Exercices
du
partiel

du
11
mai
2007
que
vous
nous
avez
distribués
en
cours




1. Faites
l’étude
grammaticale
et
la
comparaison
des
deux
must
des
lignes
5
et
6.
(5pts)

‐ It
must
come
out
:
dans
cet
énoncé,
«
must
»
relève
de
la
modalité
épistémique.
Ici
l’énonciateur

s’exprime
sur
les
potentialités
de
réalisation
du
lien
sujet/prédicat
en
se
fondant
sur
ses
observations

préalables
(«
If
the
road
goes
in
»)

I
don’t
express
it
like
this,
but
your
analysis
is
fine.
You
should
add:
“the
Speaker
predicts
that
the
road
will

come
out,
it
is
a
certainty
in
his
opinion
(100%),
a
conclusion
which
is
based
on
his
knowledge
of
the
world

and
what
roads
do.”
You
could
also
paraphrase
the
sentence
as:
“the
Speaker
is
forced
or
obliged
to
reach

the
conclusion
that
the
road
comes
out
somewhere.”

‐ We
must
go
wherever
it
leads
us:
ici
“must”
relève
d’une
modalité
non‐épistémique
plus

particulièrement
de
la
modalité
déontique
(obligation).
Il
s’agit
d’une
force
contraignante
qu’impose

l’énonciateur
au
sujet
de
la
phrase
(«
we
»).

I
agree.
The
Subject
‘we’
is
forced
by
outside
circumstances.
One
could
add
that
usually,
‘must’
is
used
when

there
is
a
direct
constraint
from
one
human
to
another.
Here,
the
‘human
constraint’
is
the
logical
obligation

imposed
by
the
Speaker
onto
himself
and
the
group
by
the
evidence
of
his
observation
that
the
Emerald
City

is
at
the
end
of
the
road.

2. 
Etudiez
do,
ligne
8.
Quelle
est
sa
fonction
ici
?
(4pts)

‐ That
is
why
I
do
:
verbe
do
(présence
d’un
sujet
«
I
»)
au
présent
utilisé
dans
un
discours
direct.
Il
s’agit

d’un
do
anaphorique
(ou
verbal
substitute)
car
il
se
réfère
à
quelque
chose
d’antérieur
:
«
we
must
go

wherever
it
leads
us
»
(l.6)

Indeed,
a
verbal
substitute,
but
you
made
a
mistake
concerning
the
antecedent
(the
referent
expression):

it
is:
“know
that”.
So
you
could
say
that
the
Scarecrow
is
saying:
“that
is
why
I
know
that”
and
you
note

that
 no
 transformation
 has
 happened,
 DO
 just
 replaces
 the
 verb
 and
 its
 Object.
 When
 you
 analyse
 this

type
of
substitute,
always
replace
it
with
the
antecedent
to
check
if
you
are
right.



3. Faites
de
même
pour
could
ligne
11.
Quelle
est
sa
valeur
en
tant
que
modal
?
(4pts)

‐ But
Toto
could
:
modal
can
au
prétérit.
Ici
could
traduit
une
capacité
et
non
une
probabilité,
il
s’agit

donc
d’une
modalité
dynamique
(non‐épistémique)
que
l’on
peut
paraphraser
par
:
But
Toto
was
able

to
see.

Always
read
the
question
carefully.
The
auxiliary
is
also
used
as
a
verbal
substitute.
The
antecedent
is
“X

couldn’t
see”,
so
the
clause
that
is
being
substituted
would
be
“but
Toto
could
see”
and
here
we
note
a
big

transformation
of
the
original
in
the
loss
of
the
negative
particle.
Otherwise,
your
analysis
of
the
modality

is
correct:
dynamic
modal
of
ability,
past
form
of
can
because
the
text
is
in
the
narrative
past.









4. Faites
l’analyse
syntaxique
de
la
phrase
de
la
ligne
12‐13.
(4pts)





 
 Subject
 
 




V
 
 




Subj

 V
 
 Adjunct

Nice
tree!
A
few
comments:
as
well
as
by
day
is
one
constituent,
so
don’t
break
it
up
(you
can
move
or
delete

it
only
as
a
whole).
It
is
Adverbial
and
should
be
analysed
as
a
PP
with
a
complex
preposition.
As
we
didn’t

look
 at
 this
 in
 class,
 forget
 it.
 However,
 note
 that
 the
 PP
 is
 an
 Adjunct
 attached
 to
 the
 VP.
 Also,
 you
 could

group
the
verb
and
the
auxiliary
under
a
node
which
you
could
label
V’.

Any
ideas
about
the
Semantic
Roles
of
the
arguments?
Agent
for
the
Subject
of
declared
and
Experiencer
for

the
Subject
of
see.
But
don’t
forget
to
put
at
least
the
grammatical
functions
of
the
verbal
arguments
below

the
sentence.



5. Que
pouvez‐vous
dire
de
l’utilisation
de
shall
dans
l’énoncé
de
la
ligne
17‐18
?
(3pts)

‐ Shall
we
go
there?
:
modal
shall
au
présent.
Ici
il
traduit
plutôt
une
volonté
(volition).
Il
s’agit
donc

d’une
modalité
non‐épistémique
(dynamique
???)

This
one
is
a
bit
difficult.
Note
first
that
it
is
an
idiomatic
phrase.
Notice
that
it
is
a
question
with
the
general

meaning
of
“would
you
like
to
go
there
because
I
would
like
to
go
there?”
In
other
words,
this
is
a
suggestion.

The
 modality
 involved
 is
 one
 of
 weak
 intention
 or
 volition,
 so
 non‐epistemic
 or
 dynamic
 modality.
 No
 is
 a

perfectly
acceptable
answer
to
this
suggestion.
The
meaning
is
idiomatic
as
the
question
is
indirect:
it
doesn’t

mean
“do
we
want
to
go
there?”
but
rather
“I
feel
like
going
and
if
you’d
like
to
go
too,
then
we’ll
go
together,

but
feel
free
to
say
no.”
Wow!



Pourriez‐vous
me
dire
si
l'analyse
syntaxique
de
cette
phrase
est
bonne?






The
teacher
sold
the
book
to
Mary
last
week




Perfectly
correct.
You
don’t
need
to
put
the
“predicate”
label
however
as
it
is
mixing
up
two
types
of
analysis,

one
which
is
detailed
(the
one
we
did
in
class)
and
one
which
is
vague
and
unhelpful
(what
does
‘predicate’

cover?).
Also,
it
is
confusing
since
we
use
Predicate
as
a
grammatical
function
in
Copula
sentences.

You
have
obviously
done
this
course
before
with
some
other
teacher
;‐)
Try
to
be
consistent
and
keep
the
two

analyses
apart.

Exercice
sur
les
rôles
sémantiques:
identifiez
tous
les
GN
et
GP,
donnez
leur
fonction
grammaticale
et
leur

rôle
sémantique



1.
Mary
found
a
ball
in
the
house

Mary
=
GN,
subject,
Agent
In
my
terms,
NP,
but
not
AGT,
EXP
(you
don’t
voluntarily
find
things)

a
ball
=
GN,
COD,
Patient/Objective

in
the
house
=
GP,
Adverbial
(?),
Locative
In
my
terms,
PP,
and
Adjunct/Adverbial
LOC



2.
The
children
ran
from
the
playhouse
to
the
pool

The
children
=
GN,
subj,
AGT

from
the
playhouse
=
GP,
Adv1
(?),
Source
In
my
terms,
PP,
but
Indirect
Object
(IO),
Source

to
the
pool
=
GP,
Adv2
(?),
Goal
this
can
be
either
part
of
a
bigger
PP
including
the
1st
or
an
Adjunct/Adv.

Goal.





3.
One
of
the
men
unlocked
all
the
doors
with
a
paper
clip

One
of
the
men
=
GN,
Subj,
AGT

all
the
doors
=
GN,
COD,
PAT/OBJV

with
a
paper
clip
=
GP,
Adv
(?),
Instrument
Yep!



4.
John
melted
the
ice
with
a
blowtorch

John
=
GN,
subj,
AGT

the
ice
=
GN,
COD,
PAT/OBJV

with
a
blowtorch
=
GP,
Adv
(?),
INST
Yep!



5.
The
sun
melted
the
ice

the
sun:
GN,
Subj,
Force

the
ice:
GN,
COD,
PAT/OBJV
Yep!



6.
The
ice
melted

the
ice
=
GN,
Subj,
Zero
Yep!



7.
The
policeman
saw
the
criminal
with
a
telescope

a.
the
policeman
=
GN,
subj,
AGT
Funny
sentence.
Watch
would
have
been
a
better
verb
and
then
your

analysis
would
be
correct.
See
is
usually
involuntary,
so
the
Subject
would
be
Experiencer.

the
criminal
=
GN,
COD,
PAT/OBJV

with
a
telescope
=
GP,
Adv
(Adv),
INST
Yep!



b.
the
policeman
=
AGT
EXP

the
criminal
=
OBJV

with
a
telescope
=
Associative
(de
the
criminal)
Yep!
Here,
the
criminal
is
carrying
the
telescope.



Could
you
analyze
the
clause
in
line
9
of
the
exam
paper
“I
never
should
have
said
it”
paying
attention
to
the

Aspect?
Make
a
diagram
of
the
various
Times
(Event,
Reference,
Speaker/Speech).