formation. This diagnostic works in most applications.
Do you call "go" + another verb a lexical verb, even though in English it is often used as a way to mark the future (as in "I'm going to eat.")?
Yes, it's a catenative verb phrase, hence
I 'M GOING TO EAT CL S V SC PH PPAO V V WD NG [shl]
I am at the point in my winter term course where I am teaching LARSP again. I have what I considered a fairly straight forward typical kid type utterance. It is however giving me fits. Would you give me your opinion on the correct coding?
C: I want to play with playdough
Assuming the child has in fact coded the infinitive, don't we have
I want to play with playdough S V O V O PPV V PR NN
Or is it SVC where the infinitive is a serving as a complement of the verb? What does one do with simple infinitive clauses?
If the child really said
I wanna play with playdough S V O
My question in this case is whether "play with" or "with playdough" is the unit we are dealing with. Again the notion of whether we are dealing with a verb complement arises.
My answer is none of the above. I would code it this way:
I want to play with playdough S V O PPV V PT NN
This analysis treats "want to play" as a catenative VP and "play with" as a verb+particle construction. The latter analysis could be questioned, though I can cite a precedent in Working With LARSP: #4, p. 315. [shl]
Finally, I have a LARSP question: I've assumed that multi-word proper nouns only get tagged once, and are not tallied on the phrase level. For example, in "John Smith came over" the name wouldn't get credited as II.Phr Noun Noun, or in a sentence from the 2nd ed. of Max Morenburg's "Doing Grammar" text (Oxford) Ch.4 #5:
THE CLASS LIKED THE SUN ALSO RISES. CL S V O PH D NN V NN WD ED
Is this how you'd do it? I can't find any examples in GALD, PLD, or WWL dealing with this issue.
Yes. There is an example in WWL (p. 340) that shows "Christmas Day" coded as Noun-Noun but, for the sake of reliability, I prefer to code *all* multi-word proper nouns as Noun. Furthermore, if the sample is from a child, I would probably transcribe the multi-word proper noun as a single morpheme, that is, without spaces.
I wanted to double check with you about how PROPH treats palatal fronting. If the affricates "ch" and "j" are realised as "ts" and "dz", would PROPH treat these as instances as palatal fronting as it would when sh and zh are realised as s and z?
In the default process definitions, palatal fronting is limited to sh-->s, sh-->z, zh-->z, and zh-->s. If you want to add ts and dz to the definition, you can do so by using the PROPH Edit Process Definitions module.
Copyright © 2008 Steven Long. All rights reserved.