I am analyzing this sentence:
"Carlos wrote a letter to his uncle."
So far I have:
- "Carlos" = Subject
- "wrote" = Predicator
- "a letter" = Direct Object
But I wasn't sure about "to his uncle"
Is it an adverbial adjunct or object of preposition?
English Language Learners Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for speakers of other languages learning English. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityI am analyzing this sentence:
"Carlos wrote a letter to his uncle."
So far I have:
But I wasn't sure about "to his uncle"
Is it an adverbial adjunct or object of preposition?
Carlos wrote a letter to his uncle.
Your analysis so far is correct.
But the preposition phrase to his uncle is neither an adjunct nor an object, but a complement of the verb "wrote". The preposition "to" makes a contribution to identifying the semantic role of the noun phrase "his uncle" (called the oblique) who is clearly the recipient. But the PP is not itself an object.
Adjuncts on the other hand are modifiers that are associated with a wide range of semantic roles including location, manner, duration, condition and so on. But they do not occur as PPs with an oblique that marks the recipient of a direct object.
Here's a simplified tree diagram of your sentence:
"To his uncle" is a modifier that contains a preposition and its object. The preposition is "to" and the object of the preposition is "his uncle".
This modifier might be an adjunct of the predicator, or it might be a modifier of the direct object. That's a negligible difference in this clause, but it becomes noticeable if we cast the clause in the passive voice:
A letter was written to his uncle.
A letter to his uncle was written.
In the former clause, "written to his uncle" is a participial phrase containing the so-called past participle "written" and an adverbial adjunct. In the latter, "a letter to his uncle" is a noun phrase containing the noun "letter" and its two adjectival modifiers.
To answer your questions:
Is it an adverbial adjunct? Maybe. Yes, it can be analyzed that way. No, it doesn't have to be analyzed that way.
Is it an object of a preposition? No. It's a prepositional phrase that contains an object. The object of the preposition is "his uncle", without the "to". The entire prepositional phrase acts as a modifier, not an object, even though what it modifies is ambiguous.
I know that I am two years late, but I just googled this "issue" and found this post. I could find a similar example my English professor made, thus I do think that there are many ways of analyzing the same exact sentence.
My prof. wrote the following sentence: John read a story to the children - and the parsing is like this: S - V - Direct Object - Prepositional Object.
I don't have the guts to call neither your sentence nor that of my professor to be wrong.