Structural Syntax: Grammatical Ties

The Immediate Constituents (ICs) of any construction are

connected with each other by a grammatical tie.
It seems to speakers of English that the relationships between ICs in different
constructions are not always the same. For example, the relationship
between Alice and grew in Alice grew seems different from the relationship
between white and rabbit in white rabbit. We might say that grew is the "predicate"
of the subject Alice, whereas white is an adjective "modifying" the noun rabbit.

Structural grammar calls these relationships between ICs "grammatical ties," and
theorizes that well-formed English sentences may be analyzed in terms of five
grammatical ties.

The five grammatical ties that structural grammar finds sufficient for the analysis of
English syntax are listed below. Click on the name of the grammatical tie to go to a
page containing a brief discussion of that tie. (If you are going through this
discussion for the first time, it will be more efficient to consider the grammatical ties
in the order listed.)

1. COORDINATION. In coordination, the ICs in question are presented as

being "coordinated," or in some sense "syntactically equal."
2. PREDICATION. Predication is the relationship between a subject (with its
modifiers) and a verb (with its complements and modifiers).

3. MODIFICATION. Examples of modification are the relationship between

an adjective and its noun, or a verb and its adverb.

4. SUBORDINATION. Examples of subordination are the relationship

between a preposition and its object, a subordinating conjunction and its clause,
and a relative pronoun and its clause.

5. COMPLEMENTATION. Complement means "to

complete"; complementation is the relationship between a verb and an element
that "completes the meaning" of the verb.

Structural Syntax: Coordination

In the case of the grammatical tie called coordination, the ICs in question are
presented as being "coordinated," or in some sense "syntactically equal."
Coordination can occur with or without the aid of a coordinating conjunction.
Coordination is indicated in diagramming by means of an "equals" sign (=). Here are
some examples of coordination. Note that in diagramming, coordination has a couple
of peculiarities: (1) coordinating conjunctions--such as and, but, or, nor, for--are not
themselves treated as ICs of constructions, but as connectors of ICs; and (2) commas
that indicate grammatical coordination are treated as though they were coordinating
conjunctions.

Structural Syntax: Predication

Predication is the relationship between a subject (with its modifiers) and a verb (with
its complements and modifiers). That is, predication is the tie between what is often
called the "complete subject" of a clause and the "complete predicate" of a clause. If
we divide a simple sentence into its ICs, normally those ICs are connected by the tie
of predication.

Normally, a simple sentence has a single predication. A compound sentence has two
or more predications connected by the tie of coordination. A complex sentence has
two or more predications connected by some tie other than coordination.

Predication is indicated in diagramming by a P. Here are some examples.

PREDICATION IN SIMPLE SENTENCES

PREDICATION IN COMPOUND SENTENCES

 PREDICATION IN COMPLEX SENTENCES

Note that there are some constructions that might be identified as "complete
sentences" that do not contain explicit predications that would show up in
diagramming. For example, the imperative construction in English usually does not
express the subject of the verb: Come here. Shut the window. In traditional
grammar, we sometimes say that the subject You is "understood" in these
constructions, but in diagramming these sentences we would not have occasion to use
the P to indicate predication.

Structural Syntax: Modification

Structural grammar is particularly useful for indicating structures of modification.

Modification is the grammatical tie that exists, for example, between an adjective and
its noun, or a verb and its adverb. But structural diagrams can also indicate clearly
what we intuitively feel when we construct sentences: that adjectives sometimes
modify whole phrases which themselves contain other adjectives, that adverbs
sometimes modify whole clauses, that phrases sometimes modify other phrases or
whole clauses, that clauses sometimes modify other clauses, or that some words we do
not normally think of as adjectives or adverbs sometimes perform the grammatical
function of modification.

In analyzing structures of modification, it is sometimes useful to talk about the

"head" of a construction. The head of a construction is the single word that "gets
modified," the word that could by itself stand for the whole construction in the
grammar of the sentence. It is the word in the construction that all the modifying
elements "depend on."

In diagramming, we indicate the grammatical tie of modification by means of an

arrowhead (>) that points from the modifier to whatever is modified. All of the
arrowheads in a diagram of a structure of modification point toward the head of the
construction.

Here are some examples.

SINGLE-WORD MODIFIERS

Notice the difference in the first two examples between adjectives in a series (tall red)
and coordinated adjectives (big, black). There is subtle shade of difference in the
meaning. One could be talking about a barn that is (1) tall, and (2) red, in which case
there would be a comma between tall and red to indicate the structure of modification.
Or, as in the example given, one could be talking about a red barn that is tall. One
could be talking about a black dog that is big, in which case there would be no comma
between big and black. Or, as in the example given, one could be talking about a dog
that is (1) big, and (2) black.

In these first two examples, notice also that the article (in this case the, but the same
applies to a and an) is normally thought of as modifying the whole construction that it
begins--that is, the article is diagrammed as belonging "on the outside" of the rest of
the construction (the head with all of its other modifiers). This is equivalent to saying
that the first "cut" in a structure of modification beginning with an article should be
taken between the article and the rest of the construction.
Notice how in the third example the diagram indicates that the
adverb Recklessly modifies not just the verb flew, but the whole predication. This
makes sense if we notice that the adverb is movable. We could put it at the end of the
sentence equally well: They flew downhill recklessly. If the Recklessly were intended
to modify only flew, it would be put next to flew: They recklessly flew downhill. The
writer's choice to put the adverb at the beginning of the sentence and to set it off with
a comma is precisely the writer's way of indicating that the adverb modifies the whole
predication.

Similarly, notice how the comma in the fourth example actually separates the
modifier dancing from hippos, the head of its construction. The comma here is a
way of indicating that dancing modifies not just the headhippos, but instead the whole
construction Disney's manic hippos. If the writer had intended for dancing to
modify only hippos, the writer would have written Disney's manic dancing hippos.

MODIFYING PHRASES

These examples illustrate how "prepositional phrases" (by the people, into the back
yard, down Main, for that) work syntactically like adjectives or adverbs. Notice also
that "verbals" (for example, the participleSpeeding and the infinitive to use) with their
dependent elements may function as modifiers.

MODIFYING CLAUSES
The normal way of treating "introductory subordinate clauses" in structural grammar
is to construe them as modifying the predication in the "main clause," as in the first
example. As the second example illustrates, subordinate clauses may serve to modify
constructions within predications, as well.

Structural Syntax: Subordination

In structural grammar, words that do not "inflect" (that is, do not have different forms)
are sometimes called "function words." Nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and the
personal pronouns all inflect. What traditional grammarians identify as prepositions,
conjunctions, and relative pronouns are all "function words," in the sense that they do
not inflect.

Functions words have various functions. For example, coordinating

conjunctions coordinate syntactically-equal constructions. Many other function
words, including prepositions, subordinating conjunctions, and relative pronouns, in
general function to subordinate one construction to another.

For example, a preposition subordinates its object to the construction that the whole
prepositional phrase modifies. A subordinating conjunction, as its name indicates,
subordinates the clause it governs to the main clause of the sentence or to some part of
that clause.

Although the relations between a preposition and its object, a subordinating

conjunction and its clause, and a relative pronoun and its clause might all seem
intuitively different from each other, structural grammar lumps all of these relations
together under the grammatical tie called subordination.

In diagramming, subordination is indicated by an S. Here are some examples.

SUBORDINATION BY PREPOSITIONS

Prepositional phrases may function adjectivally or adverbially. Note that in some

cases, as in the example above beginning with In fact, prepositional phrases may be
construed as modifying whole predications. In such cases, the prepositional phrase in
question is normally movable within the sentence: We fell short, in fact, of our goal;
We fell short of our goal, in fact.

SUBORDINATION BY SUBORDINATING CONJUNCTIONS

Note that structural diagramming in the latter two examples makes it unnecessary to
supply "understood" elements of the constructions: we do not need to write (or to
think) "When [she was] leaving," or "Though [it is] shorter."

SUBORDINATION BY RELATIVE PRONOUNS

For some grammarians, these examples would illustrate the least satisfactory aspect of
structural diagramming. Intuitively, we might want to say that in which I resented, for
example, the which does more than to subordinate the predication I resented to the
main clause: we might want to say that the which is also the direct object of the
verb resented, or something of the sort. Similarly, we might want to say that
the whose in whose books sold, besides subordinating the predication books sold to
the main predication, also modifies books. Structural diagramming obscures these
points, in the interest of economy. That is, if were were to make these kinds of
distinctions, we would end up with more than five grammatical ties, and structural
diagramming would become considerably more complex. Remember the general
principle that no system of grammar is exhaustively rigorous--or, as some linguists
say, "all grammars leak."

Structural Syntax: Complementation

Complement means "to complete," and complementation has to do with "completing

the meaning" of a verb. Many times, verbs in English sentences are completed by
constructions that are not just modifiers. Complementation is indicated in
diagramming by labeling the grammatical tie between the verb and its complement
with a C.

But the situation with verbs is a little complicated. Structural grammar distinguishes
five types of complementation, as follows.

 Direct Object, indicated in diagramming by C with DO. Example: The dog

ate bones, where bones is said to be the direct object of ate.
 Direct Object and Indirect Object, indicated in diagramming by DO and IO,
respectively, along with the obligatory C. Example: He gave her flowers,
where flowers is said to be the direct object ofgave, and her is said to be the
indirect object of gave.

 Objective Complement, indicated in diagramming by C with OC.

Example: It made him angry, where angry is said to be the objective
complement of made.

 Retained Object, indicated in diagramming by C with RO. Example: She was

given flowers, where flowers is said to be the retained object of was given.

 Subjective Complement, indicated in diagramming by C with SC.

Example: He was angry, where angry is said to be the subjective complement
of was.

In considering complementation, it is important to remember that participles and

gerunds, which function syntactically as adjectives and nouns, respectively, are still
"verbals" and may take complements. The same is true of infinitives, which may
function syntactically in various ways.
Click on the links below for a detailed discussion of each of the five types of
complementation, with examples of diagramming.

DIRECT OBJECT

DIRECT OBJECT + INDIRECT OBJECT

OBJECTIVE COMPLEMENT

RETAINED OBJECT

SUBJECTIVE COMPLEMENT

Structural Syntax: The Direct Object

The direct object is perhaps the most familiar complement. Here, the object of the
verb--a noun, a pronoun, or a construction that functions like a noun--"receives the
action" of the verb.

The direct object is indicated in diagramming by labeling the complementation

with C, and then writing DO under the word or construction that serves as the direct
object.

Structural Syntax: The Direct Object with

Indirect Object

In the kind of complementation called direct object + indirect object, the verb has
two complements--nouns, pronouns, or constructions that function like nouns. Both
objects "receive the action" of the verb, though in different senses.

The direct object + indirect object construction is indicated in diagramming by

labeling the complementation with C, and then writing DO under the direct
object and IO under the indirect object.
 Structural Syntax: The Objective
Complement

As with the direct object and indirect object, in the case of the objective
complement the verb has two complements. One of the complements functions like a
direct object--it is a noun, a pronoun, or a construction functioning like a noun.
The objective complement itself might be either another noun or pronoun, or it might
be an adjective or a construction functioning like an adjective. The notion is that
the objective complementof the verb functions to provide information about the
object of the verb.

The objective complement is indicated in diagramming by labeling the

complementation with a C, and then writing OC under the word or construction that
serves as the objective complement.
 Structural Syntax: The Retained Object

Historically, the construction called the retained object comes from archaic
constructions such as Him was given a gift, in which gift is the subject of the verb was
given, and Him is its object. Since the usual order of English sentences, however, is
subject-verb-object, speakers tended to "correct" the object form of the pronoun (him)
to the subject form (he): He was given a gift. The gift, then, is retained as the
apparent object of the verb.

The retained object is indicated in diagramming by labeling the complementation

with C, and then writing RO under the word or construction that functions as
the retained object.
 Structural Syntax: The Subjective
Complement

In the case of the subjective complement, the idea is that the complement of the verb
functions to provide information about the subject of the verb. The verb is then
thought of as functioning to "link" its subject with its complement. We talk about the
"copula" to be and all of its forms (am, is, was, were, have been, being, and so on),
where copula is a Latin word meaning "link," and we talk about the "linking verbs"
such as to become,to feel, and so on, that in some sense function to link the
complement to the subject.

The subjective complement is indicated in diagramming by labeling the

complementation with C, and then writing SC underneath the word or construction
that functions as the subjective complement.