Test : Stand-alone test.
-ask the following questions for Adverbial : How, Where, When, Why
-ask the following questions for Postmodifier : Who, What, Which
Ans : Under the table.
--> Using the stand-alone test, under the table is a constituent. As it answers a where question, it is thus functioning as an adverbial.
What qn : what did he hide?
Ans : the pencil under the table.
--> using the stand-alone test, the pencil under the table is a constituent. In this case, pencil functions as the head noun in this noun phrase. Thus, under the table is the postmodifier of the head noun pencil as we can insert relative pronoun that within the noun phrase 'the pencil that was under the table"
Ans : with the axe.
--> Using the stand-alone test,with the axe is a constituent. As it answers a How question, it is thus functioning as an adverbial.
What qn : who did the enraged cow injure?
Ans : the farmer with axe
--> using the stand-alone test, the farmer with axe is a constituent. In this case, farmer functions as the head noun in this noun phrase. Thus, with xe is the postmodifier of the head noun pencil as we can insert relative pronoun whowithin the noun phrase 'the farmer who was with axe"
Ans : The pupils we were investigating last week.
--> the pupils were being investigated last week
--> Using the stand-alone test,the pupils we were investigating last week is a constituent. As it answers a who question and appears before the main verb phrase, it is thus functioning as a subject.
Who qn : who passed the test last week?
Ans : The pupils we were investigating
->the pupils passed the test last week
--> using the stand-alone test, the pupils we were investigating is a constituent.As it answers a who question and appears before the main verb phrase, it is thus functioning as a subject. In this case, last week is not part of the subject but is functioning as an adverbial.
For the above 2 sentences, the meanings of the sentences changes when last night is considered as/as not part of the constituent that functions as the subject.
Demonstrate that on his jacket is a constituent in Sentence A
but not a constituent in sentence B
Simon saw there was a stain on his jacket
Before leaving, Simon put on his jacket.
As 'on his jacket' is a preposition phrase, we can only apply the cleft test
Sentence B: It was on his jacket that Simon put before leaving.
-> in this case, the prepositional phrase 'on his jacket' cannot be shift as a single unit in the above cleft sentence as it changes the initial meaning of the sentence
-> instead, it should have been, it was his jacket (not his pants) that Simon put on before leaving
Sentence A : It was on his jacket (not on his pillow) that Simon saw a stain.
In this case, the prepositional phrase can be moved as a single unit in the cleft sentence. This shows that it is a constituent
but a direct object in sentence B
A : I cooked my sister a wonderful dinner
B:I made my sister rather angry.
-passivisation (where indirect object can be shifted by the preposition to or for)
A wonderful dinner was cooked by me for my sister.
The passivisation test is simply the use of be+Ved/en. The attachment of ‘to’ or ‘for’ describes the postponement test:
I cooked a wonderful dinner for my sister.
-> In this case ,there are 2 objects ( seen by 2 noun phrases - sister and a wonderful dinner) ,
--> the indirect object is realised by the earlier which can be shifted by preposition to/for when sentence is passivised.
Test for object ( can be passivised
My sister was made rather angry by me
-> in this case, sister is a object as it can be passivised
Rather angry was made my sister by me.
(Passivisation test fails for rather angry)
-> however, my sister in this case will be only object and thus, direct object as objects can only be realised by noun phrases.
-->Rather angry is an adjectival phrase that functions as an object complement (can be proved by inserting a copular verb )instead.
Last month, my father gave up smoking.
Up smoking is a preposition phrase, thus we will use the cleft test to prove that it is not a constituent in the following sentence.
-'Up smoking' cannot be shifted as a single unit in the cleft sentence as it produces a funny sentence.
-This is because gave up is a phrasal verb that cannot be split up into gave and up(prep).
-The sentence should have been,
*It was smoking that my father gave up last month
In this case, smoking can be shifted as a single unit in the cleft sentence. Smoking is thus a constituent
A: You should put on your red tie.
B : there is some dirt on your red tie.
A *It is on your red tie that you should put.
-'on your red tie' cannot be shifted as an entire constituent in this cleft sentence. It should instead be
*It is your red tie(not the blue tie) that you should put on.
-In this case, put on is a phrasal verb and cannot be split
B * it is on your red tie (not between your shirt) that there is some dirt
- in this case, 'on your red tie' can be shifted as an entire constituent in the cleft sentence. Thus it is a preposition phrase functioning as an adverbial
Demonstrate that a genius in the following sentence is an object complement and not a direct object
Many people have called Einstein a genius
Test for object : Passivisation
*Einstein was called a genius by many people.
- Passivisation test passes; einstein = object
*A genius was called Einstein by many people.
-Passivisation test fails for a genius. thus it must be a complement
Test for object complement - Be insertion Test
*Many people have called einstein (is) a genius.
- the Be insertion test works as Einstein can be a genius. Thus a genius is an object complement
Explain the ambiguity of the following sentence in terms of
the function of the prepositional phrase with a smile.
Sam watched the girl with a smile.
Ans : With a smile.
In this case, the prepositional phrase answers a how question. It is thus functioning as an adverbial
Who Qn : Which girl did sam watch
Ans : the girl with a smile
In this case, the girl with a smile is an entire constituent that with form Noun Phrase. With a smile is thus a post modifier of the head noun girl.
The phrase ten dollars in the following sentence is usually classified as a direct object. Explain the problems with this classification.
The bag costs ten dollars
In this case, ten dollars is a noun phrase which allows it to be either an object or an complement.
However, it can only either be an object or a subject complement as the bag is a subject. Object complement cannot exist without an object.
Test for object -- Passivisation
However in this case, ten dollars cannot be passivised.
Test for subject complement -----Be replacement test
the bag is ten dollars.
The Be replacement tests fails as it produces a ridiculous result; a bag cannot be ten dollars.
Since the noun phrase ten dollars is neither an subject/object complement, it must be an object
Actually, ‘The bag is ten dollars’ is acceptable. Note that the question asks why it is problematic to regard ‘ten dollars as an object. Your answer does not address this issue at all. You should work along this line:
n The passivisation test does not work.
n ‘Ten dollars’ is regarded as object only because it (the price) does not refer to the book. (That is, ‘ten dollars’ cannot pick out the book for us.) Since the price does not refer to the book, it cannot be the subject complement. It must therefore be the direct object.