Editing Verb phrase (section)

==In dependency grammars==
While [[phrase structure grammar]]s (constituency grammars) acknowledge both [[finite verb|finite]] and [[non-finite verb|non-finite]] VPs as [[Constituent (linguistics)|constituents]] (complete subtrees), [[dependency grammar]]s reject the former. That is, dependency grammars acknowledge only non-finite VPs as constituents; finite VPs do not qualify as constituents in dependency grammars. For example:

::John '''has finished the work'''. <small>– Finite VP in bold</small>
::John has '''finished the work'''. <small>– Non-finite VP in bold</small>

Since ''has finished the work'' contains the finite verb ''has'', it is a finite VP, and since ''finished the work'' contains the non-finite verb ''finished'' but lacks a finite verb, it is a non-finite VP. Similar examples:

::They '''do not want to try that'''. <small>– Finite VP in bold</small>
::They do not '''want to try that'''. <small>– One non-finite VP in bold</small>
::They do not want to '''try that'''. <small>– Another non-finite VP in bold</small>

These examples illustrate well that many clauses can contain more than one non-finite VP, but they generally contain only one finite VP. Starting with [[Lucien Tesnière]] 1959,<ref>Concerning Tesnière's rejection of a finite VP constituent, see Tesnière (1959:103–105).</ref> dependency grammars challenge the validity of the initial binary division of the clause into [[Subject (grammar)|subject]] (NP) and [[Predicate (grammar)|predicate]] (VP), which means they reject the notion that the second half of this binary division, i.e. the finite VP, is a constituent. They do, however, readily acknowledge the existence of non-finite VPs as constituents. The two competing views of verb phrases are visible in the following trees:

::[[File:Johnhasfinishedthework-1.jpg|Trees illustrating VPs]]

The constituency tree on the left shows the finite VP ''has finished the work'' as a constituent, since it corresponds to a complete subtree. The dependency tree on the right, in contrast, does not acknowledge a finite VP constituent, since there is no complete subtree there that corresponds to ''has finished the work''. Note that the analyses agree concerning the non-finite VP ''finished the work''; both see it as a constituent (complete subtree).

Dependency grammars point to the results of many standard [[constituent (linguistics)|constituency tests]] to back up their stance.<ref>For a discussion of the evidence for and against a finite VP constituent, see Matthews (2007:17ff.), Miller (2011:54ff.), and Osborne et al. (2011:323f.).</ref> For instance, [[topicalization]], pseudoclefting, and [[answer ellipsis]] suggest that non-finite VP does, but finite VP does not, exist as a constituent:

:: *...and '''has finished the work''', John. <small>– Topicalization</small>
:: *What John has done is '''has finished the work'''. <small>– Pseudoclefting</small>
:: What has John done? – *'''Has finished the work'''. <small>– Answer ellipsis</small>

The * indicates that the sentence is bad. These data must be compared to the results for non-finite VP:

::...and '''finished the work''', John (certainly) has. <small>– Topicalization</small>
::What John has done is '''finished the work'''. <small>– Pseudoclefting</small>
::What has John done? – '''Finished the work'''. <small>– Answer ellipsis</small>

The strings in bold are the ones in focus. Attempts to in some sense isolate the finite VP fail, but the same attempts with the non-finite VP succeed.<ref>Attempts to motivate the existence of a finite VP constituent tend to confuse the distinction between finite and non-finite VPs. They mistakenly take evidence for a non-finite VP constituent as support for the existence a finite VP constituent. See for instance Akmajian and Heny (1980:29f., 257ff.), Finch (2000:112), van Valin (2001:111ff.), Kroeger (2004:32ff.), Sobin (2011:30ff.).</ref>