Five basic sentence structures

Language English Grammar & Usage
1

[quote=“bismarck”]I received a letter from my cable company, which I couldn’t quite read. My Chinese reading is not quite at a point yet that I am functional, but it is getting closer. So, I showed it to a Taiwanese coworker.

“Would you mind telling me if this note from my cable company is a bill, which needs to be paid, or, is it a receipt for last month’s payment?”

She looked at the note a long time and finally said. “This is about your TV.”
“No, it’s about my cable.”
“It is from the company which provides cable to your apartment.”
“Yes, I know. I already told you that. I just need to know, is this a bill or a receipt?”
“If you wish to cancel the cable, you need to call this number.”
“Uhm, hum.” I said, hoping she would get to the question I actually asked, as opposed to the one she wished I had asked.
“Do you want me to help you call this number and cancel your cable?”
“No, I don’t want to cancel. I just want to know if I need to go pay this.”
“This can be paid at 7-11.”
“Yes, I know. I do all my bill payments at 7-11, as does everyone else in Taiwan. But I still don’t know if this is a bill.”
“There is a 7-11 in front of our office.”
“Yes, there is.”
“Do you want me to go with you to pay it?”
“So, this is a bill?” I asked for confirmation. My coworker just smiled. Vowing, once again, to never try and get Chinese information from a local again, I walked across the street, and handed the letter to the 7-11 guy.
“You already paid this.” He said, instantly. “It’s a receipt.”

The coworker who I showed the bill to is a Taiwanese English teacher with years of experience, and a vocabulary of thousands of words. Why couldn’t she communicate at all? Why couldn’t she engage in a meaningful two-way dialogue?..[/quote]

:laughing: Bloody hilarious bismark. I will use that as teaching material. Really.

My wife is Taiwanese and is “never” “nice” to service staff in Taiwan. Never. It embarrasses me but works for her. She gets what she wants the first time and if they wander off mentally she brings them back round to it pronto.

As a teacher I am sometimes a little like her. Perhaps the following dialogue might prove instructive:

Me: The secret to language learning is easy, interesting “listening” practice. The material can get become more advanced as you improve but it should remain easy essentially because “for your level” it is easy. You need to “listen” a lot.

Them: My English teacher from the ever so prestigious university says I need to study grammar.

Me: What structure was that last senetence?

Them: Huh?

Me: What structure, 1,2,3,4 or 5?

Them: Huh?

Me: The five basic sentence structures. You don’t know the five basic sentence structures? That is odd. I can promise you that the five basic sentence structures are about all you have ever heard. Here they are…

  1. Subject + Intransitive verb (v.i)
    (Zhu3ci2 + bu4ji2wu4 de dong4ci2.)

For example: Fish swim.

  1. Subject + Transitive action verb (v.t.) + Object.
    (Zhu3ci2 + ji2wu4 de dong4ci2 + shou4ci2.)

For example: I eat fish.

     …………………………………………..
  1. Subject + Be Verb + Noun
    (Zhu3ci2 + Be dong4ci2 + ming2ci2)

For example: I am a man.

  1. Subject + Be Verb + Adjective
    (Zhu3ci2 + Be dong4ci2 + xing2rong2ci2

For example: I am fat.

  1. Subject + Linking Verb + Adverb Phrase of Time or Location.
    Zhu3ci2 + Be dong4ci2 + shen2me5 shi2hou5 hai2shi4 zai4 na3li3 de fu4ci2 ci2zu3)

We are in Taipei.

In structures number one and two the subject performs the action of the verb.
(Zai4 di4-yi4 he2 di4-er4 ge jie2gou4 zhu3ci2 biao3xian4 dong4ci2 de dong4zuo4.)

In structures 3,4 & 5 the subject is described by the rest of the sentence.

You can transform these senetnces through: addition, subtraction, substitution or transformation from one verb tense to another, from statement to question or from active to passive.

If you think this is wrong give me an example of a sentence that is not made in this way.

Them: I can’t. Anyway, why are you telling me this?

Me: Because, as an English teacher, I won’t be dismissed causally, not when the topic under discussion is language learning. I’ve been a fairly serious teacher and student of languages for fifteen fucking years. If I tell you that the secret to language learning is easy, interesting “listening” practice then the secret to language learning is easy, interesting “listening” practice. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to say that I don’t give a shit what the professor from the famous university says.

Them: But my other teacher says language learning is all about communication.

Me: It is but you can’t communicate if you aren’t “listening”. You can’t learn anything if you aren’t “listening”. Language “is” sound. How the hell could you learn it without “listening” to it and understanding what it means?

Etc.

2

OFF-TOPIC ALERT!

Maybe it was just me, but I was taught differently.

1 and 2 are the same: Subject + IV and Subject + TV + Object, respectively.

I was taught that Pattern 3 was Subject + Verb + Subject Complement (SC), where the SC could be either a noun or an adjective, as long as it referred to the Subject.

EX: I am a man. (noun)
EX: The car is red. (adj).

Pattern 4 is Subject + Transitive verb + Indirect Object + Direct Object

EX: I gave Tina the book. (Tina is the receiver/IO, book is the thing given/DO).
Notice here that if you type “I gave the book to Tina.” that it becomes a pattern 3 sentence - “the book” is the thing given, the DO. Tina, however, is now the object of the preposition. You therefore have Subject + Verb + DO (+Prepositional Phrase).

Pattern 5 is Subj + Verb + DO + Objective Complement.

Like pattern 2, it has a complement, but this complement refers to the Direct Object, not the subject.

EX: I left the door open. (the adj “open” refers to “door”.)
EX: We elected Obama president. (“president” refers to “Obama”.)

Anyway, that’s what I was taught and what I teach my students. Not saying yours are wrong, just noting the differences.

3

[quote=“MPenguin”]

Maybe it was just me, but I was taught differently.

1 and 2 are the same: Subject + IV and Subject + TV + Object, respectively.

I was taught that Pattern 3 was Subject + Verb + Subject Complement (SC), where the SC could be either a noun or an adjective, as long as it referred to the Subject.

EX: I am a man. (noun)
EX: The car is red. (adj).

Pattern 4 is Subject + Transitive verb + Indirect Object + Direct Object

EX: I gave Tina the book. (Tina is the receiver/IO, book is the thing given/DO).
Notice here that if you type “I gave the book to Tina.” that it becomes a pattern 3 sentence - “the book” is the thing given, the DO. Tina, however, is now the object of the preposition. You therefore have Subject + Verb + DO (+Prepositional Phrase).

Pattern 5 is Subj + Verb + DO + Objective Complement.

Like pattern 2, it has a complement, but this complement refers to the Direct Object, not the subject.

EX: I left the door open. (the adj “open” refers to “door”.)
EX: We elected Obama president. (“president” refers to “Obama”.)

Anyway, that’s what I was taught and what I teach my students. Not saying yours are wrong, just noting the differences.[/quote]

Wow. That’s messy.

I was taught that the S + VT + O + DO was a subcategory of SVO. Keeps it all nice and neat. Yours doesn’t have a slot for my numbe five either: S + bv + prepositional phrase of time or location, eg. The party is at my house at nine o’clock.

Getting sleepy here and I am pretty attached to my 5 stuctures. Could be I’m missing something. I’m happy anybody else even heard of the notion of a fixed number of basic structures.

4

Ah yes, but in my structures, all Prepositional Phrases are optional… not tied to a specific structure.

Pattern 1: S + IV.

I go.

S + V (+PP)

I go to the Post Office.

I drove the car to the post office (pattern 3 + optional PP).

You see, PP can be added to any sentence structure, thus they are not tied to a specific sentence structure of their own.

c’est la vie… it’s later here also. You have your way, I have mine. :thumbsup:

5

[quote=“MPenguin”]Ah yes, but in my structures, all Prepositional Phrases are optional… not tied to a specific structure.

Pattern 1: S + IV.

I go.

S + V (+PP)

I go to the Post Office.

I drove the car to the post office (pattern 3 + optional PP).

You see, PP can be added to any sentence structure, thus they are not tied to a specific sentence structure of their own. [/quote]

But in the one I was taught you have a particular structure number to describe a sentence that has “only” a prepositional phrase to describe the subject. A sentence like: She is at the library.

I like this system because you can methodically describe how sentences are built up from the basic structures through addition, subtraction, transformation of verb tense etc. If anybody was curious I’d provide an example. It is a tad tedious I suppose but it is so logical and comprehensive that I have always been surprised that it isn’t the core of English grammar programs everywhere. It should be.

6

[quote=“bob”]
But in the one I was taught you have a particular structure number to describe a sentence that has “only” a prepositional phrase to describe the subject. A sentence like: She is at the library.

I like this system because you can methodically describe how sentences are built up from the basic structures through addition, subtraction, transformation of verb tense etc. If anybody was curious I’d provide an example. It is a tad tedious I suppose but it is so logical and comprehensive that I have always been surprised that it isn’t the core of English grammar programs everywhere. It should be.[/quote]

But “She is at the library” would fall under a Sentence Pattern 2 in my system. She (S) is (V) at the library ©. In this case “at the library” is a prepositional phrase which functions as an adjective describing WHERE the subject is located. Hence, S + V + C.

Just as an aside, where are you from, Bob? Rather, where did you learn this system? I’m not saying it’s wrong - it’s certainly one way. I just find it interesting.

Also… every time I google “basic sentence patterns” or something like that… I find my 5, not yours. I’m wondering if this might be the difference between an American and British or Australian thing. Interesting at any rate. Both of our systems seems to work well for explaining basic English sentence structure.

7

If you opt for MP’s suggestion…

Pimsleur for oral.

RosettaStone for written and second to Pimsleur for oral. v3 proceeds in smaller increments, has prettier prictures, and loads on your hard drive. v2 is for power learners and stays on CD.

8

but… we have to learn it from a book. i know ALL the rules.

9

[quote=“MPenguin”][quote=“bob”]
But in the one I was taught you have a particular structure number to describe a sentence that has “only” a prepositional phrase to describe the subject. A sentence like: She is at the library.

I like this system because you can methodically describe how sentences are built up from the basic structures through addition, subtraction, transformation of verb tense etc. If anybody was curious I’d provide an example. It is a tad tedious I suppose but it is so logical and comprehensive that I have always been surprised that it isn’t the core of English grammar programs everywhere. It should be.[/quote]

But “She is at the library” would fall under a Sentence Pattern 2 in my system. She (S) is (V) at the library ©. In this case “at the library” is a prepositional phrase which functions as an adjective describing WHERE the subject is located. Hence, S + V + C. [/quote]

But the beauty of “my” :wink: system is that you can divide 1&2 from 3,4 & 5 and get action verbs on top and be verbs on the bottom, clearly distinguished, so that in the simpe present and past they know when to use “do, does, did” (linking verbs of course being the weird anomally).

In essence there are only two kinds of sentence:

  1. Sentences where the subject “does” something (and therefore you use “do” to make questions, negatives and short answers in the simple present and simple past)

  2. Sentences where the subject “is” something (and therefore you DO NOT use “do” to make questions, negatives and short answers any time).

Interestingly enough I suppose I learned this from my very first English “student”.

I still love teaching it though rarely do. Explicit grammar instruction is… well, you likley know the drill.

Oh, if you want to see someone whose thinking about grammar is predicated almost entirely on these concepts have a look at the Betty Shrampfer Azar series, you’ll see what I mean. Red book (Basic English Grammar) pg. 20. Blue book (Understanding and Using English Grammar) A1 & A6 would be a good place to start.

The Schrampfer Series has been translated into Chinese too. In my opinion she explains grammar better than anyone, and then goes on to provide absolutely awful exercises. Weird.