past participle + preposition

[donnach]

In the following sentence:

Chomsky suggested that children have a built-in mechanism, which he called the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD, which pre-programs them to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive.

1. Is "to develop grammar" an object complement? If not, what is it?

2. What is "based on"? Is "based" the verb, with "grammar" the subject and "on the linguistic input" an adverbial phrase modifying "based"? Or....?

There are verbs like "points to", etc. that seem to require a preposition after them to make sense. Are they just regular old verbs, nothing special?

Thank you,

Donna

[Lucretia]

Hello Donna,
Your questions are real brain-teasers.
I've looked through one of my grammar books and that's what I've found:

Chomsky suggested that children have a built-in mechanism, which he called the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD, which pre-programs them to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive.

them is an indirect recipient object
to develop is a direct object, which, on the phrase level, also has an object-grammar. Or should I say grammar is a complement?
I'd say based on the linguistic input they receive is an attribute to grammar.

Within this participial attribute we can consider on the linguistic input an adverbial modifier, as you said.

That's how I see it, but I'm afraid I am not a great connoisseur of such matters.
You see, there are different grammar schools, which often causes misunderstanding.

As to the verbs, I think those which do not require a preposition are transitive, those which do - intransitive. I looked up listen - it's marked as vi (verb intransitive).

Best wishes. :)

[donnach]

Hi Lucretia,

I did not mean my questions to be brain-teasers :). I keep hoping there is a simple rule system that I will figure out by reading enough grammar books and asking enough questions. The more questions I ask, the more I find out that yes, there is a rule system I can, and should, know to help my understanding of grammar, but also, that said rule system is not iron-clad, and that it's all just a bit more complicated than that. As with life, so with grammar.

I didn't catch the indirect object, thanks.
Would attribute be the same thing as participial phrase? Makes more sense then trying to construe a clause out of "grammar based on the linguistic input", seems like it needs a form of "to be" in front of "based" to work as a clause.

Thanks again for your help,

Donna

[Lucretia]

Hello Donna,
Would attribute be the same thing as participial phrase?
I didn’t quite get your question. Excuse me if I sound patronizing, but just in case – attribute (according to my grammar) is part of a sentence (one word or a whole group), which describes a property, quality, or feature the way adjectives do.
The term attribute only speaks of the function, attributes can have various forms.

In that sentence yes, based on the linguistic input they receive functions as an attribute.
It could be an attributive clause if we added which is – which is based on the linguistic input they receive.
A clause should have its subject and a finite verb. Which would be the subject and is the verb. That’s in fact what you wrote.

I know that some grammars (and they seem to dominate in Europe and especially the US) do not clearly differentiate parts of speech and parts of the sentence. Instead of attribute they say adjective, instead of predicate – verb, adverbial modifier is just adverb. I am not used to such parsing, I think it creates a mess.

Best wishes. :)

[donnach]

I know that some grammars (and they seem to dominate in Europe and especially the US) do not clearly differentiate parts of speech and parts of the sentence. Instead of attribute they say adjective, instead of predicate – verb, adverbial modifier is just adverb. I am not used to such parsing, I think it creates a mess.

I am learning grammar by trying to nail down words as being an adjective, verb, adverb, and so on, and I think I am just now knowledgeable enough to see your point about parsing in this way, how it ultimately creates more confusion instead of clarification. Grammatical analysis seems to have lots of room for interpretation. Trying to understand it by applying labels that may or may not always work can be a frustrating experience for the learner, even for a native English speaker who is just trying to get a decent grasp of it. I like rules and labels, they make learning easier, but perhaps grammar is one of those areas where you have learn from the outset to take the long view, and not try to force everything to fit into a labeled box. Sigh...I like labeled boxes and I want to learn grammar inside and out. :)

Thanks for your help,

Donna

[Lucretia]

You are welcome, Donna. :)

[Lucretia]

Oh I am awfully sorry, Donna. It has suddenly struck me them is a direct object! I will try to parse it again more closely. :o