Product Code Database
In linguistics, a verb phrase ( VP) is a syntax unit composed of a verb and its arguments except the subject of an independent clause or coordinate clause. Thus, in the sentence A fat man quickly put the money into the box, the words quickly put the money into the box constitute a verb phrase; it consists of the verb put and its arguments, but not the subject a fat man. A verb phrase is similar to what is considered a predicate in traditional grammars.
Verb phrases generally are divided among two types: finite, of which the head of the phrase is a finite verb; and nonfinite, where the head is a nonfinite verb, such as an infinitive, participle or gerund. Phrase structure grammars acknowledge both types, but dependency grammars treat the subject as just another verbal dependent, and they do not recognize the finite verbal phrase constituent. Understanding verb phrase analysis depends on knowing which theory applies in context.
The first example contains the long verb phrase hit the ball well enough to win their first World Series since 2000; the second is a verb phrase composed of the main verb saw, the complement phrase the man (a noun phrase), and the adjunct phrase through the window (an adverbial phrase and prepositional phrase). The third example presents three elements, the main verb gave, the noun Mary, and the noun phrase a book, all of which comprise the verb phrase. Note, the verb phrase described here corresponds to the predicate of traditional grammar.
Current views vary on whether all languages have a verb phrase; some schools of generative grammar (such as principles and parameters) hold that all languages have a verb phrase, while others (such as lexical functional grammar) take the view that at least some languages lack a verb phrase constituent, including those languages with a very free word order (the so-called non-configurational languages, such as Japanese, Hungarian, or Australian aboriginal languages), and some languages with a default VSO order (several Celtic and Oceanic languages).
Phrase structure grammars view both finite and nonfinite verb phrases as constituent phrases and, consequently, do not draw any key distinction between them. Dependency grammars (described below) are much different in this regard.
Since has finished the work contains the finite verb has, it is a finite VP, and since finished the work contains the non-finite verb finished but lacks a finite verb, it is a non-finite VP. Similar examples:
These examples illustrate well that many clauses can contain more than one non-finite VP, but they generally contain only one finite VP. Starting with Lucien Tesnière 1959,Concerning Tesnière's rejection of a finite VP constituent, see Tesnière (1959:103–105). dependency grammars challenge the validity of the initial binary division of the clause into subject (NP) and predicate (VP), which means they reject the notion that the second half of this binary division, i.e. the finite VP, is a constituent. They do, however, readily acknowledge the existence of non-finite VPs as constituents. The two competing views of verb phrases are visible in the following trees:
The constituency tree on the left shows the finite VP has finished the work as a constituent, since it corresponds to a complete subtree. The dependency tree on the right, in contrast, does not acknowledge a finite VP constituent, since there is no complete subtree there that corresponds to has finished the work. Note that the analyses agree concerning the non-finite VP finished the work; both see it as a constituent (complete subtree).
Dependency grammars point to the results of many standard constituency tests to back up their stance.For a discussion of the evidence for and against a finite VP constituent, see Matthews (2007:17ff.), Miller (2011:54ff.), and Osborne et al. (2011:323f.). For instance, topicalization, pseudoclefting, and answer ellipsis suggest that non-finite VP does, but finite VP does not, exist as a constituent:
The * indicates that the sentence is bad. These data must be compared to the results for non-finite VP:
The strings in bold are the ones in focus. Attempts to in some sense isolate the finite VP fail, but the same attempts with the non-finite VP succeed.Attempts to motivate the existence of a finite VP constituent tend to confuse the distinction between finite and non-finite VPs. They mistakenly take evidence for a non-finite VP constituent as support for the existence a finite VP constituent. See for instance Akmajian and Heny (1980:29f., 257ff.), Finch (2000:112), van Valin (2001:111ff.), Kroeger (2004:32ff.), Sobin (2011:30ff.).
This more narrow definition is often applied in functionalist frameworks and traditional European reference grammars. It is incompatible with the phrase structure model, because the strings in bold are not constituents under that analysis. It is, however, compatible with dependency grammars and other grammars that view the verb catena (verb chain) as the fundamental unit of syntactic structure, as opposed to the constituent.
|
|
