English-Polish Contrastive Grammar (10)
The English and Polish VP in contrast: complementation
A contrastive analysis of patterns of complementation is concerned with finding out whether the languages compared share the same types of verbs and whether the range of constituents that can complement verbs is the same or different. Hence, what is to be investigated is valence and the range of syntactic phrases that function as complements realizing the semantic arguments of the verb, which correspond to the participants of situation-types encoded with verbs. |
Valence By valence we mean the argument structure of the predicate and its morphosyntactic realization. For example, the verb please takes two semantic arguments, the experiencer and the stimulus of the mental state, (Music pleases John). The verb die takes only one argument (Their cat has just died), the undergoer or patient. The verb murder takes two arguments, the agent and the undergoer or patient (The rapist murdered his victim). In syntax, semantic arguments are mapped onto constituents of a certain syntactic category rather than another, and the syntactic phrase that encodes the semantic argument has a certain syntactic function. The agent is typically mapped onto the subject and the undergoer or patient is typically mapped onto the direct object in the case of transitive verbs. With other semantic arguments there is more freedom of syntactic encoding. For example, the experiencer can be mapped onto the subject (I like music) as well as onto the direct object (Storms frighten me). If the non-agent argument of the verb steal is the theme (for an argument that corresponds to an entity that changes location in the event), then in the case of steal, the theme is mapped onto the direct object but in the case of rob, it is mapped onto a prepositional complement (They stole my money vs. They robbed me of my money). The information about how many semantic arguments a verb takes, their semantic roles, their mapping onto syntactic categories and the syntactic functions these syntactic categories (e.g. NP, PP etc.) have is valence. The basic valence distinctions are the distinctions between linking, intransitive, monotransitive, ditransitive and complex transitive verbs. Sometimes the category of reflexive verbs is distinguished. The classes of verbs and hence also the structural clause patterns or types of construction based on these verbs in English and Polish will be compared here. The topic is quite large, so for reasons of limited space only some basic facts will be given in what follows. |
Linking verbs Linking verbs are verbs which take predicative complements. The semantic function of a predicative complement is to attribute some property to the referent of the subject, e.g. in John is happy, happy is a predicative complement that describes John as being in a state of happiness. In John is a millionaire, millionaire is a predicative complement that attributes to John the property of being a millionaire. Unlike subjects, objects, and prepositional complements (called oblique complements, e.g. We count on your help/Liczymy na twoją pomoc), predicative complements do not encode independent participants in a situation. For example, in (a) below, the object a teacher encodes an individual distinct from the individual introduced by the subject, but in (b), a teacher does not encode an individual distinct form, or for that matter, identical to the individual encoded with the subject NP:
a. Mary saw a teacher. (two participants; a teacher is the direct object) b. Mary is/became a teacher. (one participant; a teacher is the predicative complement)
Several sub-types of constructions with a linking verb can be distinguished: A. The predicator takes one argument, an experiencer designating an entity experiencing some sensation. The predicate expresses the physical or psychological state the subject is in. In English, the predicative is expressed with an AdjP, in Polish - with an AdvP. In English the experiencer has the syntactic function of subject. In Polish it is the indirect object marked for dative case: We are sad/cold. Jest nam smutno/zimno. B. The predicative attributes a role or property to the subject of predication. In English and Polish alike the predicative is in this case expressed with an NP or AdjP. In Polish, the predicative NP is in the instrumental case and the predicative AdjP is in the nominative (sometimes the instrumental is also possible). John is a teacher/tall. Jan jest nauczycielem/wysoki. Mary became pale. Marysia zrobiła się blada. John became a pilot. Jan został lotnikiem. Mark seemed satisfied. Marek wydawał się zadowolony. C. The predicative (alternatively, complement of time) designates time or location (or both). In English and Polish alike it is prepositional or it can be expressed with an adverb: The meeting was at five/yesterday. Zebranie było o piątej/wczoraj. D. English: there + linking verb + NP (+PP/AdvP) Polish: linking verb NP (in nominative case) (+PP/AdvP) The referent of the NP is asserted to be in some place, hence, the predicative designates location. In English, the NP whose location or existence is asserted must be indefinite. in Polish, it can be definite or indefinite: There are books /*John's books on the table. Na stole były książki/książki Janka. There are roses without thorns. Są róże bez kolców. E. The predicator expresses a sensory perception. In English, the predicative is expressed with an AdjP; in Polish it is expressed with an AdvP: You look wonderful. Wyglądasz cudownie. This smells awful. To pachnie okropnie. In Polish and English alike the predicative can also be expressed with a PP: Marek wygląda na zmęczonego. This counts as unearned income. |
Intransitive verbs Intransitive verbs are verbs denoting situations with one participant. They fall into two main semantic types: verbs denoting activities, that is situations which have no inherent endpoint and which can go on indefinitely long (e.g. walk) and verbs denoting changes of state or location, i.e. verbs denoting situations in which the participant involved gets to be in some new location (e.g. arrive) or gets to be in a new state (e.g. die). Intransitive activity verbs in English have intransitive counterparts in Polish, e.g. sing/śpiewać, run/biec, walk/iść, spacerować, swim/pływać, sleep/spać. Also intransitive verbs of change of state or location are intransitive in both languages, e.g. arrive/przybyć, die/umrzeć. Transitive verbs like open have intransitive variants in English, e.g. The glass broke. The door opened. The road widened. These variants of transitive verbs are called inchoative. Inchoatives related to transitive verbs are typically reflexive in Polish, e.g. prostować się/straighten, wypełnić się/fill, poszerzyć się/widen, złamać się/break, podrzeć się/tear, topić się/melt etc. Some transitive predicates whose agents are at the same their objects (patients) are intransitive in English, e.g. shower, dress, shave, wash, meet. Their Polish equivalents involve a so-called light verb combined with a noun, e.g. brać prysznic, or they are reflexive ubierać się, golić się, myć się, spotkać się. |
Monotransitive verbs There is a considerable degree of correspondence between transitive verbs in English and Polish, e.g. kill/zabić, open/otworzyć, break/stłuc. However, not all transitive verbs in English have transitive equivalents in Polish, e.g. walk the dog/wyprowadzić psa na spacer (not: *spacerować psa), fly the airplane/lecieć samolotem (not: *lecieć samolot). Often there is a categorial difference between English and Polish, e.g. a transitive verb with a direct object in English has a counterpart in a prepositional verb in Polish (telephone somebody/dzwonić do kogoś,) or vice versa (słuchać kogoś/listen to somebody). Such differences are instances of categorial contrast. Causative verbs like make and have in English do not have congruent counterparts in Polish and they can involve a gerund, e.g. He had her sign the contract/Zmusił ją do podpisania kontraktu, or a tense clausal complement, e.g. They made Mary leave/Spowodowali, że Maria wyjechała). Verbs of perception like see and hear take infinitival or participial clauses as complements (They saw the children cross the street). Their Polish counterparts take tensed clausal counterparts, e.g. Widzieli, że dzieci przeszły przez ulicę as well as participial complements (e.g. He saw the children playing football/Widział dzieci grające w piłkę). |
Complex transitive verbs A complex transitive verb is a verb that takes the direct object as one complement and has a second complement, which is predicative (i.e. does not introduce an independent participant). The predicative complement is sometimes called a secondary predicate. Both languages have this type of complementation, but there are often categorial contrasts, e.g. They considered him a fool/Uważali go za głupca, I guess him to be at least sixty/Zgaduję, że on ma co najmniej sześćdziesiąt lat. English has a productive resultative construction with an adjectival objective predicative. In Polish, the secondary predicate is prepositional rather than adjectival and it is often lexically different or Polish requires a different construction to render the meaning expressed by an English resultative construction:
|
Ditransitive verbs A ditransitive verb is a verb with two NP objects, the direct and indirect object (V NP NP). The direct object follows the indirect object in English, e.g. I gave the children some toys./*I gave some toys the children. In Polish, both orders of the objects are permitted, e.g. Dałem dzieciom kilka zabawek./Dałem kilka zabawek dzieciom. Ditransitive verbs with two nominal objects in English are often rendered with ditransitive prepositional verbs in Polish and vice versa (V NP PP). For example, explain is a ditransitive prepositional verb in English (V NP PP) but a plain ditransitive verb in Polish (V NP NP) and the same is true of describe/opisać, which is the source of grammaticality differences such as explain something to somebody/ *explain somebody something vs. wytłumaczyć komuś coś; describe something to somebody/ *describe somebody something vs. opisać komuś coś. |
Reflexive verbs Inherent reflexive verbs (so-called reflexive tantum) are verbs which cannot occur without a reflexive (or reciprocal) pronoun. English examples include absent oneself, avail oneself, pride oneself, perjure oneself etc. Polish examples include modlić się `to pray', chmurzyć się `to cloud up', wahać się `to hesitate', spodziewać się `to expect', bać się `to fear', kłócić się `to quarrel'. Since the reflexive element does not alternate with a non-reflexive one, it seems that it is pleonastic/dummy, i.e. that it does not encode a semantic argument in contrast to verbs like wash, whose argument may be expressed with a reflexive pronoun in the case of coreference or with a lexical NP in the case of non-coreference (e.g. Mary washed herself vs. Mary washed the dishes). There is a systematic contrast between so-called psych-verbs in English and Polish. Subject experiencer verbs, i.e. verbs whose experiencer argument is mapped in syntax onto the subject are often reflexive in Polish while their object experiencer variants are non-reflexive. In English, the counterparts of both kinds are not reflexive: Jan martwi się synem/John wories about his son. Syn martwi Jana/His son worries John. Marysia denerwuje się o pracę./Mary is nervous about her job. Politycy denerwują Marysię. /Politicians upset Mary. |
Clausal complements In both languages the complement can be sentential: a. I know (that) it is late. b. Wiem, *(że) jest późno. An important difference between English and Polish is that the complementizer introducing indicative clausal complements need not be expressed overtly in E. whereas it has to be expressed lexically in P. In other words, the subordinate clause need not be introduced with a lexical mark of subordination in English whereas it must be introduced with such an element in Polish. This is related to another important difference between English and Polish, which involves the presence/absence of a relative pronoun introducing a subordinate relative clause: I met the man that/who/Ø you had introduced to Mary at the party. Spotkałem mężczyznę, *(którego) przedstawiłeś Marysi na przyjęciu. The pencil that/which/ Ø John found is on the table. Ołówek, który /* Ø Jan znalazł, jest na stole. In both English and Polish the verb can also take an infinitival complement: John wants to buy a new car. Jan chce kupić nowy samochód. Importantly, in English, an infinitival complement can have an overt subject in objective case (the so-called infinitive with a subject (ACI)) while in Polish, there is no possibility for an infinitival clause to have an overt subject. In the English example below the complement is [her to get a job], with her in subject position. The bracketed constituent is taken to be the complement, because want is a simple monotransitive verb with two arguments: experiencer and goal. The goal argument can be a simple entity (e.g. a lollipop) or it can be a situation (that she should get a job): John wants her to get a job. Jan chce, żeby ona dostała pracę./*Jan chce ją dostać pracę. English and Polish alike have the possibility of promoting the subject argument of an infinitive complement to the position of subject of the main clause and expressing the sentential complement with an infinitival clause. Verbs allowing for this structural paraphrase are called raising verbs, because the surface subject `rises' from the subordinate clause (where it is interpreted as an argument of the infinitival verb) into the main clause. It seems that John is waiting./John seems to be waiting. Wydaje się, że Jan czeka./Jan wydaje się czekać. In English, also certain adjectives alternate between allowing a tensed complement and an infinitival complement. By contrast, Polish has no raising adjectives. It is likely that John will come./John is likely to come. Jest prawdopodobne/możliwe, że Jan przyjdzie. /*Jan jest prawdopodobny przyjść. With some verbs, the complement can be expressed with the so-called gerund, which can be analysed as a nominalization of a VP (a VP `mapped onto' or expressed as an NP.) While both languages have gerunds, often a verb in one language taking a gerund complement need not correspond to a verb with a gerund complement in the other language: I suggest lowering the tax. Proponuję obniżenie podatku. The dog stopped playing with my shoe. *Pies przestał bawienia się moim butem/Pies przestał bawić się moim butem. The mismatches often lead to grammatical errors made by Polish speakers of English. |
Exercises
Provide the following sentences with counterparts in English or Polish and comment on the differences, if any:
Kiedy obcinałaś ostatnio włosy?
Zaproponował im dobre rozwiązanie.
Słyszeli, jak ktoś wybijał okno w ich samochodzie.
They sang themselves hoarse.
Uważam go za prawdziwego przyjaciela.
Pachniała perfumami.
It is dangerous to perjure oneself.
Cały wieczór dyskutowali o wojnie.
Explain the plausible source of the errors made by Polish speakers:
*His uncle recommended a group of English tourists a good hotel.
*They elected her for a chairperson.
*Whenever he goes to a party, he enjoys.
*They painted their house in white and in dark blue.
*I want to explain you this.
* I usually shower myself in the morning and in the evening.
*You will have to count yourself with expenses.
*Since that time I haven't trusted in government's promises.
*You learn best on your own mistakes.
Overview of the main structural differences between English and Polish: the clause
English tensed clauses have a lexical subject. If there is no thematic subject (i.e. a subject that encodes a participant with a thematic role such as Agent, Experiencer, Goal, Patient, Location, etc.), a dummy/formal/grammatical subject is inserted. By a dummy/formal/
grammatical subject we understand a constituent mapped onto the subject that does not contribute to the interpretation of the sentence:
There were some people in the street.
It's late.
It seems to be raining.
It is strange that Mary didn't remember you at all.
Polish has a number of constructions lacking a thematic subject as well as a formal subject:
Grzmi.
Padało.
Zalało im piwnicę w zeszłym roku.
Mówi się, że bezrobocie wzrośnie w ciągu roku.
Kiedy zapytałam, powiedziano mi, żebym siedziała cicho.
The only construction in which a subject that does not contribute to interpretation occurs in a tensed sentence is a construction with an adjectival predicate taking a propositional argument (an argument realized with a clause in syntax). In line with the principles that govern the mapping of information structure onto syntactic structures, the clausal argument, being heavy, is usually placed at the end of the sentence (N.B. other structural variants apart form (f) are possible), although the clause may appear sentence-initially as well, as shown in (g):
To jest dziwne, że oni jeszcze nie wrócili.
To, że jeszcze nie wrócili, jest dziwne.
English has infinitives with a lexical subject (cf. a), whereas Polish does not. The subject may be introduced by the complementizer for (cf. (b)), which only introduces infinitives with a subject (cf. also (d)). The Polish cognates of English infinitives with a subject can be rendered with tensed clauses introduced with the complementizers że or żeby:
They expect [Jim to win the competition].
She wants [(for) you to be happy].
Thelma believes [Louise to have abandoned her husband].
Poirot preferred [for the police to invite the sergeant].
English has strict constituent order. Verbs are followed by complements first, adjuncts follow complements, if there are any:
They read this book (DO) yesterday (Adjunct).
*They read yesterday this book.
Importantly, the direct object cannot be separated from the verb by any other constituent (cf. (a)-(c)) and the indirect object must precede the direct object (cf. (d)-(e)). A direct object must precede an oblique object (one realized with a PP), as shown in (f)-(g)). Only `heavy' direct objects can be displaced away from the verb (cf. (h)):
You should proof-read [three pages] every night.
*You should proof-read every night [three pages].
*You should proof-read every night [them].
You should proof-read every night [three complete pages of your original text].
Thelma gave [Louise] [the draft].
*Thelma gave [the draft] [Louise].
Thelma gave [the draft] [to Louise].
*Thelma gave [to Louise] [the draft].
In other words, complements follow the verb in the order: NP before PP or S-complement.
Polish does not have comparable restrictions. However, this does not mean that word order is completely free in Polish. For example, a subordinator precedes the clause it introduces, the complement of a preposition must stand after the preposition, etc.
English has so-called raising adjectives, i.e. adjectives taking a propositional argument encoded with a subordinate infinitival clause whose subject is `raised' to the subject position of the main clause. The position from which the subject is raised is indicated in (b) with e (for `empty position') Polish does not allow embedded subjects to be raised into the matrix clause, unless the main clause predicate is a verb:
It is likely [that they will be late for work].
They are likely [e to be late for work].
*Oni są prawdopodobni [e się spóźnić].
It seems [that John knows 6 languages].
John seems [e to speak 6 languages].
Janek wydaje się [e znać 6 języków].
English has preposition stranding whereby the complement of a preposition is dislocated away from its position after the preposition. Polish does not allow the preposition to be stranded; instead the complement of the preposition must move together with the preposition (`e' stands for `empty position'):
What are you looking for e?
Na co czekasz e?
*Co czekasz na e?
The above contrast is further found in passive voice, contributing to a more restricted distribution of passive voice in Polish compared with English:
The terms were agreed to by the negotiating team.
*Warunki zostały zgodzone się na przez zespół negocjatorów.
Warunki zostały uzgodnione przez zespół negocjatorów.
1