CHAPTER 1

SYNTACTIC PYRAMID

(Rank, structure, function)

1. Syntactic segments and syntactic pyramid

Syntax as a linguistic discipline is concerned with cognitive processes that allow language users
to combine and organize word units in structured chunks so that they are comprehensible to the
addressees. Syntactically, communication requires that certain patterns of arranging syntactic
segments are shared within a language community. Speakers/writers produce sequenced chunks
of syntactic segments to render certain syntactic information. Proper interpretation of syntactic
patterns and syntactic information intended by the producers depends on the recipient´s ability
to identify the ranks of syntactic segments, their internal structure, and external relations toward
the other segments. Delineation of syntactic segments and identification of syntactic
information that may be inferred from their arrangement is the focus of syntactic
contemplations as presented in this course.

On the la-langue level, i.e., language as a system of signs (Saussure, 1959), the
arrangement of syntactic segments may be imagined as a kind of syntactic pyramid of upward
(functional) relations and downward (structural) relations.

Pyramidal ranks item is composed of

SENTENCE

CLAUSE

SEMICLAUSE

PHRASE

WORD item functions as

Figure 1. Syntactic Pyramid – Structure versus Function

The syntactic pyramid is made up of syntactic floors (levels or ranks (Aarts, 2001:56)) starting
from the level of word and ending up with 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 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
should 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. 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 segments
may be single-member or multiple-member.

2. Frames and chains

Syntactic components of clause-rank units (including 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 most
suitable to activate, in their recipients, the intended cognitive reading of a produced
linear/sequenced 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).
 3. 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, 1952:1)

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 reality in a manner that appears to be formally,
customarily 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, i.e., attribution of communicative significance to a
particular linear chunk relative to one another in the process of communication (the theme –
rheme analysis, Firbas, 1992). They also serve to carry out various pragmatic functions in
concrete communication situations, such as statements, requests, questions, etc. (Yule, 1995).
The definition further distinguishes between the formal perfection of a sentence in respect of
the systemic considerations and its subjective completeness (la langue and la parole dichotomy,
Saussure, 1959). A sentence needs not necessarily comply with all the systemic grammatical
requirements to be able to accomplish its communicative mission successfully.

Systemically, sentences are composed of clauses. Depending on the number of clauses they
are sub-classified into single-clause and multiple-clause sentences. Depending on the
intention of the speaker in combination with the canonical grammatical arrangements of units,
several intentional sentence types may be distinguished: 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 written discourse, the signalization of borderlines between respective
units is aided by the graphic spaces between particular orthographic units, although not always
consistently so (a difference between orthographic, lexemic and grammatical understanding of
word as pointed out by Lipka (1990:72)). The Word-rank analysis ends at the bottom of the
syntactic pyramid by identifying word classes or parts of speech.
 The above linear 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 (slashes will be used to indicate
the respective segments:

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/.

4. Phrase-rank tests

Delimitation of words as units of linguistic interest, including their internal structure, is in the
centre of attention of such linguistic disciplines as morphology, lexicology, word-formation,
phonetics and phonology. In syntax, words are treated as building blocks of syntactic phrases,
which is demonstrated in the syntactic pyramid by the Phrase floor situated immediately above
the Word floor. In some cases when a phrase is composed of a single word segment, phrases
and words overlap. But even in these cases we will take the phrase, rather than the word, as a
syntagma that operates as a clause member which is capable of activating grammatical and
cognitive hints of syntactic information within the clause. The central 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 unity of their form (orthographic and phonetic/phonologic) and lexical
meaning, identification of syntactic phrases, which is the first and foremost step in any syntactic
analysis, relies on less overt hints.

A correct delimitation of phrases is crucial for an overall success of the syntactic analysis
of clauses. Contrary to a “simpler” task of delimiting words and sentences, phrases are less
transparent to be delimited since their borderlines are not indicated by the graphic markers 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 Test – a/an im/possibility of changing 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 Test – substituting 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 Test – 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 which determines the syntactic constituency
of clauses. Since it is the phrases that carry the cognitive and grammatical/coding
information within 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 hint on the cognitive roles activated by phrases in a
clause. In fact, this test is rather “trivial” and language speakers are capable of performing it
intuitively, even without an extensive 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 is related to
valency issues and cognitive considerations to be elaborated later). 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 the
Head. The Head carries the substantive notional meaning and thus serves as the prominent
bearer of the cognitive role (it bears the onomasiological prominence of the phrase). From a
coding perspective it tends to govern the rest of the constituents of the phrase headed by it,
which is especially manifest in inflective languages, or it reaches out of the limits of the phrase
and extends to other clause elements (concord, government). The relevance of the Cognitive
Question Test for the delimitation of phrases and internal analysis of clauses is one of the proofs
that cognitive and coding syntactic analyses cannot be treated separately; they are rather
mutually complementary. 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 opening the respective phrase positions in a clause (even the most
complicated sentences may be reduced to a very limited number of fundamental clause slots).

Analysis 1

(2) John gave that book to Jane.

WHO? John

Gave WHAT? that book

To WHOM? to Jane

The Cognitive Question Test elicits the following phrases (and thereby also the clause
slots/members):

/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 a new textbook? a new textbook on the English syntax

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

Were reading a new textbook 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) All provisions contained in these Articles and, to the extent that the same applies to the
Company, Table A, with reference to share certificates, lien, and the transfer or transmission
of shares shall not apply to any shares included in a Share Warrant. (articles of association,
private legal instrument)

WHAT shall not apply? all provisions…

Provisions contained WHERE shall not apply? all provisions contained in these Articles and
(in) Table A

To WHAT extent Table A´s provisions are included? to the extent that the same applies to the
Company

WHAT kind of provisions shall not apply? those which refer - with reference to share
certificates, lien, and the transfer or transmission of shares

Such provision shall not apply to WHAT? to any shares included in a Share Warrant.

The phrase structure analysis would look as follows (slashes indicate the phrases on the level
of clause, so called key phrases or valency/clause slots, round and square brackets indicate
the internal structure within the key phrases):

/All provisions (contained in these Articles) and, ([to the extent that the same applies to the
Company], Table A), (with reference to share certificates, lien, and the transfer or transmission
of shares)/ /shall not apply/ /to any shares (included in a Share Warrant)/.

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

As demonstrated above, the Cognitive Question Test is centred around the Verb as the cognitive
head of a clause or semi-clause. The centrality of the Verb will be further discussed in relation
to the concept of valency. At this point it will suffice to remember that the basic difference
between the phrase and the clause is that phrases lack valency/predication-based relations
between their members. Valency/predication-based relations can only be detected on the level
of clauses/semi-clauses.

5. Internal structure of phrases

Depending on the nature of their internal constituency, phrases can be sub-classified into noun
phrases, verb phrases, prepositional phrases, adverb phrases and adjective phrases based on the
cognitively and grammatically prominent word-class component around which the particular
phrases 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 if they include modifiers). Heads can be defined as the
grammatically and onomasiologically prominent word class components of phrases. Modifiers
are components of phrases that add a semantic characteristics to the Head; a characteristics that
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, the English noun phrases contain special function words called
Determiners (Det) which determine “the kind of reference“ (Greenbaum, 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. The authors distinguish 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 (ibid.)

Kind of Example DET PREMOD HEAD POSTMOD

phrase
NP the old man the old man working in the
working in the garden
garden (participial semi-
clause)
NP the chair by the the --- chair by the window
window (PrepP)
AdjP a very nice girl very nice
AP very quickly very quickly
Table 1 Internal analysis of noun phrases, adjective phrases and adverb phrases

Prepositional phrases (PrepP) are composed of a Prepositional Navigator (PrepNav),

obviously rendered by prepositions as parts of speech, and a Prepositional Complement
(PrepCompl) which may be either noun phrase or gerundial semi-clause (also some specific
types of finite nominal dependent clauses can function as PrepCompl). 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 cognitive valency reading of the
Prepositional Complement, and thereby also of the whole prepositional phrase.

Example PrepNav PrepCompl Function of the PrepP

the chair by the window by the window (NP) Postmod
the hope of winning a of winning a prize (gerundial Postmod
prize (Q:376) semi-clause)
Table 2 Internal analysis of prepositional phrases
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 and modal meaning thereof; the term
Operator is reserved for “the first or only auxiliary in the finite verb phrase” (Greenbaum,
Quirk, 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, infinitival base form), there can be distinguished finite and non-finite verb
phrases: (Greenbaum, Quirk, 1996:41). Finite verb phrases are those in which the first or only
verb component is finite, while the rest are non-finite as exemplified in Table 3.

Auxiliaries Head verb

The ship sank.
The ship was sinking.
The ship has been sinking.
The ship must have been sinking.
Table 3 Constituency of the finite verb phrase VP (ibid.).
Colour legend: red – finite forms yellow – non-finite forms must, has, was - operators

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 the contract
became effective.
The contract being signed its performance
may start.
The contract having been signed its performance
may start.
Table 4 Constituency of the non-finite VP

Finite verb phrases function as Verbs of finite clauses that may generate sentences
independently as they are capable of activating tense and aspect contrasts, passive and active
voice contrasts, and can show 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; 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). 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. (Hemingway, 1952:2)

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)

We’ve heard from /a local birding friend/ that there are /goshawks nesting near the trail/.

6. Phrase – Clause interface

As was already suggested, the isolation of phrases is actually the most important task of the
syntactic analysis, since it reveals the basic clause positions, or clause slots, and thus the proper
isolation of phrases will reveal an internal structure of the clause. Although phrases are
delineated by means of the Verb, 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 in clauses (excluding those that are embedded in
other phrases) are commonly termed clause elements. Traditional labels indicating the
function that a particular phrase plays on the level of clause include 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.

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 NP Head verb of Determiner Head of NP
PHRASE VP
WORD 0 small children like 0 chocolate
zero article adjective noun verb zero article noun
Table 5 Function – Rank interface
As suggested above, it is quite useful to keep distinct terminological labels in the Rank -
Structure - Function interface as summarized in Table 6.

Aspects of analysis Structure terms Function terms

→
Ranks in the
Syntactic Pyramid
↓
Sentence simple sentence speech-act functions:
compound sentence (copulative, statement, question, command, wish…
adversative….) grammatical types:
complex sentence declarative, interrogative, imperative, optative,
exclamative
Clause main/matrix clause Subject
dependent clause (nominal, relative, Object
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
Prepositional Complement
Word parts of speech: noun, verb, adjective, Head
adverb… Modifier (Premodifier/Postmodifier)
Determiner
Auxiliary
Prepositional Navigator
Table 6 Structure – function terms of Syntactic Pyramid
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 finite clauses, 1 semi-
clause

• 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, 1 semi-clause, 4 surface slots in a
clause

• WORD

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

7. RECAP

Syntactic segments (syntactic units or syntagmas) are sequenced chunks of language signs
which speakers/writers produce to render intended syntactic information. Syntactic segments
may consist of one or more members (constituents) bound together by syntactic relations which
determine their internal structure. Syntactic segments are arranged vertically in the syntactic
pyramid consisting of ranks, which involve structure units (words, phrases, clauses and
semiclauses). Lower-rank units make up higher-ranks units in which they perform particular
function. The phrase-rank functions include Heads, Modifiers, Determiners, Auxiliaries.
Clause-rank functions/slots include Subject, Verb, Object, Subject Complement, Object
Complement and Adverbial Modifier. Phrases are named after their parts of
speech/onomasiologicaly prominent components (noun phrases, verb phrases, prepositional
phrases, adverb phrases and adjective phrases). Phrases are different from clauses in that
internally they do not involve verb-forced /valency syntactic relations. The phrase structure
analysis reveals clause slots by means of the Cognitive Question Test. Phrases function as
clause elements within clauses and semi-clauses, i.e. they realize the clause slots/positions.