Syntax

1.1 The hierarchy of units

Syntax describes how words combine into larger units. The units form a rank scale; each higher unit is (typically) composed of units of the rank below:

sentence → clause → phrase → word (→ morpheme, which belongs to morphology)

• Sentence — the highest unit of syntactic description; grammatically independent (not part of a larger grammatical structure); orthographically marked by a capital letter and final punctuation.

  • A simple sentence consists of one independent clause.
  • A multiple sentence (Quirk's term) consists of more than one clause — either compound (coordinated main clauses) or complex (containing at least one dependent clause). See §5.

• Clause — a unit organized around a verb phrase, typically with its own subject–predicate structure.

  • Independent clauses can stand alone as sentences.
  • Dependent clauses function as an element of another clause (S, O, C, A) or of a phrase within it (postmodification, apposition, complementation).

• Phrase — one or more words built around a head; a phrase has no subject–predicate structure of its own.

• Word — the minimal unit syntax operates with (its internal structure belongs to morphology).

Key insight — recursion: the hierarchy is not strictly one-way. A clause can occur inside a phrase (a relative clause postmodifying a noun inside an NP), and that phrase inside another clause. This is exactly what the layered analysis in the exam tests (§8).

1.2 Form vs function

Always keep the two apart:

• NP, PP, AdjP, that-clause, -ing clause… are formal categories (classes).
• subject, object, adverbial, postmodification… are syntactic functions.

One form can serve many functions, and one function can be realized by many forms:

1.3 Phrase types and their internal structure

Every phrase is named after its head:

NP internal functions in detail:

• Determinative function: articles, demonstratives, possessives, quantifiers used before the head — the, this, my, any in any discussion.
• Premodification: adjectives, participles, nouns before the head — a stone wall, a barking dog, the student union.

• Postmodification:

  • PPs: the house on the corner**
  • relative clauses: the man who came**
  • -ing/-ed participle clauses: the man standing there, factors **related to etymology
  • to-infinitive clauses: the first person to arrive**
  • appositive content clauses: the fact that he lied** (complementation rather than modification — see §3.5, §5.6)

• Pronoun heads take mostly postmodification: any of these, those **present, something useful (note the obligatory postposition of the adjective with some-/any-/no- compounds).

A worked NP "tree" of the two very old books on the shelf that I bought:

NP: the | two | very old | BOOKS | on the shelf | that I bought determiner | numeral | premod: AdjP | head | postmod: PP | postmod: rel. clause (very = intensifier premodifying old)

(Bonus trap: that I bought could in principle postmodify shelf — attachment ambiguity; say which reading you take.)

1.4 Finite, non-finite and verbless clauses

• Finite clause — contains a finite VP: one showing tense contrast and (where available) person/number agreement and mood. Finite clauses can be independent or dependent; finiteness alone does not establish independence.

  • She writes; although the term is used…
  • Imperative and subjunctive clauses use the base form yet are traditionally counted with finite clauses.

• Non-finite clause — built on a non-finite verb form; has no tense/agreement and usually no expressed subject (it is recoverable from the context, normally from the subject of the superordinate clause). Four structural types (Quirk 14.6):

  1. to-infinitive: He wants to leave; with expressed subject: For him to leave would be a mistake.
  2. bare infinitive: She made him apologize; *All I did was ask*.
  3. -ing participle (incl. the gerundial type): Entering the room, he switched on the light; *He enjoys reading detective stories*.
  4. -ed participle: Seen from above, the town looks tiny; *factors related to etymology*.

• Verbless clause — clause-like unit with no verb at all; a form of be is recoverable:

  • When in doubt, consult a dictionary.
  • Whether right or wrong, he always wins the argument.
  • absolute: The meeting over, we left.

Non-finite and verbless clauses have a predication, with an expressed or understood subject. Compare for him to leave and the meeting over (expressed subjects) with to leave and when in doubt (understood subjects). They are analysed as clauses in this framework; keep that distinction when counting and classifying them.

1.5 Common traps

• "Verb phrase" ambiguity — in this exam VP = the verbal group (can say, is used), not verb + objects.
• in the garden vs *when he arrived — both function as adverbials, but the first is a phrase (PP), the second a clause*. Never call a PP a clause.
• A clause inside an NP (relative, appositive) is part of the NP; its function is postmodification/complementation, i.e. phrase-level, not a clause element of the main clause.
• One pronoun, two functions: any is a determinative in any discussion but the head of the NP in any of these. The word-class stays the same; the syntactic function differs.
• Coordinated finite VPs with a shared subject (He came in and sat down) permit analyses as VP coordination or as clause coordination with subject ellipsis. State the convention rather than mechanically counting every finite verb as a clause. The published sample's four-clause sentence has separately expressed subjects and does not depend on this issue.

1.6 Exam-style questions

1.7 Constituency is a hypothesis to test

In I photographed the student with a camera, the PP can describe the instrument of photographing or modify student (which student?). Show the attachment before assigning function. Substitution (I photographed her), movement (With a camera, I photographed the student) and coordinated alternatives provide evidence; no single test works for every constituent.

2.1 The four major clause types and their prototypical speech-act functions

Quirk (CGEL 11.1–2) distinguishes four formal types, each associated with a prototypical discourse function:

The operator = the first auxiliary of the VP (or do under do-support, or be — and sometimes have — as a main verb). It carries inversion, negation and question tags — remember it; it returns in §4 (negation) and §6 (inversion).

These discourse functions can also be reported in dependent clauses (useful for §5). The reported function and the subordinate clause form must still be named separately:

• statement → that-clause: She said that she was tired.
• question → if/whether- or wh-clause: She asked whether we were ready / what we wanted.
• exclamation → what/how-clause: You know what a mess he made.
• directive → mandative that-clause with the subjunctive or should: She insisted that he (should) apologize.

2.2 Interrogatives in detail

1. Yes–no questions — subject–operator inversion: Has she left? Do you smoke?

   • Orientation: neutral questions use non-assertive forms (Did anyone call?); assertive forms signal positive orientation (Would you like some tea? — an offer expecting "yes"); negative questions combine surprise/annoyance with an expected answer (Hasn't he apologized yet?).

2. Wh-questions — wh-element fronted + subject–operator inversion (What did she say?) — except when the wh-element itself is subject: Who came? (no inversion — a favourite trap).

3. Alternative questions — Would you like tea or coffee? (falling tone on the final alternative; the answer names one alternative).

4. Tag questions — operator + pronoun copied from the clause.

   • Reversed polarity is the norm: You're coming, aren't you? / You aren't coming, are you?
   • Constant polarity (positive + positive) signals inference drawn from the situation, often sarcastic: Oh, you're coming, are you?
   • Tone matters: a falling tag expects confirmation; a rising tag is a genuine query.
   • After imperatives: Sit down, will you?

5. Declarative questions — declarative form, rising intonation: You're leaving?

6. Echo questions — He said WHAT?

2.3 Imperatives and exclamatives

• Imperative: base form, subject normally absent but recoverable as you — visible in the tag (…, will you?) and in reflexives (Behave yourself).

  • Emphatic: Do be careful. Negative: Don't move.
  • With overt subject: You stay here.
  • 1st-person-inclusive: Let's start (negative Let's not argue).

• Exclamative: What + NP or How + AdjP/AdvP fronted, and — crucially — no subject–operator inversion: What a mess he made! How tall he is!

  • Compare the interrogative How tall is he? (inversion).
  • Exclamatives can also be dependent: You can't imagine what a mess he made.

2.4 Direct vs indirect speech acts

The form–function mapping in §2.1 is only prototypical. In an indirect speech act a sentence type performs a non-prototypical function:

• Can you pass the salt? — interrogative form, directive function (request, not a question about ability).
• You will report at nine. — declarative form, directive (command).
• Isn't she clever! — negative interrogative form, exclamation.
• Is that any reason for despair? — rhetorical question: interrogative form functioning as an emphatic statement ("It is no reason…").
• I wonder if you could help me. — declarative form, polite directive/request.

Exam wording tip: name both levels — "a declarative sentence functioning as a directive". Do not say "this is a question" when you mean the form "interrogative".

2.5 Minor (irregular) sentence types

Utterances that do not fit the regular clause patterns (CGEL 11.38ff):

• formulae: Good morning. Thanks. Cheers!
• interjections: Ouch! Oh dear!
• optative remnants with the subjunctive: Long live the King! God save us! Suffice it to say…
• aphoristic sentences: Easy come, easy go. Like father, like son.
• block language (headlines, labels, signs): NO ENTRY. PM TO RESIGN.
• elliptical non-sentences in dialogue: Coffee? — Lovely.

They function as complete utterances but lack full sentence structure.

2.6 Common traps

• How tall is he? vs How tall he is! — inversion decides interrogative vs exclamative.
• Tag polarity and pronoun copy: Nobody called, did they? (negative clause → positive tag; nobody → they). Clauses negated by never, hardly, seldom, little, few also take positive tags (see §4.2).
• An imperative is not "future tense" or "an infinitive" — it is a distinct finite clause type with base-form V.
• Indirect (dependent) questions have no inversion: I wonder what time it is** (never *what time is it in the dependent clause).

2.7 Exam-style questions

2.8 Do not infer a speech act from punctuation alone

You're leaving? retains declarative subject–verb order and may request confirmation. Who left? is interrogative without subject–operator inversion because who is subject. Compare Who did you meet?, where the object is questioned and do supports inversion. A request reading of Can you…? is contextually motivated; a literal ability question remains possible.

3.1 The five clause elements

Every clause is describable in terms of S (subject), V (verb/predicator), O (object: Od direct, Oi indirect), C (complement: Cs subject complement, Co object complement), A (adverbial).

Identification criteria:

• S: determines person/number agreement of the finite V; precedes V in declaratives; inverts with the operator in questions; copied in the tag (…, isn't she?); becomes the by-agent under passivization.
• Od: typically becomes S of the corresponding passive (caught the ball → the ball was caught).
• Oi: precedes Od (She gives me presents); paraphrasable by a to/for PP (gives presents to me); usually can also become the passive subject (I was given a book).
• Cs/Co: complements are predicated of S or Od, ascribing a property or identity (She is a doctor — Cs = S; They elected him **president — Co = Od); complements do not become passive subjects.
• A: typically optional, mobile, realized by AdvP/PP/NP/clause; answers when? where? how? why? — but see obligatory adverbials in §3.4.

3.2 Quirk's seven clause patterns

(Traditional seven-pattern description. Learn to identify the constituents and explain why the pattern applies.)

Optional adverbials can be added to any pattern without changing it: Fortunately, the child laughed loudly** is still SV.

3.3 Verb classes and valency

Verb classes (by complementation):

• intransitive (SV): arrive, laugh, vanish, rain
• monotransitive (SVO): catch, enjoy, say (+ that-clause), want (+ to-infinitive)
• ditransitive (SVOO): give, send, offer, tell, show
• complex transitive (SVOC, SVOA): consider, find, elect, make, put, keep
• copular (SVC, SVA): subdivided into current copulas (be, seem, appear, remain, stay, look, sound, taste, feel) and resulting copulas (become, get, grow, turn, go, fall, prove)

Many verbs belong to several classes (multiple class membership):

• He is teaching (SV) / He teaches English (SVO) / He teaches me English (SVOO)
• She opened the door (SVO) / The door opened (SV — the causative/ergative alternation; cf. the semantic roles in §4.1)
• He grew tired (SVC) / He grows roses (SVO)
• He is eating (SV — object unexpressed) / He is eating his lunch (SVO)

Valency: the number and kinds of participant/complement slots licensed by a verb in a particular sense; some can remain unexpressed. State whether you count semantic participants or formal syntactic slots. Counting semantic arguments, including a referential subject:

• avalent (zero-valent): weather verbs — It is raining; the it is a semantically empty (prop) subject required only because English clauses must have a formal subject. Czech Prší is genuinely subjectless — a classic EN–CZ contrast.
• monovalent: sleep, laugh (SV)
• divalent: catch, read (SVO); be in (SVA)
• trivalent: give (SVOO), put (SVOA)

Valency patterns of specific clauses are directly tested (sample-test Q19): you name the pattern (SVO, SVOC…) of a quoted clause — see §3.8 Q1 and the recipe in §8.

3.4 Constitutive vs non-constitutive; obligatory vs optional elements

Two independent oppositions (Dušková, MSA ch. 12):

• Constitutive elements build up the clause pattern: S, V, O, C, and adverbials when required by the verb's valency.
• Non-constitutive additions do not belong to the minimal valency pattern. An optional time adverbial still has a clause-level function (A). In contrast, modification inside a phrase, such as old in the old man laughed, is part of the NP and has no separate clause-level function; that clause has the pattern SV. Keep these two levels apart.

• Obligatory elements cannot be omitted without ungrammaticality or a change of the pattern/meaning; optional elements can. Objects are sometimes optional (He is eating (his lunch)). Crucially, adverbials can be obligatory:

  • She lives in Prague** (SVA) — *She lives is incomplete in the relevant sense ('reside');
  • He put the vase on the shelf** (SVOA) — *He put the vase is ungrammatical;
  • She treated the guests well (SVOA-type with an obligatory manner adverbial; omitting well changes the meaning of treat).

• These obligatory adverbials are predication adjuncts required by the verb's valency; optional adverbials (in the morning, fortunately) are peripheral additions.

3.5 Modification vs complementation

• Complementation completes the meaning that the head requires:

  • verb complementation: objects, complements, obligatory adverbials;
  • adjective complementation: fond of music, keen **on jazz, easy to please**;
  • noun complementation: the fact that he lied**;
  • the complement of a preposition.
  • Selection by the head is more decisive than omission: complements can be optional (She ate (lunch); I am ready (to leave)).

• Modification describes or restricts a head: a (very old) book (on the shelf). Modifiers are often omissible syntactically, but removing a restrictive modifier can change reference. No single omission test distinguishes every complement from every modifier.

• The same formal unit can be either: the claim that he made (relative clause = postmodification) vs the claim **that he was innocent (appositive clause = noun complementation) — the test battery is in §5.6.

3.6 Adverbial classes by integration (needed for the "compare two adverbials" task)

Quirk (CGEL ch. 8) distinguishes four classes by degree of integration into clause structure:

Some teaching descriptions use three broad classes (adjunct/disjunct/conjunct); Quirk also distinguishes subjuncts. Give the function and evidence as well as the label; no marking bonus is established by these notes.

Diagnostics for peripherality (disjuncts/conjuncts):

• cannot be clefted: *It is on the other hand that…
• cannot answer a question or be questioned;
• typically set off by commas (separate tone unit);
• outside the scope of negation and questions.

3.7 Common traps

• SVC ≠ SVO: He became a teacher — a teacher is Cs (co-referential with S; no passive: *A teacher was become), not an object.
• Co vs premodification: They found the door locked (SVOC: locked is predicated of the door at the time of finding) vs They found the locked door (SVO: locked premodifies inside the NP).
• Oi vs prepositional phrase: She gives me presents (SVOO with Oi) = She gives presents to me (SVO + PP); after the shift the clause is no longer SVOO.
• Obligatory A (SVA/SVOA) is a clause element required by valency; do not dismiss every adverbial as "optional".
• Prop it (It is raining) has no semantic role; do not label it agent or theme (cf. §4.1; distinguish from anticipatory it, §6.4).

3.8 Exam-style questions

3.9 Keep clause level and omission separate

Thus optional does not mean “not a clause element”; yesterday is a clause adverbial even though it is outside the minimal valency pattern. In the archive's exercises, “constitutive” concerns building the core pattern; a phrase-internal modifier is a different structural level. State both the full element sequence and the minimal pattern when the task could mean either.

4.1 Semantic (participant) roles

Syntactic functions (S, O, …) and semantic roles are independent layers: one function can carry many roles, and one role can surface in many functions — the passive being the chief rearranging device. Core inventory (CGEL 10.18–10.33; Dušková's Czech terms in brackets):

Mapping between the layers (typical correspondences):

Illustration of the independence of the two layers: in She opened the door / The key opened the door / The door opened, the subject is successively agentive → instrument → affected, while the affected participant (door) surfaces as Od, Od, S. Conversely the passive moves the affected participant into S (The door was opened (by her)) while keeping all roles constant — which is why the passive is an FSP device (§6.4).

4.2 Negation: clausal vs local

• Clausal (sentential) negation negates the whole predication. Two devices:

  1. not/n't placed after the operator (with do-support): She did not agree.
  2. negative words within a clause element: no, none, nobody, nothing, never, neither, nowhere — He never watches TV is clausal negation without not.

• Local (constituent) negation negates only one constituent; the clause as a whole remains positive:

  • Not long ago he lived here.
  • a not unreasonable demand (litotes: not + negative prefix)

Diagnostics of clausal negation (CGEL 10.54ff) — a clausally negative clause takes:

• a positive tag: He never watches TV, does he?
• non-assertive items in its scope: He didn't see anything.
• continuations with not even and neither/nor: …, not even the news; and neither does his wife.

Compare local negation: Not long ago he lived here, didn't he? — the tag is negative because the clause counts as positive.

Words negative in meaning: seldom, rarely, hardly, scarcely, barely, few, little behave like negatives: they license non-assertive forms and positive tags (He hardly ever sees anybody, does he?) and trigger inversion when fronted (§6.2).

4.3 Scope and focus of negation

• Scope = the meaning over which negation operates. Word order is a clue, not a mechanical boundary: quantifiers before not may be interpreted inside its scope (All the students did not pass is ambiguous). Resolve scope using context, stress and explicit paraphrases. Minimal pair (the adverb's position changes its scope membership):

  • She definitely didn't speak to him. — 'it is definite that she didn't' (adverb outside the scope)
  • She didn't definitely speak to him. — 'it is not definite that she did' (adverb inside the scope)

• Focus = the constituent within the scope on which the negation (marked by nuclear stress) centres; moving the focus changes what is denied:

  • I didn't take JOAN to the party (…I took Mary).
  • I didn't take Joan to the PARty (…I took her to the cinema).

• Negation and modals — what is negated may be the modality or the proposition:

4.4 Assertive, non-assertive and negative forms

• Non-assertive forms appear in non-assertive territory: negative clauses, questions, conditional clauses, comparisons, before-clauses, restrictive contexts (only, seldom, too + adjective).
• Trap: stressed free-choice any in positive clauses (Any student can answer this) is not the non-assertive any; it means 'no matter which'.

4.5 Transferred negation; no negative concord

• Transferred negation: with think, believe, suppose, expect, imagine, fancy, negation of the matrix verb is understood as negating the subordinate clause: I don't think he will come = 'I think he won't come'.

  • Evidence of the transfer: non-assertive forms and tags orient to the subordinate clause: I don't suppose anyone will object, will they?
  • Not available with hope: I hope it won't rain (never *I don't hope it will rain in that meaning).

• No negative concord in Standard English: one clausal negation per clause. Czech requires concord (Nikdo nikdy nic neřekl — four negative forms, one semantic negation); Standard English normally uses Nobody ever said anything for that single-negative meaning. Negative concord is systematic in other English varieties. Standard English also permits genuine multiple negation (It is not impossible, No one did nothing in a context meaning everyone did something); distinct negatives do not mechanically cancel without considering their scope and interpretation.

4.6 Modality of may / could / cannot (published sample-test Q16)

Two common taxonomies use different boundaries; explain the modal meaning before choosing a label:

• Quirk: intrinsic modality (permission, obligation, volition — involving human control over the event) vs extrinsic (possibility, necessity, prediction — judgements of likelihood).
• Dušková / standard semantics: epistemic (jistotní — the speaker's assessment of truth: 'it is possible/necessary that p'), deontic (permission/obligation: 'x is allowed/required to'), dynamic (ability/disposition: 'x is able to / it is possible for x to').

Paraphrase toolkit:

• epistemic → it is possible/certain that p
• deontic → x is allowed/required to do
• dynamic → x is able to do / it is possible for x to do

4.7 Common traps

• never/hardly/few/little make the clause negative for tags and non-assertive forms even without not.
• Not all students passed means “not every student passed”; it does not mean “none passed”. It has negative clause diagnostics (did they?), so partial semantic negation should not automatically be called syntactically local. All students didn't pass can be ambiguous; use a paraphrase.
• Compare local a not uncommon error with The error is not uncommon, where not negates the finite predication: is it? Litotes is a semantic/rhetorical effect, not a reliable test of syntactic scope.
• Epistemic can occurs only in negatives and questions (He can't be serious; Can it be true?); the positive epistemic counterpart is may/might (He may be serious, not *He can be serious in that sense).

4.8 Exam-style questions

4.9 Check negation with a meaning-preserving contrast

Not every answer is correct leaves open that some are correct; No answer is correct excludes every one. In She didn't leave because she was tired, negation may deny the reason (she left, for another reason) or the leaving (tiredness kept her there). Supply context or a continuation instead of treating linear order as a unique answer.

5.1 Coordination vs subordination

• Compound sentence = two or more coordinated main clauses (parataxis): equal syntactic rank; neither clause is an element of the other.
• Complex sentence = a main clause plus at least one dependent (subordinate) clause (hypotaxis): the dependent clause functions as an element of the superordinate clause (S, O, C, A) or of a phrase within it (postmodification, apposition, complementation).

• Coordination can be:

  • syndetic — with a coordinator: and, or, but;
  • asyndetic — mere juxtaposition: I came, I saw, I conquered.
  • Correlatives: both… and, either… or, neither… nor, not only… but also.

• Coordinators vs conjuncts:

  • and/or/but are fixed clause-initially, cannot combine with another coordinator (*and but), and allow ellipsis of the shared subject (He came in and Ø sat down).
  • However, therefore, nevertheless are conjuncts (adverbials): mobile within their clause and requiring a semicolon or full stop between the clauses — joining two clauses with a mere comma + however is the "comma splice" error.

5.2 Semantic relations between coordinated clauses

(Dušková's classification, matching the Czech tradition:)

• For and so are peripheral coordinators (e.g. a for-clause cannot be moved in front of the first clause).
• And alone can imply sequence ('and then'), result ('and so'), contrast, or even condition (Do that again and I'll scream) — name the implied relation from context.

5.3 Types of dependent clauses — overview

Keep two classifications separate: function (content/nominal, relative, adverbial) and form (finite, non-finite, verbless). These dimensions overlap, but not every combination occurs with the same distribution.

5.3.1 Content (nominal) clauses

They occupy NP-like functions: subject, object, complement, apposition, prepositional/adjectival complementation.

• That-clauses (declarative content) by function:

  • S: That he failed surprised nobody. — usually extraposed: It surprised nobody that he failed.
  • Od: We can say that a process is productive.
  • Cs: The problem is that we have no data.
  • apposition: the fact that he lied**
  • adjectival complementation: I am sure (that) he is right.
  • That here is a conjunction — it has no syntactic function inside its clause (contrast relative that, §5.6). That-clauses cannot complement a preposition — the preposition is dropped: insist (~~on~~) that…

• Dependent interrogative clauses (wh- and yes/no-type): I wonder what she meant. Nobody knows if/whether the plan will work.

  • No inversion inside them: I wonder what time it is.
  • Whether (not if) before or not immediately following, after prepositions (It depends on whether she agrees), in subject position, and before to-infinitives (whether to go).

• Nominal relative (fused relative) clauses: What you need is a holiday (= 'the thing that you need'); the wh-word fuses antecedent + relativizer.

  • Distinguish from dependent interrogatives by paraphrase: Tell me what you bought ('answer the question…' — interrogative) vs I'll buy what you bought ('the thing which…' — nominal relative).

• Dependent exclamatives: You can't imagine what a mess he made.

5.3.2 Relative (adjectival) clauses

They postmodify a noun-phrase antecedent.

• Restrictive relative clauses delimit the reference of the antecedent (no commas, integrated intonation): the words that were borrowed from French are… — remove the clause and the reference changes.
• Non-restrictive relative clauses add separate, parenthetical information about an already identified antecedent (commas, separate tone unit): My father, who is 70, still works.
• Sentential relatives take the whole preceding clause as antecedent; always non-restrictive; relativizer which: He passed first time, which surprised everyone.

Choice of relativizer — the factors the exam wants you to name (sample-test Q13):

5.3.3 Adverbial clauses and their semantic roles

They function as A in the superordinate clause; in the exam you must name the semantic role:

• time: when, while, as, before, after, until, since, as soon as — When the term is used, …

  • For ordinary future time in an adverbial time clause, use present when he arrives. This is not a ban on will after the word when: I wonder when he will arrive is a dependent interrogative, and modal willingness is a separate meaning.

• place: where, wherever — Sit where you like.

• condition: if, unless, provided (that), as long as, in case

  • Open (real) condition — fulfilment undecided: If he comes, we will start.
  • Hypothetical (unreal) — present/future: If he came, we would start; past: If he had come, we would have started.
  • Formal inversion variants: Had I known…, Should you need anything…, Were she here… (§6.2).
  • Unless = 'except if'.

• concession: although, though, even though, even if (conditional-concessive) — Although the term is used in various ways, …

• contrast: while, whereas — Whereas syntax studies sentences, morphology studies words.
• reason/cause: because, since, as — because typically introduces new (rhematic) reasons and can answer why?; since/as introduce given, thematic reasons (an FSP point worth making).
• purpose: so that / in order that + modal (can/may/will); non-finite (in order / so as) to — He left early so that he could catch the train.
• result: so that (+ indicative, usually preceded by a comma), so/such… that — He left early, so that he caught the train. It was so cold that the river froze.

• manner and comparison: as, as if, as though — Do it as I showed you. He looks as if he hadn't slept.

  • proportion: The more you read, the more you know.
  • comparison: than, as… as.

• comment (disjunct clauses): as you know, if I may say so, to be honest — peripheral, speaker-oriented.

5.3.4 Non-finite clauses and their functions

The four types (§1.4) cover the same range of functions as finite dependent clauses:

• subject: To err is human. — extraposed: It is no use crying over spilt milk.
• object: He enjoys reading. She promised to write.
• subject complement: Seeing is believing.
• adverbial: (In order) to pass, revise syntax. Having finished the letter, she went out. When asked, he denied it (with subordinator).
• postmodification: factors related to etymology; the man standing there; the first person to arrive.
• adjectival complementation: too vague to be implemented; easy to please.
• apposition/appositive complementation: his ambition, to become a judge; the decision to resign.
• disjunct: To be frank, I doubt it.

Default attachment rule: the unexpressed subject of an ordinary supplementary participle clause is normally understood as the matrix subject. Absolute clauses have their own subject (Weather permitting, …), and conventional speaker comments (Strictly speaking, …) have a different interpretation. Violations produce dangling (unattached) participles: *Driving home, the rain started (the rain was not driving) — a classic error to spot and correct: Driving home, I got caught in the rain.

5.4 Complex condensation (Vachek)

Komplexní kondenzace větná — the term coined by Josef Vachek (1955), building on Mathesius's observation of the nominal tendencies of English: English makes systematic use of non-finite and nominal structures (sentence condensers — infinitives, gerunds, participles, verbal nouns) to express semi-clausal content which languages like Czech normally express with finite dependent clauses. The English sentence thus contains fewer finite predications than its Czech counterpart:

Consequences:

• compactness and tighter hierarchization — a finite matrix clause can anchor additional secondary predications expressed by condensers; other finite dependent clauses can still occur in the same sentence;
• raising constructions (He is said to…, §6.4) belong here as condensation devices;
• typological point: English analytical/nominal tendencies vs Czech preference for finite subordination.

In the exam, "explain complex condensation" = define the term (Vachek, Prague School), name the condensers, show the English non-finite ↔ Czech finite correspondence with an example, and note the typological contrast.

5.5 Apposition

Two (usually) noun phrases in the same syntactic slot referring to the same entity:

• non-restrictive (full) apposition: Prague, the capital of the Czech Republic, … — either unit omissible; often with markers namely, that is, i.e.
• restrictive apposition: the poet Milton; the verb **put.
• Appositive clauses (the fact that he apologized**) are noun complementation by a content clause (§5.6).

5.6 Trap: relative that vs appositive/conjunction that

• The claim that he made was rejected. — relative clause: that is a relative pronoun with a function inside its clause (Od of made: made what? — there is a gap); replaceable by which; the antecedent can be any noun.
• The claim that he was innocent was rejected. — appositive content clause: that is a conjunction with no function inside the clause (which is complete: he was innocent); not replaceable by which; the head noun must be an abstract "shell" noun (fact, claim, idea, news, belief).

Other §5 traps:

• since = time or reason; while = time or concession/contrast; as = time, reason, or manner — decide from context and say so.
• So that may express intended purpose or actual result. A modal or comma is supporting evidence; paraphrase the meaning instead of treating punctuation as a decisive grammatical test.
• Restrictiveness is signalled by commas in writing and by intonation in speech; which after a comma may have a clausal antecedent (sentential relative).

5.7 Worked complete analyses (the exam's flagship task)

Analysis 1 — the sample-test sentence

Although the term 'productive' is used in various ways in morphology, we can fundamentally say that a process is productive while it is used in the coinage of new forms.

Step 1 — finite VPs: is used (1), can say (2), is (3), is used (4) → four finite clauses.

Step 2 — clause map:

Step 3 — elements within each clause:

• Main clause: S = we; V = can say (modal + lexical verb, monotransitive); Od = the that-clause; A = fundamentally (AdvP; viewpoint/manner subjunct ≈ 'in essence'); A = the although-clause. Pattern SVO.
• Concessive clause: S = the term 'productive' (NP with an appositive title as postmodification); V = is used (passive); A = in various ways (manner); A = in morphology (domain/respect). Passive of a monotransitive verb: S V(pass) A A.
• That-clause: S = a process; V = is (copula); Cs = productive (AdjP); A = the while-clause. Pattern SVC.
• While-clause: S = it (referential, = a process); V = is used (passive); A = in the coinage of new forms (PP).

Analysis 2 — relative clauses, complex-transitive pattern, adjective complementation

The committee found the proposal too vague to be implemented, which surprised nobody who had read it.

Finite clauses (3): found (main); which surprised nobody…; who had read it. Non-finite (1): to be implemented.

• Main clause: S = the committee; V = found (complex transitive); Od = the proposal; Co = AdjP too vague to be implemented → pattern SVOC.

  • Inside the Co, the passive to-infinitive clause to be implemented complements the degree word too (adjective complementation licensed by too: 'so vague that it could not be implemented'); its covert subject = the proposal.

• which surprised nobody who had read it: sentential relative clause — non-restrictive; its antecedent is the whole preceding clause (the fact that the committee found the proposal too vague), hence which (obligatory with clausal antecedents). Function: a loose comment on the main clause. Internally: S = which; V = surprised (monotransitive); Od = nobody (who had read it) → SVO.

• who had read it: restrictive relative clause postmodifying the indefinite personal antecedent nobody (hence who; that would also be possible after an indefinite). Internally: S = who; V = had read; Od = it (= the proposal) → SVO.

Analysis 3 — non-finite clauses and complex condensation

Having finished the experiment, the students were asked to summarize what they had learned before leaving the lab.

Finite clauses (2): were asked (main); what they had learned. Non-finite clauses (3): Having finished the experiment; to summarize…; before leaving the lab.

• Having finished the experiment: -ing participle clause (perfect form → explicit anteriority); function: A of time in the main clause; covert subject = the students (attachment rule observed). Condenser ↔ Czech finite clause: Poté, co studenti dokončili pokus, …
• Main clause: S = the students; V = were asked (passive). Active counterpart: They asked the students to summarize… — ask takes Od + to-infinitive clause (Quirk's ditransitive complementation of the persuade type); in the passive, the Od becomes S and the infinitive clause is retained as complementation of the verb.
• to summarize what they had learned before leaving the lab: to-infinitive clause; within it: V = summarize; Od = what they had learned.
• what they had learned: finite nominal relative clause (= 'the things that they had learned' — the 'things learned' interpretation favours a nominal relative; context can also support an interrogative-content analysis); function: Od of summarize. Internally what = fused antecedent + relativizer functioning as Od of had learned; S = they; V = had learned.
• before leaving the lab: -ing clause with the subordinator before; A of time (most plausibly within the infinitive clause: the summarizing precedes the leaving); covert subject = the students. Note the potential attachment ambiguity (it could in principle modify had learned) — say which reading you choose and why. Condensation ↔ Czech: …, aby předtím, než odejdou z laboratoře, shrnuli, co se naučili.
• FSP/condensation comment worth adding in the exam: English packs five predications into two finite clauses; a natural Czech paraphrase may use several finite clauses, although Czech also has nominal and non-finite alternatives.

5.8 Exam-style questions

5.9 Mixed practice: a connector is not a clause type

The annotated archive includes useful exercises but some answer labels are unreliable. For example, as he had no income expresses reason in a poverty context; unless they are rich expresses condition, and a negative matrix does not turn a declarative content clause into an interrogative. The method is: identify the containing constituent → assign function → identify form/subtype → paraphrase any semantic relation.

6.1 Functions of word order; grammaticalized SVO

Word order serves several functions (Mathesius; Dušková ch. 14):

1. grammatical (distinctive) — signalling syntactic functions;
2. semantic — changing scope (Only Mia called versus Mia only called);
3. FSP — organizing information and communicative dynamism;
4. emotive/emphatic;
5. rhythmical/stylistic.

Because English lost most of its inflections, function (1) dominates: SVO is grammaticalized — The dog bit the postman vs The postman bit the dog differ only in order. Czech, with rich case morphology, allows greater word-order flexibility for FSP: Pošťáka pokousal pes keeps 'dog' as agent while reordering for FSP.

Consequences for English:

• reordering is limited; instead, English uses special constructions (passive, clefts, existential there, extraposition…) to reconcile fixed grammar with FSP needs — the running theme of §6.2–6.4;
• attributes normally premodify (a stone wall), with postposition in special cases (something useful, the people present);
• end-position adverbials tend to order manner – place – time: She sang beautifully (M) in the hall (P) last night (T).

6.2 Departures I: inversion

Subject–operator inversion (only the operator moves before S):

• questions: Has she left?
• after fronted negative or restrictive elements: Never have I seen such a mess. Hardly had he arrived when the phone rang. No sooner had he sat down than the bell rang. Under no circumstances must the door be left open. Only then did he realize the danger. Not a word did he say. Little did they know…

• additive/substitutive so/neither/nor: So do I. Neither did we.

  • Trap: confirmation So he does! has no inversion.

• conditional inversion replacing if: Had I known, … Should you need anything, … Were she here, …

• Trap: only + subject triggers no inversion (Only John passed); the trigger must be a fronted non-subject element.

Subject–verb (full) inversion (the whole lexical verb precedes S):

• after fronted place/direction adverbials with presentative verbs of position or motion: Here comes the bus. On the hill stood a castle. Into the room walked the dean.

  • FSP motivation: the context-independent subject (rheme) moves to final, focal position.

• reporting clauses with direct speech: "Wait," said the porter — but with a pronoun subject no inversion: "Wait," she said.

6.3 Departures II: fronting, clefts, existential there

• Fronting (topicalization) of O/C/A without inversion: This I cannot accept. Most of these problems a computer could solve easily.

  • The fronted element becomes a marked theme (or, with contrastive stress, a marked rheme); emotive colouring.

• It-cleft: It was the butler who opened the door.

  • Divides the sentence into a focused (rhematic) element after it + be and a presupposed remainder.
  • Commonly focuses S, O or A (It was only then that he understood). Focusing a lexical verb phrase is normally done by a pseudo-cleft (What she did was resign). Restrictions on complement focus are construction-sensitive; avoid a universal ban on Cs/Co.
  • Strongly signals a focus division in writing, although actual givenness and contrast still depend on context.

• Pseudo-cleft (wh-cleft): What I need is a holiday; reversed: A holiday is what I need.

  • Uses a nominal relative clause as theme; unlike the it-cleft it can focus the predication itself: What he did was (to) break the window.

• Existential there: There is a book on the table. There are two students waiting.

  • There is the grammatical subject (inversion: Is there…?; tag: …, isn't there?), while the indefinite notional subject follows be and controls agreement.
  • Function: a presentation device — it introduces a context-independent (rhematic) subject in post-verbal, focal position while preserving the S–V façade.
  • Formal variants with presentative verbs: There arose a storm. There remains one problem.

6.4 Departures III: extraposition, raising, postponement, passive

• Extraposition with anticipatory it: a clausal subject moves to the end and is replaced by it:

  • That she will resign is likely → It* is likely that she will resign; It is no use crying over spilt milk*.
  • Motivation: end-weight (heavy constituents late) + end-focus (the clause is usually the news).
  • With some verbs extraposition is obligatory: It seems that he is right (*That he is right seems is impossible).
  • Object extraposition: I made it clear that I would resign (anticipatory it = Od; Co = clear; the that-clause extraposed).
  • Distinguish three uses of it: anticipatory (replaceable by the extraposed clause), referential (has an NP antecedent — e.g. make it non-compositional in the sample text, where it = the word), and prop it (It is raining — replaces nothing).

• Subject-to-subject raising: It seems that he knows the answer ↔ He seems to know the answer.

  • The subject of the subordinate clause is "raised" to subject of the superordinate verb, and the rest of the subordinate clause is condensed into a to-infinitive; the anticipatory it disappears.
  • Predicates: seem, appear, happen, turn out, prove; be likely/unlikely/certain/sure/bound.
  • The raised subject receives its semantic role in the subordinate predication only — seem assigns it no role.
  • Passive matrix verbs give the He is said/believed/known/assumed to… type (It is said that he lives abroad ↔ He is said to live abroad) — a hallmark of academic style and a condensation device (§5.4).
  • Frequent FSP effect: a retrievable raised NP can serve as theme. Raising itself does not require a thematic subject: contrastive JOHN seems to know can focus it.
  • Trap: He is sure to win = raising ('it is certain that he will win') vs He is sure that he will win / sure of winning = personal conviction.

• Postponement / end-weight: heavy constituents drift rightwards:

  • heavy Od after Co: She made clear her strong objections to the whole plan.
  • discontinuous NP: The time had come to say goodbye.
  • extraposition from NP: A rumour circulated that the director would resign.
  • SVOO → prepositional paraphrase when the recipient is heavy: He gave a reward to everyone who had helped him.

• The passive as a word-order / FSP device: the passive lets the affected participant be theme (subject) and pushes the agent — if expressed — into the focal by-phrase:

  • Context: This bridge is a local landmark. → It was designed by a famous Swiss architect.
  • Czech achieves the same theme–rheme linearity by simple OVS order (Navrhl ho slavný švýcarský architekt); English can use the passive to preserve this ordering of information without violating ordinary SVO — Mathesius's classic comparison.
  • The agentless passive additionally suppresses an unknown or irrelevant agent: My bike has been stolen.

6.5 Functional Sentence Perspective (Mathesius — Firbas)

• Mathesius (aktuální členění větné): every utterance divides into the theme (základ — what is being talked about; context-dependent, given) and the rheme (jádro — what is said about it; the new information).
• Firbas elaborated this into the theory of FSP with a transition (typically the verb, especially its temporal and modal exponents, the "transition proper") between theme and rheme.
• Communicative dynamism (CD): the relative extent to which an element "pushes the communication forward". Theme = lowest CD; rheme = highest CD; the rheme proper is the peak, carrying the intonation nucleus in speech.

• The interplay of FSP factors (Firbas) — CD is determined by the interaction of:

  1. linear modification — later position → more dynamism, other things being equal;
  2. the contextual factor — retrievability normally lowers CD, but contrast and the current communicative purpose can give a retrievable expression high CD;
  3. the semantic factor — some semantic structures override linearity (see the scales below);
  4. in speech, intonation.

• The semantic factor — Firbas's two scales:

  • Presentation scale: Setting – Presentation verb (existence/appearance) – Phenomenon presented: A girl came into the room — the subject is the rheme despite initial position (context-independent + verb of appearance).
  • Quality scale: Bearer (theme) – Quality – Specification (rheme): The girl knew the answer.

• End-focus and end-weight (Quirk 18.9, 18.10): the unmarked distribution puts the highest CD at the end (end-focus), and heavy constituents also gravitate to the end (end-weight); most constructions in §6.2–6.4 exist to satisfy these principles under fixed SVO.

• Rhematizers (focusing devices): even, only, alone, also, too, just, especially, in particular signal high CD on the element they focus, overriding linearity:

  • Even Peter passed the exam — the subject can carry contrastive focus despite initial position; the whole FSP analysis needs context.
  • Position matters: Only Peter passed vs Peter only passed vs *Peter passed only the written part*.

• FSP functions of the articles: definiteness helps identify a referent, while context and communicative purpose determine its FSP role. Indefinite NPs often introduce a new participant; definite NPs often retrieve one. These are tendencies:

  • A man knocked at the door. — in a scene-setting context, a man can be the phenomenon presented and the rhematic subject.
  • The man knocked at the door. — if the man is already the topic, the action/place can be rhematic. After Who knocked?, however, the MAN supplies the focus despite its definite article.
  • In a language with fixed word order, the articles are thus important signals of FSP structure — Dušková's point about English compensating for what Czech does with word order.

• FSP function of the passive: see §6.4 — it aligns the theme with subject position and gives the agent end-focus (or removes it).

Worked micro-example: My brother | has bought | a cottage in the mountains.

• theme = my brother (context-dependent);
• transition = has bought (the temporal/modal exponents link theme to rheme);
• rheme = a cottage in the mountains (context-independent, highest CD; nucleus on mountains).
• The same sentence answering "Who bought a cottage?" is re-perspectivized: my BROTHER becomes the rheme — intonation and context override linearity.

6.6 Common traps

• Initial position ≠ theme automatically: presentation sentences (A girl came into the room), rhematizers (Even Peter…) and clefts break the equation.
• Subject–operator vs subject–verb inversion are different mechanisms: Never have I seen… (operator only) vs Here comes the bus** (full lexical verb).
• Negative fronting without inversion is ungrammatical: *Never I have seen such a mess.
• In existential sentences agreement goes with the notional subject (There are two problems), and the notional subject should be indefinite (?There is the book on the table only as a listing reading).
• It has three exam-relevant uses — referential, anticipatory, prop — identify which one you are looking at before analysing the clause.
• In the it-cleft It was John who…, the who/that-clause is part of the cleft construction, not an ordinary restrictive relative on John.

6.7 Exam-style questions

6.8 Context before theme and rheme

Given/new, definite/indefinite and theme/rheme are related but not interchangeable. In reply to Who arrived?, the DEAN can be new focal information even though the definite description identifies a known person. Reusing the same sentence after What did the dean do? moves the communicative contribution to ARRIVED. Articles alone cannot determine FSP.

Distinguish fronting (That book I have read: no resumptive pronoun) from left dislocation (That book, I have read it: NP resumed by it). Right dislocation supplies a later clarifying NP (I have read it, that book); these patterns particularly suit spoken discourse.

Tick each item only if you can produce the definition and one example without looking.

§1 Basic units

• [ ] Rank scale sentence → clause → phrase → word; recursion (clause inside phrase)
• [ ] Simple vs multiple (compound/complex) sentence
• [ ] Form vs function; one function ↔ many forms (realization table)
• [ ] NP structure: determinative + premodification + head + postmodification/complementation
• [ ] VP in Quirk's sense (verbal group); AdjP/AdvP/PP structure
• [ ] Finite vs non-finite clause; the four non-finite types; verbless clauses
• [ ] Dual-function pronouns (any determinative vs head; many, some, all, these)

§2 Sentence types

• [ ] Four formal types + four discourse functions and their markers
• [ ] The operator and its jobs (inversion, negation, tags)
• [ ] Yes–no / wh- / alternative / tag / declarative questions; orientation (some vs any)
• [ ] Wh-subject questions have no inversion (Who came?)
• [ ] Tag polarity (reversed vs constant) and tag tone (fall vs rise)
• [ ] Exclamative = what/how fronting without inversion
• [ ] Imperative types incl. let's; subject recoverable as you
• [ ] Indirect speech acts: two examples in each direction
• [ ] Minor types: formulae, optative subjunctive, block language, non-sentences
• [ ] Authorial we; generic one/you; agentless passive

§3 Patterns and elements

• [ ] Identification tests for S, Od, Oi, Cs/Co, A
• [ ] Seven patterns with Quirk's model sentences
• [ ] Verb classes: intransitive, mono-, di-, complex-transitive, copular (current/resulting)
• [ ] Multiple class membership (teach, open, grow)
• [ ] Valency 0–3; prop it with weather verbs; EN–CZ contrast (Prší)
• [ ] Constitutive vs non-constitutive (modification is phrase-level)
• [ ] Obligatory vs optional; obligatory adverbials (put, live, treat)
• [ ] Modification vs complementation (verb, adjective, noun complementation)
• [ ] Adjunct / subjunct / disjunct / conjunct + peripherality tests

§4 Semantic roles and negation

• [ ] 12+ roles with one example each; function ↔ role independence
• [ ] She opened the door / The key opened the door / The door opened chain
• [ ] Clausal vs local negation + three diagnostics (tag, non-assertive forms, not even)
• [ ] Negative adverbs never, hardly, seldom, few, little
• [ ] Scope (adverb position) and focus (nuclear stress) of negation
• [ ] Assertive / non-assertive / negative triplets; non-assertive territory
• [ ] Negation of modality vs proposition (may not twice, mustn't/needn't, can't)
• [ ] Transferred negation + the hope exception
• [ ] No negative concord in StE; Czech obligatory concord
• [ ] Modality: epistemic / deontic / dynamic; Quirk intrinsic vs extrinsic; paraphrases

§5 Complex sentence

• [ ] Compound vs complex; syndetic vs asyndetic; coordinator vs conjunct tests
• [ ] Copulative / adversative / disjunctive / causal / resultative relations (+ for, so)
• [ ] Content clauses: that- / dependent interrogative / nominal relative / exclamative
• [ ] Functions of that-clauses (S, Od, Cs, apposition, adj. complementation); extraposition link
• [ ] if vs whether; no inversion in dependent questions
• [ ] Restrictive vs non-restrictive relatives; sentential relatives
• [ ] Five factors of relativizer choice; zero-relative conditions
• [ ] Adverbial clause roles: time, place, condition (open vs hypothetical), concession, contrast, reason, purpose, result, manner/comparison, comment
• [ ] Non-finite clause functions; attachment rule and dangling participles
• [ ] Complex condensation: Vachek, condensers, EN↔CZ pairs, typological point
• [ ] Apposition (full/restrictive); relative that vs conjunction that

§6 Word order and FSP

• [ ] Four functions of word order; grammaticalized SVO vs Czech free order
• [ ] S–operator inversion triggers (questions, negative fronting, so/neither, conditional)
• [ ] S–V (full) inversion (presentative fronting, direct speech)
• [ ] Fronting/topicalization; it-cleft vs pseudo-cleft (what each can focus)
• [ ] Existential there: grammatical vs notional subject; agreement; presentative function
• [ ] Extraposition + anticipatory it (subject/object; obligatory with seem)
• [ ] Referential vs anticipatory vs prop it
• [ ] Raising (seem/appear/be likely; He is said to…) ↔ It-alternative; FSP effect
• [ ] Postponement, end-weight, discontinuous constituents
• [ ] Passive as FSP device; Czech OVS parallel
• [ ] Theme – transition – rheme; communicative dynamism
• [ ] Four FSP factors; presentation vs quality scale
• [ ] End-focus and end-weight principles
• [ ] Rhematizers (even, only…); FSP functions of the articles

When the exam says "analyse the sentence" or "identify the finite clauses and give the function and type of the dependent clauses", work in layers — never element-by-element across clause boundaries:

1. Underline every verb phrase; mark each as finite (tense/agreement) or non-finite (to-inf / bare inf / -ing / -ed).

   • Use finite VPs to locate candidate finite clauses; keep all auxiliaries in one verbal group (may have been checked).
   • Then inspect coordination and ellipsis. He came in and sat down can be treated as coordinated VPs or as clauses with subject ellipsis; state the convention (§1.5). Do not turn a verb count automatically into a clause count. Include non-finite and verbless clauses separately when the task asks for all dependent clauses.

2. Find the main clause(s): the finite clause(s) not introduced by a subordinator/wh-item and not functioning as an element of anything else.

   • Two main clauses linked by and/or/but/for/so → compound sentence; name the semantic relation (§5.2).

3. For every dependent clause, state three things (an answer structure matching the sample task):

   • (i) form — finite / non-finite (which type) / verbless;
   • (ii) function — S, Od, Cs, A, postmodification, apposition, complementation of an adjective/preposition;
   • (iii) type — content (declarative / interrogative / nominal relative), relative (restrictive / non-restrictive / sentential), adverbial — and for adverbials the semantic role (time, condition, concession, reason, purpose, result, manner, comparison…).

4. Attach each clause at the right level: an ordinary relative clause postmodifies an NP, while a sentential relative refers to a clause or proposition; a while-clause may sit inside a that-clause (Analysis 1). Indentation or arrows make the dependencies explicit.

5. Inside each clause, label S V O C A and give the pattern/valency (SV…SVOA) if asked; note passives (state the active counterpart's pattern), copulas, and obligatory adverbials.
6. Non-finite clauses: identify the verb-form type, the expressed or understood subject (and its attachment), and the function — and, where a Czech contrast is natural or the question invites it, name complex condensation and give the finite paraphrase.
7. Add the semantics where asked: semantic roles of S/O (agentive, affected, instrument…), the type of modality of any modal verb, clausal vs local negation and its scope.
8. Sanity-check every label with a test:
   • passivization for Od; co-reference for Cs/Co; to/for-paraphrase for Oi;
   • omission for obligatory A;
   • which-replacement and the gap test for relative vs appositive that;
   • tag + non-assertive forms for negation;
   • paraphrase ('it is possible that' vs 'be able to') for modality.

Mini-demo. Although it was raining, the match went ahead, which pleased the fans who had travelled far to see it.

1. Finite VPs: was raining, went ahead, pleased, had travelled → 4 finite clauses; non-finite: to see it.
2. Main clause: the match went ahead.

3. –4. Dependent clauses:

   • Although it was raining — finite adverbial clause, A of the main clause, semantic role concession;
   • which pleased the fans… — finite sentential relative (antecedent = the whole main clause), non-restrictive, a loose comment; internally SVO;
   • who had travelled far to see it — finite restrictive relative, postmodification of the fans (who = S; personal antecedent);
   • to see it — non-finite to-infinitive clause, A of purpose inside the relative clause (covert S = the fans; it = the match).

4. Patterns: it was raining — SV with prop it (avalent verb); the match went ahead — SV; which pleased the fans — SVO; who had travelled far — SV(A).

5. Condensation: to see it ↔ Czech aby ho viděli.

This order makes the dependency structure and each classification explicit; correctness still depends on the analysis.