This is an indefinite pronoun and determiner. See under See also indefinite pronoun; and See also determiner, section 1.

➤ For the question of agreement with EACH when it serves as a pronoun, see agreement, section 4.

This is a standard inflection for the past tense and past participle of the vast majority of English verbs:

It alternates with the -t suffix in some verbs, for example:

This alternation is particularly evident in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand (Peters Reference Peters2004). In other verbs, the -t is mandated. For example:

See further under See also inflection; See also tense, section 1; See also regular verb, section 1; and See also irregular verb, sections 3 and 5.

The past participle forms with -ed are also often found as adjectives, as in

In such cases, the adjective might be derived by conversion from the verbal past participle (see further under See also conversion, section 3). Yet -ed is very clearly a derivational (rather than inflectional) suffix in a variety of compound adjectives which could not be derived by conversion: for example:

None of these can be inflected forms of a See also compound verb “blue-eye,” “one-arm,” etc., since they do not exist. Rather they must be derived from noun phrases: blue eye(s), one arm, red hair, etc., and so the -ed in them is a nominal suffix capable of generating adjectives. So in these various adjectives, -ed can be analyzed as a derivational rather than an inflectional suffix. See further under derivational affix.

Modern English grammarians such as Quirk et al. (Reference Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik1985) and Biber et al. (Reference Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad and Finegan1999) use this term to refer to the past participle, whether the verb is regular or irregular. The term See also -en participle is also sometimes used in this way. See See also -en participle.

This is a determiner and indefinite pronoun, which refers to one of an unspecified pair. See further under See also indefinite pronoun; and See also determiner, section 1.

➤ For the question of agreement with EITHER as a pronoun, see agreement, section 4.

EITHER serves in combination with OR as a correlative conjunction. See conjunction, section 5.

In grammar, See also ellipsis is the omission or notional deletion of an item or constituent which is recoverable from elsewhere in the sentence or the immediate linguistic context. It is remarkable as a structural feature of certain types of sentences and of cohesive discourse.

In that example the object of the comparative clause is ellipted because it would otherwise duplicate that of the main clause. The same goes for the verb of the comparative clause, if it is not replaced by the pro-verb do (see further under DO and comparative clause, section 3).

Note also that the subject of the comparative clause may be ellipted, especially when it is passive:

The subject ellipsis in such cases is standard English. Yet in informal speech it is quite often supplemented by WHAT, as in “The audience was more enthusiastic than what was expected.” This addition of a wh-pronoun suggests that speakers find the subject gap uncomfortable. See further under THAN.

The ellipsis in such exchanges is very considerable: it includes ellipsis of both subject and the verb phrase (recoverable from the stimulus question), as well as the unspoken shift from second to first person. It nevertheless takes place in countless See also adjacency pairs like that, forming strong cohesive bonds between the fully fledged utterance and the fragmentary sentence. It is reduced to elements that are See also new rather than See also given. See further under See also adjacency pair, See also cohesion, and See also given and new.

This term is more and less broadly applied, depending on the grammar. In transformational–generative grammar, and that of Quirk et al. (Reference Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik1985), See also embedded clause is used for all subordinate clauses. This makes embedding equivalent to subordination, and the antonym of coordination.

More recent grammars (Biber et al. Reference Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad and Finegan1999; Huddleston and Pullum Reference Huddleston and Pullum2002; Halliday and Matthiessen Reference Halliday and Matthiessen2004) confine the term See also embedded clause to those that are required to complement the matrix clause, i.e. complement clauses, embedded questions, and restrictive relative clauses, as well as comparative clauses. Other kinds of relative clause and adverbial clause are not regarded as embedded.

This understanding of grammar (Hopper Reference Hopper and Tannen1988) takes the view that it is continually evolving out of language in use, rather than existing as a stable grammatical system (see further under See also grammaticalization). Hopper’s approach sets itself apart from grammars based on pre-existing sets of rules (e.g. transformational grammar), and from the notion of universal grammar, by which underlying features of syntax are somehow innate. With See also emergent grammar, language is learned and constructed on the basis of experience, without any a priori inputs. Discourse is the medium in which new grammatical elements are forged and grammaticalize out of everyday usage in the speech community. This approach is consistent with current views of construction grammar, in which features of the syntactic system become established by their relative frequency in usage (Bybee and Hopper Reference Bybee and Hopper2001). See further under construction grammar.

An empty category is an abstract element postulated in government–binding theory which does not appear in the surface grammar, but is understood as occupying one of the NP roles in the sentence. For example:

In the same way various grammatical analyses allow for an empty node in a tree diagram, e.g. when representing the structure of a complex sentence with zero complementizer. It is annotated as shown in the example below:

See further under See also complementizer, section 2.

➤ For the so-called empty subject and empty object, see under IT and ITS, section 2.

English grammars sometimes use See also -en participle to refer to the past participle of both irregular (strong) and regular (weak) verbs. It is apt for those past participles of irregular verbs like spoken, thrown, written which do end in -(e)n, but less so for others whose past participles are not distinguished in that way, e.g. sang/sung, or not distinguished at all from the past tense, as with brought, caught, found, got, etc. The same issue arises with regular verbs, whose past participle and past tense are both formed with the same -ed inflection: conveyed, scripted, talked. See further under tense, section 1.

This term draws attention to the way in which material at the end of a sentence gains attention and emphasis by virtue of its position, as in:

The examples represent two ways of moving key words and phrases into final position to give them See also end weight. The first exploits the mobility of adverbial adjuncts, especially sentence adverbs (see further under See also adverbial, section 4). The second uses a See also pseudo-cleft, which adds weight to the See also comment of the sentence (see further under See also pseudo-cleft sentence; and See also topic, topicalization, and topical progression, section 2).

Note that the final position in the sentence is also a useful location for the bulkiest constituents of the sentence, especially extended prepositional phrases and nonfinite clauses, for ease of reading. The classical See also periodic sentence was designed to exploit end weight in a different way, by saving up the main clause for the final position in a lengthy sentence. See further under See also left- and right-branching sentence, and See also information focus.

See under See also stranded preposition; and See also preposition, section 5.

As a determiner, ENOUGH is unusual in that it can appear either before or after the head noun:

See further under See also determiner, section 3.

ENOUGH is complemented by a TO-infinitive clause in all standard varieties of English, as in:

Compare:

This mode of complementing ENOUGH with a THAT-clause is established in American English, though still relatively uncommon elsewhere in the English-speaking world (Peters Reference Peters2004).

An See also epenthetic consonant or vowel is one added into the stem of a word, or the junction between it and one with which it frequently collocates, in order to ease pronunciation. Historical examples are the d in “thunder,” and the an form of the indefinite article, where the additional n smooths the transition to the following noun if it begins with a vowel sound. See further under A or AN.

This is a type of See also modality that reflects the speaker’s/writer’s perceptions of the possibility, likelihood, or certainty of the action formulated in the clause. For example:

These two See also epistemic modals underlined both make a kind of prediction about what is to happen, but with very different levels of conviction. The straightforward affirmation of the modal in the first sentence contrasts with the noncommittal statement of the second. Both express See also intrinsic modality.

Compare See also deontic, and see further under See also modality and modal verb, section 2.

See also Eponyms are common words that are based on personal proper names, as are all of the following:

All examples listed so far take the exact form of the proper name, apart from the lack of initial capital. As common nouns they take plural inflections if they refer to countable objects: thus doilies, sandwiches; but not braille, morse which refer to very particular systems. As a set they represent word-formation by conversion: see under conversion, section 4.

The term See also eponym is also applied to words derived by affixation from proper names. For example:

These eponyms all make use of common derivational affixes for creating verbs (-ize) and nouns (-ism, -ine). See further under derivation, section 1.

This is the name used in government–binding theory for a type of See also catenative or See also controlling verb, i.e. one which takes a following nonfinite verb construction as its complement. The subject of the See also equi-verb may act as the implied subject of the nonfinite construction, as in They promised to come (making it a subject-control type of equi-verb). In other cases the equi-verb shows object-control, as in They persuaded me to come, where the object of the verb is the subject of the nonfinite complement. See further under catenative verb, section 3.

The See also -er suffix has two major roles in English, as:

1. the comparative suffix for adjectives and adverbs, as in cleaner, sooner: see adjective, section 3; and adverb, section 4.
2. the agentive suffix for nouns, as in farmer, player: see further under derivational affix.

-er is thus one of the homonymous suffixes of English (see further under homonym). In the first case it is an inflectional suffix, in the second a derivational suffix. See further under suffix.

This term has multiple applications in linguistics: to languages, nouns, and verbs.

The ergative construction sits between the active and passive voice, which is why it is sometimes referred to as the See also mediopassive or See also middle voice, in keeping with other languages (such as Greek) whose grammars include this third voice (see further under See also voice (1), section 3). Because the construction sits somewhere between transitive and intransitive uses of verb, the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Reference Huddleston and Pullum2002) calls it the middle intransitive. Yet another name is the unaccusative verb.

➤ Compare See also mediopassive, and see further under See also middle construction.

This is the superlative suffix found on gradable adjectives of one or two syllables, and some adverbs. See further under See also adjective, section 3; and See also adverb, section 4.

This is one of the distributive determiners. See under determiner, section 4.

In traditional grammar, See also exclamation was one of the four functional types of sentence, the others being statement, question, command. An exclamation is a clause or fragmentary sentence expressing a more-or-less emotional feeling about something, for example:

As the examples show, exclamations can take a variety of forms, as NPs, nonfinite clauses, and finite clauses with interrogative or declarative syntax. Their exclamatory function is usually marked in written texts with an exclamation mark/point – especially if they are not expressed in exclamative syntax, as in the third and fourth examples. See further under exclamative.

In general terms, the See also exclamation mark or American English See also exclamation point marks the end of a sentence which is phrased in See also exclamative syntax or has an See also exclamatory function (see See also exclamative and See also exclamation). Exclamation marks/points are crucial in communicating the pragmatic function of the utterance, because exclamations can be expressed in such a variety of syntactic forms. They include the canonical forms prefaced by What . . .! or How . . .!; an exclamatory NP Nice work!; a question (What will they want next!); or a command (Go away!). The exclamation mark/point may thus override the grammatical form of the utterance to support information delivery in written text, drawing attention to the intensity of emotion embedded in the string of words it punctuates. See further under pragmatic.

The term is used by many modern grammarians to refer to the characteristic syntax of an See also exclamation, i.e. a string which begins with a See also wh-interrogative word: what or how, introducing a phrase or clause (finite or nonfinite). For example:

As the examples show, exclamations expressed in See also exclamative syntax typically foreground an emotively charged adjective or NP. For other ways of phrasing See also exclamations, see further under See also exclamation.

In traditional grammar, See also exclamatory was used to refer to the syntactic form and the discourse function of an exclamation. Recent grammars (e.g. Huddleston and Pullum Reference Huddleston and Pullum2002; Aarts Reference Aarts2010) reserve See also exclamatory for the sentence function, and use See also exclamative for the most common syntactic form of exclamations.

This is part of the ideational function of language, along with the logical function. See further under See also metafunction of language.

This term refers to the case where a grammatical constituent appears out of its canonical place in the clause or sentence, as in See also cleft sentences, left-dislocation and right-dislocation, open questions, etc. See further under clefting; dislocation; and question, section 2.

This term refers to the displacement of a complement clause that is the notional subject or object of a clause to the end, and its replacement in the main clause by a non-referential IT.

See also Extrapositions like these are actually more common than their non-extraposed counterparts like That you like doing it is clear, according to research on the Longman corpus (Biber et al. Reference Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad and Finegan1999). See further under complement clause, section 3; and IT and ITS, section 2.

See See also modality and modal verb, section 2.