User talk:Laurasegriffin/sandbox

Definition section: Here is an area to discuss my proposed changes to the small clause article's definition section. Any and all comments are very welcome! Laurasegriffin (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on April 4 2019 This example is not convincing because the following is also acceptable: What I heard was the people. When a true small clause is present, you can't do this, e.g. *What I consider is Bill smart. "The people" is also a constituent, so that's why your sentence is also acceptable. What do you mean by "a true small clause"? I would like clarification on this point, as the concept of what defines a small clause is not agreed upon.

The English example is not a sentence of English. It makes no sense. Proform substitution in English actually does not support the layered analysis, e.g. a. I am considering Bill quite smart. B. ??I am considering that. (that ≠ Bill quite smart) I fixed the English example so the word order will be more correct. For your correction below, as a native English speaker, I don't judge (a) to be a grammatical English sentence: I can make it work through accommodation, but it sounds awkward for me. I'll see if I can find some examples of proform substitution not supporting small clause constituency to add in the counter-example section though!

Coordination is not a good test for establishing constituency. Consider the following examples: a. [Fred has] but [Frank has not] been studying syntax. b. He sent [you chocolates] and [me flowers] for our birthdays.The articles in Wikipedia on coordination and the constituent unit discusses the value of all the tests for constituents in some detail.Thank you for the comment! I'll make a link to the coordination page to discuss why some linguists believe coordination is not a good test for establishing constituency. I'll also include a counter-example to the Small clauses constituency argument re. coordination below. However, I will keep the coordination test to present the opposing side of this analysis. Laurasegriffin (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]