CHAPTER 1

SYNTACTIC PYRAMID

1. Syntactic segments and syntactic pyramid

Any syntactic analysis is concerned with syntactic segments, their internal structure and
external relations toward other units. Syntactic segments (syntactic units or syntagmas) are
linear chunks of language signs by the use of which language speakers are able to render
certain syntactic information. Delineation of syntactic segments and identification of syntactic
information that may be inferred from their arrangement is the main focus of syntactic
contemplations. Syntactic segments may consist of one or more members (constituents);
syntactic relations among those constituents determine an internal structure of syntactic
segments.

Although during the production process language users arrange syntactic segments
horizontally, their systemic (la langue) arrangement is of a vertical (and hierarchical) nature:
syntactic segments make up the syntactic pyramid of upward (functional) relations and
downward (structural) relations.

Figure 1. Syntactic Pyramid – structure versus function

Ranks Structure = is composed of

SENTENCE

CLAUSE

SEMICLAUSE

PHRASE

WORD

Function = functions

The syntactic pyramid is made up of syntactic floors (levels or ranks (Aarts, 2001:56))
starting from the level of WORD and ending up on the level of SENTENCE. In between
there are the levels of PHRASE and CLAUSE (along with a hybrid, clause-like level of
SEMI-CLAUSES). The hierarchical arrangement of syntactic segments in the syntactic
pyramid shows that:

1) syntactic segments of lower floors are used as building blocks for syntactic segments of
higher floors (lower-rank segments realize higher rank segments);

2) syntactic segments of higher floors are composed of syntactic segments of lower floors;

3) syntactic segments of lower floors fulfil particular functions in syntactic segments of upper
floors.

In general, lower-rank syntactic units are put up together to generate higher-rank

syntactic units (which, however, does not exclude a reversed type of composition, i.e. some
lower-rank units may contain a higher-rank segment as a building block, for example, the
phrase incorporating a semi/clause as one of its internal constituents). The syntactic pyramid
thus shows that when attempting to identify the structure/composition of a syntactic segment
we have to look downward the pyramid whereas the syntactic functions of particular syntactic
segments should be identified while moving upward the pyramid. Generation of higher-rank
segments from lower-rank segments is governed by the rules that are language-specific,
making up a closed set. By analogy between the generation of language units and the chess
game (pointed out already by de Saussure, Wittgenstein), the knowledge of this closed-set,
language-specific rules allows language users to generate an infinite number of sentence-rank
realizations from a definite set of word-rank units through the phrase and clause ranks.

Syntactic components of clause-rank units (and semi-clauses) are tied by cognitive

frames and surface chains. Both the cognitive frames as well as surface chains can be
understood as a sort of unit-combination formulae shared by the language community and
stored in each member´s mental repository. On the moment of delivery, language speakers
pick up a particular cognitive frame and opt for a particular surface chain which seems to be
the most suitable to active, in their recipients, the intended syntactic reading of a linear
stretch. Cognitive frames (i.e. combinations of semantic or cognitive roles) convey the
syntactic meaning whereas surface chains render the grammatical characteristics of a
syntactic stretch (i.e. the coding information).
 2. Ranks of WORD and SENTENCE

Let us use the following example to demonstrate the difference between the rank of word and
sentence:

(1) The old man had taught the boy to fish and the boy loved him. (Hemingway, E., The Old
Man and the Sea, p. 1)

Looking at the rank of sentence, in writing, its units are delineated by capitalization and
punctuation; in speech, grammatical indicators are accompanied by prosody. In the Prague
School tradition sentence is “an elementary communicative utterance through which the
speaker reacts to some reality or several items of the reality in a manner that appears to be
formally customary and subjectively complete” (Mathesius, 1975:79). This definition points
out that sentences are the fundamental units of communication and as such they serve as
distributional fields of communicative dynamism (this aspect, i.e. functional sentence analysis
of sentences, will be dealt with in Chapter XXX). It also distinguishes between the formal
perfection of a sentence in respect of the systemic considerations and the subjective
completeness that need not necessarily comply with all the grammatical requirements and
may still be considered as capable of accomplishing its communicative mission.

Systemically, sentences are composed of clauses; depending on the number of clauses

they are sub-classified into single-clause and multiple-clause sentences (to be discussed in
Chapter XXX). Depending on the intention of the speaker there may be distinguished several
intentional sentence types: declarative, interrogative, imperative, exclamative and
optative (Dušková, 1988:309).

In speech, the isolation of particular word-rank segments is governed by

phonetic/phonologic and morphological/lexical rules (in this respect syntax borders on these
linguistic disciplines); in a written discourse, the borderlines between respective units are also
signalled by graphic spaces inserted between particular orthographic units. The word-rank
analysis ends up by identifying word classes or parts of speech.

The above chunk (1) may be viewed as showing 1 syntactic segment on the level of
sentence and 13/14 syntactic segments on the level of word:

SENTENCE: /The old man had taught the boy to fish and the boy loved him./

WORD: /The/ old/ man/ had/ taught/ the/ boy/ to/ fish/ and/ the/ boy/ loved/ him/. or
 /The/ old/ man/ had taught/ the/ boy/ to/ fish/ and/ the/ boy/ loved/ him/.

3. WORD – PHRASE interface

3.1 PHRASE-rank tests

Delimitation of word as a unit as well as its internal structure is in the centre of attention of
such linguistic disciplines as morphology, lexicology, word-formation, and also phonetics and
phonology. In syntax words are treated as building blocks of syntactic phrases as is
demonstrated by the syntactic pyramid where the PHRASE floor is situated immediately
above the WORD floor. The most important question is how to delineate phrases, i.e. how to
distinguish them from words and from clauses. While delineation of words is aided by the
unique unity of their form and lexical meaning, identification of syntactic phrases, which is
the first and foremost step in any syntactic analysis, relies on less overt hints. As for the
WORD/PHRASE distinction, it may be summed up that it is the phrase, rather than the word,
that operates as a member of the clause and is capable of activating grammatical and
cognitive hints of syntactic information within the clause, although when a phrase is
composed of only one segment the borderlines of phrases overlap with their word
components. As for the PHRASE/CLAUSE distinction, the critical point is the lack of
valency/predication-based relations between the members of a phrase.
Valency/predication-based relations can only be detected on the level of clauses/semi-clauses
(details will be explained later in Chapter XXX).

Correct delimitation of phrases is crucial for the overall success of the syntactic analysis
of clauses and thereby also sentences. Contrary to a rather simple task of delimiting words
and sentences, phrases are less transparent to be delimited since their borderlines are not
indicated by the graphic marks or consistent punctuation. Their delineation therefore requires
some more theoretical input. Several tests may be used to facilitate the delimitation of
phrases: transposition, substitution, coordination (Miller, 2002:21).

Transposition – the change of the position of words within a linear stretch of words

The/ old/ man/ had/ taught/ the/ boy/ to/ fish/...

Old* the* man /had/ taught/ the/ boy/ to/ fish/...

Substitution – substituting the words by other members of the same word classes
The old man had taught the boy to fish...

That young fisherman had taught the boy to fish...

Coordination – coordinating the whole stretch with an analogical stretch containing other
members of the same word classes

The old man and that young fisherman had taught the boy to fish...

The above tests aid in delimiting the syntactic units the old man, had taught, the boy as
segments which show external independence toward the rest of the linear units, and, at the
same time, display strong internal ties obtaining between their own components:

The old man/ had taught/ the boy/ ……

As was mentioned above, the appropriate delimitation of phrases is not a self-

concerned task; it is crucial for the syntactic slotting of clauses, i.e. for identifying the
syntactic constituents of clauses. Since it is the phrases that carry the cognitive and
grammatical/coding information within and about the clause, their delimitation opens
the positions/slots of clause elements. While the above tests aim to identify the internal links
among the components of phrases and their internal inseparability, there is another test that is
paramount, and, at the same time, most simple to be used to demark the phrases, i.e. so called
Cognitive Question Test. The Cognitive Question Test serves to reveal the cognitive roles
activated by PHRASE syntactic segments on the level of CLAUSE and thereby delineate the
borderlines of phrases. In fact, it is very fundamental and language speakers are capable of
doing it intuitively even without much linguistic input. It rests in asking simple questions
WHO? does WHAT? to WHOM? HOW/ WHERE/ WHEN/ WHY?. It derives from the verb
which stands as the centre of any syntactic considerations above the level of phrase, and it is,
of course, related to valency issues and cognitive considerations. It is applicable to any
stretch above the level of phrase, no matter how simple or complicated it is. It also aids in
identifying the cognitively prominent constituent of the phrase which is to be further referred
to as Head as it carries the substantive notional meaning and thus serves as the prominent
bearer of the cognitive role (from a coding perspective it tends to govern the rest of the
constituents of the phrase headed by it). The relevance of the Cognitive Question Test for
delimitation of phrases and internal analysis of clauses is one of the proofs that cognitive and
coding syntactic analyses cannot be treated separately and, when it comes to which of them
prevails, it is the cognitive/onomasiological considerations which seem to take precedence in
many respects over the coding/surface features. The following analyses demonstrate the
application of the Cognitive Question Test as opening the respective phrase positions in
clauses.

Analysis 1

(2) John gave that book to Jane.

WHO? John

Gave WHAT? that book

To WHOM? to Jane

The Cognitive Question Test opens the following phrases (and thereby also the clause slots):

John/ gave/ that book/ to Jane.

Analysis 2

(3) Some Erasmus students were reading a new textbook on the English syntax in the
Department´s library.

WHO? some Erasmus students

Were reading WHAT? a new textbook

Were reading WHAT? on the English syntax*

Were reading WHAT kind of book? a new textbook on the English syntax

Were reading WHAT kind of book? a new textbook in the Department´s library*

Were reading the book WHERE? in the Department´s library

The resulting identification of phrases (and thereby clause slots):

/Some Erasmus students/ were reading/ a new textbook on the English syntax/ in the
Department´s library/.

Analysis 3

(4) Príklad z articles of association

Some of the clause slots revealed by the Cognitive Question Test need not be filled out by
phrases, actually. They may also be filled out by semi-clauses or clauses:

(5) /I /won´t tell/ you/ what I like/.

I won´t tell you WHAT? what I like – one slot – dependent clause

(6) I/ hate/ telling a lie/.

I hate WHAT? telling a lie – one slot – dependent semi-clause

3.2 PHRASE-rank internal analysis

Depending on the nature of their internal constituency, phrases can be subclassified into noun
phrases, verb phrases, prepositional phrases, adverb phrases and adjective phrases based on
the cognitively and grammatically prominent word class component around which they
cluster, so called HEAD (Miller, 2002).

Examples of phrases:

noun phrase (NP) the old man, the boy

verb phrase (VP) loved, had taught
adjective phrase (AdjP) the old man, a very nice girl
prepositional phrase (PrepP) on the cheek
adverb phrase (AP) very quickly, suddenly

Internally, noun phrases consist of Heads and Modifiers (by analogy the same may apply to
adverb phrases and adjective phrases). Heads can be defined as the grammatically and
cognitively prominent word class components of phrases. Modifiers are components of
phrases that add a semantic characteristics to the Head which is syntactically ancillary.
Depending on their position in respect of the Head they are divided into Premodifiers
(Premod) and Postmodifiers (Postmod). Beside Modifiers, which are grammatically optional,
noun phrases contain special function words called Determiners (Det) which determine “the
kind of reference“ (Quirk, 1996:72) a noun phrase has (definite, indefinite, universal,
situational). Determiners occur before the noun acting as the Head of the noun phrase and
before its Premodifiers. Quirk distinguishes three classes of Determiners:
- central determiners, e.g.: the, a/an, some, any, no, this, that

- pre-determiners, e.g.: half, all, double, as in all the people

- post determiners, e.g.: seven, many, few, as in the many passengers (Quirk, 1996:72)

Table 1 Exemplification of the internal analysis of noun phrases, adjective phrases and adverb
phrases

Kind of Example DET PREMOD HEAD POSTMOD

phrase
NP the old man the Old man working in the
working in garden
the garden (participial
semi-clause)
NP the chair by the --- chair by the window
the window (PrepP)
AdjP a very nice Very nice
girl
AP very quickly Very quickly

Prepositional phrases (PrepP) are composed of PREPOSITIONAL NAVIGATOR

(PrepNav), obviously rendered by prepositions as parts of speech and PREPOSITIONAL
COMPLEMENT (PrepCompl) which may be either noun phrase or gerundial semi-clause.
Cognitively, prepositional phrases are specific in that their cognitive information is split
between the two of their components where the Prepositional Complement is
onomasiologically prominent, however, the Prepositional Navigator determines the valency
reading of the Prepositional Complements, and thereby also of the whole prepositional phrase.

Table 2 Internal analysis of prepositional phrase

Example PrepNav PrepCompl Function of the

PrepP
the chair by the by the window (NP) Postmod
window
the hope of of winning a prize Postmod
winning a prize (gerundial semi-clause)
(Q:376)
Verb phrases (VP) are phrases which are made up of exclusively verbal constituents which
may be classified either as HEADS or AUXILIARIES. Heads carry the notional meaning of
the whole VP, auxiliaries activate the grammatical meaning thereof (the term Operator is
reserved for “the first or only auxiliary in the finite verb phrase” (Quirk et al., 1996:19)).
Depending on the morphological form of the Head verb, i.e. finite (-s form, past form, base
form of 1st, 2nd person sg. and pl., 3rd person pl., modals), or non-finite (-ing form, -ed form,
base form of infinitive), there can be distinguished finite and non-finite verb phrases: (Quirk
et al. 1996:41). Finite verb phrases are those in which the first or only verb component is
finite verb, while the rest are non-finite as exemplified in Table 3.

Table 3 Constituency of the finite VP

Auxiliaries Head verb

The ship sank.
The ship was sinking.
The ship has been sinking.
The ship Must have been sinking.

FAREBNE alebo graficky vyznačiť finite forms a non-finite forms a operator

The ship sank.

Finite forms was sinking. Non-finite forms

has been sinking.

must have been sinking.

Operator Auxiliaries Head verb

QUIRK et al. (???)

Non-finite verb phrases are those in which first or only verb is non-finite (Quirk et al.,
1996:41), see Table 4.
Table 4 Constituency of the non-finite VP

Dependent participial semi-clause Main clause

Non-finite auxiliaries Head verb
(non-finite
form)
The Contractors Signing it the Contract
became
effective.
The Contractors having Signed it it became
effective.
The Contract being Signed its
performance
may start.
The Contract Having been signed its
performance
may start.

Finite verb phrases function as Verbs of finite clauses that may generate sentences
independently as they are capable of activating the tense and aspect contrasts, the passive and
active voice, and can show the person and number concord with the Subject of the clause.
Non-finite verb phrases are only able to indicate perfect/nonperfect aspect contrasts and
active/passive voice contrasts and they function as Verbs of semi-clauses (also referred to as
non-finite clauses). As demonstrated in Table 4, semi-clauses (also termed non-finite
clauses) represent surface stretches clustered around the verb phrases containing their Head
verbs in the non-finite form. Such a non-finite Head verb still keeps its most important
potential, i.e. the ability to determine the syntactic ties between the constituents of the clause
(i.e. valency to be discussed in Chapter XXX), on the other hand, semi-clauses cannot exist on
their own, i.e. they cannot realize sentences, but must rather be attached to another finite
clause or must be embedded in a noun phrase.

The old man had taught the boy /to fish/ and the boy loved him.

I don´t like to leave anything behind. (Hem, Shortst, p. 49)

The bombs hit the wet hillside above us, /lifting numerous mud geysers/. (Hem, Shortst, p.29)

Príklad na semiclause v noun phrase

 4. PHRASE – CLAUSE interface

As was already suggested, the isolation of phrases is actually the most important task of
syntactic analysis, since it reveals the basic clause positions, or clause slots, and thus the
proper isolation of phrases will reveal the internal structure of a clause. Although phrases are
identified by means of the Verb of a clause, internally, they do not involve the Verb-forced
relations; the Verb-forced relations (i.e. valency relations) become manifest only in clauses
(and semi-clauses), which is the main feature distinguishing phrases from clauses. The
syntactic positions/surface slots occupied by phrases (excluding those that are embedded in
other phrases) in clauses are commonly termed clause elements, or, in other words, phrases
function as clause elements within clauses and semi-clauses. Traditional labels indicating the
function1 that a particular phrase plays on the level of clause are Subject (S), Verb (V),
Object (O), Subject Complement (Cs), Object Complement (Co) and Adverbial Modifier
(A); their particular surface combinations will be referred to as surface chains (e.g. SVO,
SVA…). The concept of function may therefore be viewed as an interface between two ranks
of syntactic structure allowing to make syntactic generalizations about the unit´s realization,
position, grammatical properties and syntactic meaning (as will be explained further). The
number of autosemantic verbs/Head verbs determines the number of clauses in a sentence.

Table 5 Function – rank interface

CLAUSE Small children like chocolate.

=SENTENCE
Function in Subject Verb Object
CLAUSE
PHRASE small children NP like VP chocolate NP
Function in Determiner Premodifier Head of Head Determiner Head of NP
PHRASE NP verb of
VP
WORD 0 (zero small children like 0 (zero chocolate
article) (adjective) (noun) (verb) article) (noun)

As outlined above, it is quite useful to keep distinct terminological labels in the Rank -
Structure - Function interface. They are summarized in the following Table 6.

1
Dušková - the potential of a parts of speech to occupy a certain position within a Ph or Cl and to join with
other elements to form syntagmas. (not only parts of speech) (Dušková, ....)
Quirk et al. - the unit´s privilege of occurrence, in terms of its position, mobility, optionality, dependence etc. in
the unit of which it is a constituent. (Quirk et al., ….)
Table 6 Structure – function terms of Syntactic Pyramid

Aspects of analysis Structure terms Function terms

→
Ranks in the
Syntactic Pyramid
↓
Sentence simple sentence speech-act functions:
compound sentence statement, question, command,
(copulative, adversative….) wish…
complex sentence grammatical types:
declarative, interrogative,
imperative, optative, exclamative
Clause main/matrix clause Subject
dependent clause (nominal, Object
relative, adverbial) Adverbial
Subject Complement
Object Complement
Postmodifier
Semi-clause gerund Subject
participle Object
infinitive Adverbial
Subject Complement
Object Complement
Premodifier/Postmodifier
Phrase noun phrase Verb
verb phrase Subject
adverb phrase Object
adjective phrase Subject Complement
prepositional phrase Object Complement
Adverbial
Premodifier
Postmodifier
Word parts of speech: noun, verb, Head
adjective, adverb… Modifier
(Premodifier/Postmodifier)
Determiner
Auxiliary
Prepositional Navigator
Prepositional Complement

Syntactic ranks exemplified

 • SENTENCE

/The old man had taught the boy to fish and the boy loved him./ 1 sentence

• CLAUSE

/The old man had taught the boy to fish/ and /the boy loved him/. 2 clauses

• SEMI-CLAUSE

The old man had taught the boy /to fish/ and the boy loved him. 1 semi-clause

• PHRASE

/The old man/ had taught/ the boy/ to fish/ 3 phrases / 4 surface slots in a clause

• WORD

/The/ old/ man/ had/ taught/ the/ boy/ to/ fish/. 9 words

EXERCISES

I. Use slashes to delineate phrases in the following segments and label them properly. Count
the number of finite and non-finite verb phrases and delineate clauses. (examples taken from
corpus.byu.edu/bnc)

1. I cut the picture of a model in a swimsuit out of Vogue.

I / cut / a picture of a model in a swimsuit / out of Vogue. 1 finite VP, 1 clause
NP VP NP PP

2. The Government have painted a picture of willing participants lining up to take part in
this scheme.
3. Two girls sat down to make a picture together of the river they had seen the previous
day.
4. All of the children could draw a picture of themselves and their shadow.
5. Sometimes we asked the children to complete a picture.
6. Pupils can be encouraged to use a picture as evidence and infer further things from
what they see.
 7. Often children´s response to a picture is limited by their vocabulary and their ability to
describe features.
8. Certainly a picture often seems to be framed perfectly in such cases.
9. A picture like this would make a marvellous gift for someone moving into their new
house.
10. The front page was a picture of the Asian girl below a long headline in lower case
type.
11. The risk to the sole trader of doing business is large but there is no need for a formal
organization structure.

II. Use slashes to delineate clauses in sentences as exemplified below and identify if they are finite or
non-finite:

/A man has died at Waterloo station/ non-finite/while working on a non-finite/moving/ walkway/.

finite

Vety 1,2,3 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/18/engineer-dies-while-working-on-

travelator-at-waterloo-station

1. Transport for London (TfL) said the engineer died at the station on Wednesday morning.

2. Transport for London advised passengers they would be unable to change lines because of
a fault with one of the station’s two travelators.

3. A one-way system has been implemented at the station for the morning rush-hour and
passengers have been advised to avoid the interchange between underground lines.

4.This certificate does not relieve a relative or other qualified informant of the statutory
obligation to register the death in due course with the local Registrar of Death.

5. The OECD use these data to address the challenges faced by your civil services.

6. Subject to clause 13.4, a member may retire from membership of the LLP by giving not
less than three monhs´ writen notice to the LLP and on the expiration of that notice his
membership shall terminate.

7. An investigation is under way after a police officer discovered their property had been
vandalised with a swastika when they started their shift. (daily mirror)
8. Under the Partnership Act each partner is jointly and severally liable for the debts and
obligations of the partnership incurred while he or she is a partner. (Dignam, Company law:
p.4)

III. Below you will find two methods of syntactic tagging, namely labelled bracketing and
pyramid-rank analysis. Look at them and comment on the advantages and disadvantaged of
both of them.

In the departmental library the Erasmus student was reading a new textbook on the English
syntax.

a)Labelled bracketing analysis

( (
simple sentence finite clause PrepP (In the departmental library)A NP(the Erasmus student)S (was reading)V
VP

NP(a new textbook on the English syntax)O)).

b) Pyramid-rank analysis

Simple sentence

Finite clause

A S V O

(In the departmental library) (the Erasmus student) (was reading) (a new textbook on the English
syntax).

PrepP NP VP NP

Prep PrepCompl Det Premod Head AUX Head Det Premod Head
Postmod

in the dept. lib. the Erasmus student was reading a new textbook on…syntax

prep NP art adj noun aux autosem verb art adj noun PrepP

Det Premod Head Prep PrepCompl

the dept library on the Eng. syn.

art adj noun prep NP

Det Premod Head

 the English syntax

art adj noun

IV. Analyse sentence from Task I by the pyramid-rank analysis.