Mastering English Syntax: Verbs, Clauses, and Phrases

Posted on Sep 11, 2025 in Linguistics and Applied Languages

Constituent Identification Criteria

  • Replace pronoun/proform
  • Question criterion
  • Cleft structures and pseudo-clefts

Adjectives vs. Adverbs in English

Adjective Characteristics

  • Attributive position
  • Cannot be used predicatively (for some types)
  • Verbs are not gradable (when modified by certain adverbs)

Adverb Characteristics

  • Typically modify verbs, often as manner adverbs

-ing Adjectives Explained

  • Attributive position
  • Predicative position
  • Intensification
  • Gradation

English Phrase Structures

Adjective Phrases

  • Modifier + Head (MOD+H)
  • Head + Complement (H+COMPL)

Adverb Phrases

  • Head + Complement (H+COMPLEMENT)
  • Usually function as adjuncts

Prepositional Phrases

  • Governor + Complement (GOVERN+COMPL)

Verb Valency and Clause Structures

Intransitive Verbs

  • No complement

Copulative Verbs

  • Head + Predicative Complement of Subject (H+PCS)
  • Examples: “He turned red,” “That sounds an interesting idea.”

Transitive Verbs

  • Head + Direct Object (H+DO)
  • Example: “I am eating an apple.”

Ditransitive Verbs

  • Head + Indirect Object + Direct Object (H+IO+DO)
  • Example: “The teacher gave the students an interesting book.”

Complex-Transitive Verbs

  • Head + Direct Object + Predicative Complement of Object (H+DO+PCO)
  • Or Head + Predicative Complement of Object + Direct Object (H+PCO+DO)
  • Examples: “You are driving my family mad,” “He found ridiculous the suggestion.”

Intransitive Prepositional Verbs

  • Example: “He glanced at the talented acrobat.”

Transitive Prepositional Verbs

  • Head + Prepositional Object + Direct Object (H+PO+DO)
  • Or Head + Direct Object + Prepositional Object (H+DO+PO)
  • Example: “Max convinced the jury of his innocence.”

Intransitive Phrasal Verbs

  • Head + Non-Complement (H+NC)
  • Example: “turned up”

Transitive Phrasal Verbs

  • Head + Direct Object + Non-Complement (H+DO+NC)
  • Or Head + Non-Complement + Direct Object (H+NC+DO)
  • Example: “He turned down the offer.”

Phrasal Prepositional Verbs

  • Head + Non-Complement + Direct Object (H+NC+DO)
  • Example: “put up with someone”

Phrasal Transitive Prepositional Verbs

  • Head + Direct Object + Non-Complement + Prepositional Object (H+DO+NC+PO)
  • Example: “They put up their success down to their effort.”

Particle Placement in English Syntax

Particle Placement Compatibility

  • Pre- and post-handover constructional choices for particle placement are largely compatible.
  • Previous research indicates that the choice between particle placement constructions (VOP/VPO) highly depends on the accessibility of the direct object (DO).
  • The VOP construction becomes more frequent as the accessibility of the DO decreases.
  • Indefinite, abstract direct objects and literal constructions favor the VOP construction.

Syntactic Investigations in Hong Kong English (HKE)

  • HKE has been subject to syntactic investigations, including variable subject-verb agreement, tense marking, and the use of pseudo-passives.
  • Heller’s research found that HKE speakers’ choices of genitive constructions differ from those of British English speakers.
  • Construction choices follow the end-weight principle: longer objects favor VPO, while simpler objects (e.g., pronouns) favor VOP.
  • The presence of a directional prepositional phrase directly postmodifying the particle-verb construction favors VOP.
  • In HKE, the length of the DO exerts the strongest influence: longer DOs correlate with a higher probability of HKE speakers choosing the VPO construction. However, a higher surprisal of the particle correlates with a higher probability of VOP.
  • The probability of VOP also rises if the previous particle verb was a VOP construction.

Research Findings on VOP vs. VPO

  • VPO constructions feature, on average, longer direct objects than VOP constructions.
  • VPO most often features modified noun phrases as direct objects, whereas simple nouns constitute the majority of direct objects with VOP.
  • The largest proportion of direct objects in VPOs are indefinite.
  • VOP and VPO show similar preferences for abstract direct objects and non-postmodification through prepositional phrases.
  • The majority of VOP and VPO constructions are non-idiomatic.
  • Surprisal values for particles are higher with VOP than with VPO constructions.
  • VPOs appeared to be preferred in 2002. The marginal effect of VPOs was somewhat higher in 1993 than in 2002.

Relative Clause Types and Usage

Adnominal Relative Clauses

  • Depend on and refer back to a noun.
  • Can be restrictive or non-restrictive.
  • Function as a modifier of the noun.

Nominal Relative Clauses

  • No antecedent; the relative pronoun acts as a noun.
  • Example: “What I bought was a house.”

Sentential Relative Clauses

  • The antecedent is a whole clause.
  • The relative pronoun refers to the previous clause.
  • Example: “The sky was cloudy, which was unexpected for this time of the year.”

Complement Clauses

  • Function as a complement within a larger construction.

Adverbial Subordinate Clauses

  • Function as an adjunct, or a place, time, or manner complement.
  • Example: “I go to the gym because I want to be fit.”

Relativizer Usage Trends in English

Relativizer Trends in Restrictive Clauses

  • A sharp decline in the use of “which” as a relativizer in restrictive relative clauses with non-animate antecedents, complemented by a rise in “that.”
  • An increase in the frequency of non-restrictive relative clauses in Singapore English (SGE). Likely motivators include colloquialization, densification, and prescriptivism.
  • Relativizers such as “who,” “whom,” or “whose” are reserved for personal antecedents; “which” is predominantly for inanimate antecedents, while “that” can be used for both.
  • One main factor responsible for the use of “which” is colloquialization, supporting the use of “wh-” relative pronouns in more formal contexts, and “that” and zero relativizers in more informal contexts.
  • Prescriptivism states that only “that,” and not “which,” can introduce a restrictive relative clause with a non-human antecedent.
  • All three studies report a preference for “that,” “which,” and zero relativizers with non-human antecedents, and a preference for “who,” “whom,” or “whose” with human antecedents.
  • The “which” relativizer in SEN (context unclear, possibly another English variety) is declining in frequency, while “that” is increasing.
  • The relativizer “who” was less frequently used than “which” in 1993 but overtook “which” in 2005.
  • “Which” is more common than “that” in news writing, and “who” is even more common.