Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Language and Linguistics
  4. Grammar and Syntax
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

6247 results in Grammar and Syntax

Page 85 of 313

  • 2 - Topics

  • Andrew Radford, University of Essex
  • Book:
    Colloquial English
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    14 June 2018, pp 40-104

  • Summary

    Introduction

    This chapter looks at the syntax of peripheral topics in colloquial English. I shall argue that colloquial English differs from more formal styles of English inmaking less use of fronted topics, and more use of dislocated and orphaned topics. I begin by looking at three different types of topic structure in §2.2. before turning to look at the derivation of topics in §2. and of multiple topic structures in §2.4. I then turn to examine the position of topics in clauses containing complementisers in §2.5, the position of topics in relation to other peripheral non-wh constituents in §2.6, the position of topics in interrogative and exclamative wh-clauses in §2.7, and the position of topics in relative clauses in §2.8. I summarise my main findings in §2.9. My overall goal in this chapter is to explore the range of positions which topics can occupy within the clause periphery, to examine how they get there, and to explore the range of clause types they can occur in: to this end, I present (and refine) a number of existing analyses.

    Three Types of Topic in Colloquial English

    In this section, I look at the types of topic structure found in colloquial English, and discuss ways in which topics differ from focused constituents.

    In colloquial English, we find three superficially distinct types of structure containing a peripheral topic followed by a comment clause. One type involves an italicised topic associated with a gap (—) in the comment clause, as illustrated by the following examples from my broadcast English data:

  • (1) a. Those kind of things I love —, I really do (Andy Dillon, Talksport Radio)

  • b. The referee's let two or three bad tackles go, but that one, he wasn't happy with — (Gerry Armstrong, Sky Sports TV)

  • c. He will not start at the weekend. That, I'm sure of — (Alan Brazil, Talksport Radio)

  • d. You two aren't going to argue about that. That much, I do know—(David Gower, Sky Sports TV)

  • 1 - Background

  • Andrew Radford, University of Essex
  • Book:
    Colloquial English
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    14 June 2018, pp 7-39

  • Summary

    Introduction

    The locus of the syntactic variation discussed in this book is the clause periphery – i.e. that part of the structure on the left edge of the clause, preceding the subject. More specifically, the book discusses the position occupied by a range of peripheral constituents and how they get there, dealing with topics in Chapter 2, complementisers in Chapter 3 and how come in Chapter 4. Since the research reported in Chapters 2–4 requires a good understanding of the syntax of the clause periphery, I use this chapter to present an overview of a range of approaches to the syntax of the clause periphery in research over the past 60 years or so. In §1.2, I look at how peripheral material was treated in the S-analysis of clause structure in work in the 1950s and 1960s, before turning to examine S'- and S“-analyses in work in the 1970s. In §1.3, I go on to outline the CP-analysis of the periphery in work in the 1980s, and the use of CP recursion to handle structures containing multiple peripheral constituents. In §1.4, I discuss the rationale for positing a more articulated structure for the periphery in cartographic work from the 1990s on. In §1.5 I look at the structure of defective clauses which have a truncated periphery.

    S-, S'- and S“-analyses

    In early work in generative grammar in the 1950s and 1960s (e.g. Chomsky 1955, 1957, 1964, 1965, 1966; Lees 1960; Rosenbaum 1965, 1967; Ross 1967) clauses were taken to be S-constituents generated by a phrase structure rule such as S → NP AUX VP (Chomsky 1965: 68) which can be seen in contemporary terms as specifying that S is formed by merging (i.e. combining) NP, AUX and VP. Peripheral constituents preceding the subject were generally treated as being introduced by transformations positioning them on the left edge of S. For example, complementisers (in the analysis of Rosenbaum 1967) were absent from the underlying structure, and inserted on the left edge of S via a Complementiser Placement transformation.

Colloquial English
  • Structure and Variation
  • Andrew Radford
  • Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    14 June 2018
  • Drawing on vast amounts of new data from live, unscripted radio and TV broadcasts, and the internet, this is a brilliant and original analysis of colloquial English, revealing unusual and largely unreported types of clause structure. Andrew Radford debunks the myth that colloquial English has a substandard, simplified grammar, and shows that it has a coherent and complex structure of its own. The book develops a theoretically sophisticated account of structure and variation in colloquial English, advancing an area that has been previously investigated from other perspectives, such as corpus linguistics or conversational analysis, but never before in such detail from a formal syntactic viewpoint.

Page 85 of 313