Download 1. The definition of the morpheme. The word and

Лекции
LECTURE 1
GRAMMAR IN THE SYSTEMIC CONCEPTION OF LANGUAGE
План лекции:
1. The definition of language. The distinction between language and speech.
Language as a semiotic system: its functions, elements and structure.
2. Lingual elements (units) as signs. Segmental and supra-segmental lingual units.
The levels оf lingual units, their structural and functional features.
3. Hierarchical relations between units of different levels.
4. The word and the sentence as the main level-forming units.
5. The text level as the sphere of functional manifestation of all the lingual units.
6. The three constituent parts (subsystems) of the language: phonological
(phonetic), lexical and grammatical systems.
7. The systemic character of grammar. Morphology and syntax - the two main
sections of grammar.
8. Grammar as a branch of linguistics. Theoretical and practical grammar.
Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations between lingual units; syntagmatic and
paradigmatic relations in grammar.
9. The plane of content and the plane of expression; synonymy and homonymy in
grammar.
10.The notions of diachrony and synchrony; diachronic and synchronic relations in
grammar.
Key terms language, speech, sign, lingual unit, system, subsystem, systemic
approach, segmental lingual units, supra-segmental lingual units, hierarchy,
hierarchical (hierarchic) relations, phoneme, morpheme, word (lexeme), wordcombination (phraseme), denoteme, sentence (proposeme), supra-sentential
construction (supra-phrasal unity, dicteme), nomination, predication, corteme,
signeme, plane of content, plane of expression, synonymous relations (synonymy),
homonymous relations (homonymy), paradigm, paradigmatic relations, syntagma,
syntagmatic relations, synchrony, synchronic relations, diachrony, diachronic
relations
Language is a multifaceted, complex phenomenon which can be studied and
described from various points of view: as a psychological or cognitive
phenomenon, as a social phenomenon, from the point of view of its historic
changes, etc. But first and foremost language is treated as a semiotic system
(system of signs). A system is a structured set of elements united by a common
function. Language is a system of specific interconnected and interdependent
lingual signs united by their common function of forming, storing and
exchanging ideas in the process of human intercourse.
A systemic approach prevails in many spheres of linguistics, and it is
particularly relevant and important in the sphere of grammar. The foundations of
systemic language description were formulated at the turn of the 20th century in the
works of many linguists, among them the Russian linguists I. A. Baudoin de
Courtenay, A. A. Potebnya and others. The originator of the systemic approach in
linguistics is considered to be a Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure. He was the
first to divide the phenomenon of language in general (in French: ‘language’) into
two sides: an ‘executive’ side (‘parole’), concerned with the production,
transmission, and reception of speech, and an underlying language system
(‘langue’). This is one of the basic postulates of modern systemic linguistics:
language in general comprises two aspects: the system of special lingual units,
language proper, and the use of the lingual units, speech proper. In other words,
language in the narrow sense of the term is a system of means of expression, while
speech is the manifestation of the system of language in the process of intercourse.
The system of language comprises the body of lingual units and the rules of their
use, while speech includes the act of producing utterances and the result of it (the
utterances themselves, or the text).
Other terms are used in linguistics by different authors to denote the two basic
aspects of language (which, however, do not always coincide with the ‘language –
speech’ dichotomy): ‘language competence’ and ‘language performance’ (N.
Chomsky), ‘ linguistic schema’ – ‘linguistic usage’, ‘linguistic system’ –
‘linguistic process’ (‘text’) (L. Hjelmslev), ‘code’ – ‘message’ (R. Jacobson), etc.
Still, the terms ‘language’ and ‘speech’ are the most widely used.
Ferdinand de Saussure was also among the first scholars who defined lingual
units as specific signs - bilateral (two-sided) units that have both form and
meaning. Ferdinand de Saussure spoke about an indissoluble link between a
phonetic ‘signifier’ (French: ‘signifiant’), and a ‘signified’ (‘signifie’). In the
system of language, a lingual sign has only a potential meaning; in speech, in the
process of communication, this potential meaning is “actualized”, connected with a
particular referent. That is why a lingual sign is graphically presented in the form
of a triangle, including the material form, the meaning and the referent. For
example, the word ‘elephant’ is a sign, consisting of a signifier, or form – the
sequence of phonemes (or, in written presentation, of letters), and a signified, or
meaning – the image of the animal in our mind; the referent is the ‘real’ animal in
the outside world, which may or may not be physically present.
The units of language are of two types: segmental and supra-segmental.
Segmental lingual units consist of phonemes, which are the smallest material
segments of the language; segmental units form different strings of phonemes
(morphemes, words, sentences, etc.). Supra-segmental lingual units do not exist by
themselves, their forms are realized together with the forms of segmental units;
nevertheless, they render meanings of various kinds, including grammatical
meanings; they are: intonation contours, accents, pauses, patterns of word-order,
etc. Cf., the change of word-order and intonation pattern in the following
examples: He is at home (statement). – Is he at home? (question). Supra-segmental
lingual units form the secondary line of speech, accompanying its primary
phonemic line.
Segmental lingual units form a hierarchy of levels. The term ‘hierarchy’
denotes a structure in which the units of any higher level are formed by the units of
the lower level; the units of each level are characterized by their own specific
functional features and cannot be seen as a mechanical composition of the lower
level units.
The 1st level is formed by phonemes, the smallest material lingual elements, or
segments. They have form, but they have no meaning. Phonemes differentiate the
meanings of morphemes and words. E.g.: man – men.
The 2nd level is composed of morphemes, the smallest meaningful elements
built up by phonemes. The shortest morpheme can consist of one phoneme, e.g.:
step-s; -s renders the meaning of the 3rd person singular form of the verb, or, the
plural form of the noun. The meaning of the morpheme is abstract and
significative: it does not name the referent, but only signifies it.
The 3rd level consists of words, or lexemes, nominative lingual units, which
express direct, nominative meanings: they name, or nominate various referents.
The words consist of morphemes, and the shortest word can include only one
morpheme, e.g.: cat. The difference is in the quality of the meaning.
The 4th level is formed by word-combinations, or phrasemes, the combinations
of two or more notional words, which represent complex nominations of various
referents (things, actions, qualities, and even situations) in a sentence, e.g.: a
beautiful girl, their sudden departure. In a more advanced treatment, phrases along
with separate words can be seen as the constituents of sentences, notional parts of
the sentence, which make the fourth language level and can be called “denotemes”.
The 5th level is the level of sentences, or proposemes, lingual units which
name certain situations, or events, and at the same time express predication, i.e.
they show the relations of the event named to reality - whether the event is real or
unreal, desirable or obligatory, stated as a fact or asked about, affirmed or negated,
etc., e.g.: Their departure was sudden (a real event, which took place in the past,
stated as a fact, etc.). Thus, the sentence is often defined as a predicative lingual
unit. The minimal sentence can consist of just one word, e.g.: Fire!
The 6th level is formed by sentences in a text or in actual speech. Textual units
are traditionally called supra-phrasal unities; we will call such supra-sentential
constructions, which are produced in speech, dictemes (from Latin ‘dicto’ ‘I
speak’). Dictemes are characterized by a number of features, the main one of
which is the unity of topic. As with all lingual units, dictemes are reducible to one
unit of the lower level; e.g., the text of an advertisement slogan can consist of just
one sentence: Just do it!; or, a paragraph in a written text can be formed by a single
independent sentence, being topically significant.
Not all lingual units are meaningful and, thus, they can not be defined as signs:
phonemes and syllables (which are also distinguished as an optional lingual level
by some linguists) participate in the expression of the meaning of the units of
upper levels; they are called “cortemes” (from Lat. cortex: ‘bark, crust, shell’) as
opposed to the majority of meaningful lingual units, called “signemes”.
Crucial for the systemic description of language are the two fundamental types
of relations between lingual units: paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations. The
term “syntagmatic relations” is derived from the word “syntagma”, i.e. a linear
combination of units of the same level. Lingual units form various lingual strings,
sequences, or constructions; in other words, lingual units co-occur in the same
actual sequences. E.g.: He started laughing. In this sentence we can point out
syntagmatic, or linear relations between the sounds [h+i:] = [hi:]; [s+t+a:+t+i+d] =
[sta:tid]; etc.; the morphemes are also connected syntagmatically within words:
start+ed = started; laugh+ing = laughing; the combinations of words form
syntagmas within phrases and sentences: He + started; started + laughing. Besides,
the sentence can be connected with other sentences by syntagmatic relations in the
process of communication, in speech, e.g.: He started laughing. Everybody thought
it was rather odd. Since these relations can be observed in actual utterances, they
are also defined by the Latin term “in praesentia” (“in the presence”, present in the
same sequence).
The other type of relations, opposed to syntagmatic, are called paradigmatic.
The term is derived from the word “paradigm” and denotes the relations between
elements in paradigms in the system of language. Ferdinand de Saussure called
these relations ‘associative relations’, implying the way different linguistic units
are arranged and associated with each other in human minds. Classical
grammatical paradigms are those making up grammatical categories of words, or,
morphological categories, e.g., the category of number or case of the noun: in
Russian – стол – стола – столу – столом – на столе; in English – toy – toys;
tooth – teeth; children – children’s, etc. Paradigm, in most general terms, is a
system of variants of the same unit, which is called ‘the invariant’; paradigmatic
relations are the relations between the variants of the lingual unit within a
paradigm Not only words, but all lingual units are organized in the system of
language paradigmatically according to their own categories; for example,
sentences may be organized in paradigms according to the category “the purpose
of communication”, in such paradigms declarative, interrogative and imperative
sentence patterns of the same sentence invariant are opposed, e.g.: He laughed. –
Did he laugh? – Let him laugh. Since these relations can’t be observed in actual
speech they are also described as relations “in absentia” (“in the absence”).
Paradigmatic relations exist not only in grammar, but in the phonetical and
lexical systems of language as well. For example, paradigmatic relations exist
between vowels and consonants, voiced and voiceless consonants, etc.; between
synonyms and antonyms, in topical groups of words, word-building models, etc.
But paradigmatic relations are of primary importance for grammar, as the grammar
of language is above all systemic.
As a system, language is subdivided into three basic subsystems, each of
which is a system in its own turn. They are the phonetical (phonological), lexical
and grammatical systems. The phonetical system includes the material units of
which language is made up: sounds, phonemes, different intonation models, and
accent models. The phonetical system of language is studied by a separate branch
of linguistics called phonology. The lexical system includes all the nominative
(naming) means of language – words and stable word-combinations. The lexical
system is studied by lexicology. The grammatical system includes the rules and
regularities of using lingual units in the construction of utterances in the process of
human communication. The grammatical system is described by grammar as a
branch of linguistics.
The study of grammar may be either practical (practical grammar), which
describes grammar as a set of rules and regulations to follow, or theoretical
(theoretical grammar), aiming at the explanation of how and why the grammatical
system works.
Each sub-system distinguishes not only its own set of elements, but its own
structural organization. For example, within the grammatical system we single out
parts of speech and sentence patterns. The parts of speech are further subdivided
into nouns, verbs, adjective, adverbs, functional parts of speech; this subdivision of
grammar is known as morphology. Sentences are further subdivided into simple
and composite: composite sentences are subdivided into complex and compound,
etc.; this subdivision of grammar is known as syntax.
In the history of linguistics, there were attempts to separate grammar, as the
description of linguistic forms and structures, from semantics, the description of
meanings. This is absolutely impossible, since grammatical forms and regularities
are meaningful, though, of course, the quality of grammatical meanings is different
from the quality of lexical meanings. Grammatical meanings are connected with
the most abstract and general parts of information, rendered by lingual units. For
example, the word hands, apart from its immediate lexical meaning (the referent of
the word), bears some grammatical meanings, in particular, ‘thingness’ (the
categorical grammatical meaning of nouns), ‘plurality’ (more than one objects are
denoted) and others.
A lingual unit has been described above as a sign – a bilateral unit, which has
its form and its meaning. Thus, two language planes can be distinguished - the
plane of content and the plane of expression: the plane of content comprises all the
meaningful, semantic elements contained in the language, while the plane of
expression comprises all the material, formal units of the language. Each lingual
unit, including grammatical units, is a unity of meaning and form, of content and
the means of its expression. But the correspondence between the two planes is not
one-to-one; the relations between the units of content and the units of expression
are more complex. In cases of polysemy and homonymy two or more units of the
plane of content correspond to one unit of the plane of expression, for example, the
lexical homonyms: seal, hand, etc. In cases of synonymy, just the other way round,
two or more units of the plane of expression correspond to one unit of the plane of
content, for example, the lexical synonyms: pretty, nice, beautiful, etc. The
relations of homonymy and synonymy can be distinguished in the grammatical
system too. For example, homonymy in grammar: the grammatical suffix -(e)s
denotes the 3rd person singular of the verb, the genitive case of the noun, or the
plural of the noun, as in breaks, bird’s, birds; synonymy in grammar: future action
can be expressed with the help of the future indefinite, the present indefinite, or the
present continuous form of the verb, as in We’ll fly tomorrow; We fly tomorrow;
We are flying tomorrow.
Another major contribution to the systemic description of language by
Ferdinand de Saussure and Beaudoin de Courtenay was the doctrine that the
synchronic study of a particular ‘state’ of a language in its development should be
separated from the diachronic study of the language changes from one state to
another. So, one more fundamental type of relation between language elements is
to be distinguished: synchronic relations between language elements coexisting at
a certain period of time, and diachronic relations between lingual elements of a
certain type at different time periods. Language and each of its subsystems are
synchronic systems of co-existing elements; in each system it is also possible to
analyze diachronic relations between its elements. For example, synchronic
relations in New English: hard – harder – hardest; synchronic relations in Old
English: heard - heardra - heardost; diachronic relations: hard – heard; harder –
heardra; hardest – heardost.
LECTURE 2
MORPHEMIC STRUCTURE OF THE WORD
План лекции:
1. The definition of the morpheme. The word and the morpheme, their correlation
in the level structure of the language. Intermediary phenomena between the
word and the morpheme.
2. Traditional classification of morphemes: positional and functional (semantic)
criteria. Roots and affixes. Lexical (derivational, word-building) and
grammatical (functional, word-changing) affixes.
3. The IC-analysis of the morphemic structure. Grammatical relevance of
derivational affixes; lexical (word-building) paradigms. The peculiarities of
grammatical suffixes (inflexions) in English. Outer and inner inflexion.
4. The "allo-emic" theory in morphology: morphs, allomorphs and morphemes.
5. Distributional analysis in morphology; contrastive, non-contrastive, and
complementary types of distribution. Distributional classification of morphemes: full and empty (zero morphemes), free and bound, overt and covert,
segmental and supra-segmental, additive and replacive, continuous and discontinuous morphemes. The assessment of distributional morpheme types.
Key terms: significative (meaning), intermediary phenomenon (phenomena), root,
affix, lexical (derivational, word-building) affix, grammatical (functional, wordchanging) affix, stem, outer inflexion, inner inflexion, suppletivity, the IC analysis,
allo-emic theory, morph, allomorph, distribution (complementive, contrastive, nonconstrastive), distributional analysis, full and empty morphemes, free and bound
morphemes, overt and covert morphemes, segmental and suprа-segmental
morphemes, additive and replacive morphemes, continuous and discontinuous
morphemes
As shown in the previous unit, the morpheme is the elementary meaningful
lingual unit built up from phonemes and used to make words. It has meaning, but
its meaning is abstract, significative, not concrete, or nominative, as is that of the
word. Morphemes constitute the words; they do not exist outside the words.
Studying the morpheme we actually study the word: its inner structure, its
functions, and the ways it enters speech.
Stating the differences between the word and the morpheme, we have to admit
that the correlation between the word and the morpheme is problematic. The
borderlines between the morpheme and the word are by no means rigid and there is
a set of intermediary units (half-words - half-morphemes), which form an area of
transitions (a continuum) between the word and the morpheme as the polar
phenomena. This includes the so-called “morpheme-like” functional, or auxiliary
words, for example, auxiliary verbs and adverbs, articles, particles, prepositions
and conjunctions: they are realized as isolated, separate units (their separateness
being fixed in written practice) but perform various grammatical functions; in other
words, they function like morphemes and are dependent semantically to a greater
or lesser extent. Cf..: Jack’s, a boy, have done.
This approach to treating various lingual units is known in linguistics as “a
field approach”: polar phenomena possessing the unambiguous characteristic
features of the opposed units constitute “the core”, or “the center” of the field,
while the intermediary phenomena combining some of the characteristics of the
poles make up “the periphery” of the field; e.g.: functional words make up the
periphery of the class of words since their functioning is close to the functioning of
morphemes.
In traditional grammar, the study of the morphemic structure of the word is
based on two criteria: the positional criterion - the location of the morphemes with
regard to each other, and the semantic (or functional) criterion - the contribution of
the morphemes to the general meaning of the word.
According to these criteria morphemes are divided into root-morphemes
(roots) and affixal morphemes (affixes). Roots express the concrete, “material”
part of the meaning of the word and constitute its central part. Affixes express the
specificational part of the meaning of the word: they specify, or transform the
meaning of the root. Affixal specification may be of two kinds: of lexical or
grammatical character. So, according to the semantic criterion affixes are further
subdivided into lexical, or word-building (derivational) affixes, which together
with the root constitute the stem of the word, and grammatical, or word-changing
affixes, expressing different morphological categories, such as number, case, tense
and others. With the help of lexical affixes new words are derived, or built; with
the help of grammatical affixes the form of the word is changed.
According to the positional criterion affixes are divided into prefixes, situated
before the root in the word, e.g.: under-estimate, and suffixes, situated after the
root, e.g.: underestim-ate. Prefixes in English are only lexical: the word
underestimate is derived from the word estimate with the help of the prefix under-.
Suffixes in English may be either lexical or grammatical; e.g. in the word
underestimates -ate is a lexical suffix, because it is used to derive the verb estimate
(v) from the noun esteem (n), and –s is a grammatical suffix making the 3rd
person, singular form of the verb to underestimate. Grammatical suffixes are also
called inflexions (inflections, inflectional endings).
Grammatical suffixes in English have certain peculiarities, which make them
different from inflections in other languages: since they are the remnants of the old
inflectional system, there are few (only six) remaining word-changing suffixes in
English: -(e)s, -ed, - ing, - er, - est, - en; most of them are homonymous, e.g. -(e)s
is used to form the plural of the noun (dogs), the genitive of the noun (my
friend’s), and the 3rd person singular of the verb (works); some of them have lost
their inflectional properties and can be attached to units larger than the word, e.g.:
his daughter Mary’s arrival. That is why the term “inflection” is seldom used to
denote the grammatical components of words in English.
Grammatical suffixes form word-changing, or morphological paradigms of
words, which can be observed to their full extent in inflectional languages, such as
Russian, e.g.: стол – стола – столу – столом - о столе; morphological paradigms
exist, though not on the same scale, in English too, e.g., the number paradigm of
the noun: boy - boys.
Lexical affixes are primarily studied by lexicology with regard to the meaning
which they contribute to the general meaning of the whole word. In grammar
word-building suffixes are studied as the formal marks of the words belonging to
different parts of speech; they form lexical (word-building, derivational)
paradigms of words united by a common root, cf.:
to decide - decision - decisive - decisively
to incise - incision - incisive - incisively
Being the formal marks of words of different parts of speech, word-building
suffixes are also grammatically relevant. But grammar study is primarily
concerned with grammatical, word-changing, or functional affixes, because they
change the word according to its grammatical categories and serve to insert the
word into an utterance. The morphemic structure of the word can be analyzed in a
linear way; for example, in the following way: underestimates - W= {[Pr
+(R+L)]+Gr}, where W denotes the word, R the root, L the lexical suffix, Pr the
prefix, and Gr the grammatical suffix.
In addition, the derivational history of the word can be hierarchically
demonstrated as the so-called “tree of immediate constituents”; such analysis is
called “IC-analysis”, IC standing for the “immediate constituents”. E.g.:
IC-analysis, like many other ideas employed in the study of the morphemes,
was developed by an American linguist, Leonard Bloomfield, and his followers
within the framework of an approach known as Descriptive Linguistics (or,
Structural Linguistics). Immediate constituents analysis in structural linguistics
starts with lingual units of upper levels: for example, the immediate constituents of
a composite sentence might be clauses, each clause in turn might have noun phrase
and verb phrase as constituents, etc.; the analysis continues until the ultimate
constituents – the morphemes – are reached.
Besides prefixes and suffixes, some other positional types of affix are
distinguished in linguistics: for example, regular vowel interchange which takes
place inside the root and transforms its meaning “from within” can be treated as an
infix, e.g.: a lexical infix – blood – to bleed; a grammatical infix – tooth – teeth.
Grammatical infixes are also defined as inner inflections as opposed to
grammatical suffixes which are called outer inflections. Since infixation is not a
productive (regular) means of word-building or word-changing in modern English,
it is more often seen as partial suppletivity. Full suppletivity takes place when
completely different roots are paradigmatically united, e.g.: go – went.
When studying morphemes, we should distinguish morphemes as generalized
lingual units from their concrete manifestations, or variants in specific textual
environments; variants of morphemes are called “allo-morphs”.
Initially, the so-called allo-emic theory was developed in phonetics: in
phonetics, phonemes, as the generalized, invariant phonological units, are
distinguished from their concrete realizations, the allophones. For example, one
phoneme is pronounced in a different way in different environments, cf.: you [ju:]
- you know [ju]; in Russian, vowels are also pronounced in a different way in
stressed and unstressed syllables, cf.: дом - домой. The same applies to the
morpheme, which is a generalized unit, an invariant, and may be represented by
different variants, allo-morphs, in different textual environments. For example, the
morpheme of the plural, -(e)s, sounds differently after voiceless consonants (bats),
voiced consonants and vowels (rooms), and after fricative and sibilant consonants
(clashes). So, [s], [z], [iz], which are united by the same meaning (the grammatical
meaning of the plural), are allo-morphs of the same morpheme, which is
represented as -(e)s in written speech.
The “allo-emic theory” in the study of morphemes was also developed within
the framework of Descriptive Linguistics by means of the so-called distributional
analysis: in the first stage of distributional analysis a syntagmatic chain of lingual
units is divided into meaningful segments, morphs, e.g.: he/ start/ed/ laugh/ing/;
then the recurrent segments are analyzed in various textual environments, and the
following three types of distribution are established: contrastive distribution, noncontrastive distribution and complementary distribution. The morphs are said to
be in contrastive distribution if they express different meanings in identical
environments the compared morphs, e.g.: He started laughing – He starts
laughing; such morphs constitute different morphemes. The morphs are said to be
in non-contrastive distribution if they express identical meaning in identical
environments; such morphs constitute ‘free variants’ of the same morpheme, e.g.:
learned - learnt, ate [et] – ate [eit] (in Russian: трактора – тракторы). The
morphs are said to be in complementary distribution if they express identical
meanings in different environments, e.g.: He started laughing – He stopped
laughing; such morphs constitute variants, or allo-morphs of the same morpheme.
The allo-morphs of the plural morpheme -(e)s [s], [z], [iz] stand in phonemic
complementary distribution; the allo-morph –en, as in oxen, stands in morphemic
complementary distribution with the other allo-morphs of the plural morpheme.
Besides these traditional types of morphemes, in Descriptive Linguistics
distributional morpheme types are distinguished; they immediately correlate with
each other in the following pairs. Free morphemes, which can build up words by
themselves, are opposed to bound morphemes, used only as parts of words; e.g.: in
the word ‘hands’ hand- is a free morpheme and -s is a bound morpheme. Overt and
covert morphemes are opposed to each other: the latter shows the meaningful
absence of a morpheme distinguished in the opposition of grammatical forms in
paradigms; it is also known as the “zero morpheme”, e.g.: in the number paradigm
of the noun, hand – hands, the plural is built with the help of an overt morpheme,
hand-s, while the singular - with the help of a zero or covert morpheme, handØ.
Full or meaningful morphemes are opposed to empty morphemes, which have no
meaning and are left after singling out the meaningful morphemes; some of them
used to have a certain meaning, but lost it in the course of historical development,
e.g.: in the word ‘children’ child- is the root of the word, bearing the core of the
meaning, -en is the suffix of the plural, while -r- is an empty morpheme, having no
meaning at all, the remnant of an old morphological form. Segmental morphemes,
consisting of phonemes, are opposed to supra- segmental morphemes, which leave
the phonemic content of the word unchanged, but the meaning of the word is
specified with the help of various supra-segmental lingual units, e.g.: `convert (a
noun) - con`vert (a verb). Additive morphemes, which are freely combined in a
word, e.g.: look+ed, small+er, are opposed to replacive morphemes, or root
morphemes, which replace each other in paradigms, e.g.: sing -sang – sung.
Continuous morphemes, combined with each other in the same word, e.g.: worked,
are opposed to discontinuous morphemes, which consist of two components used
jointly to build the analytical forms of the words, e.g.: have worked, is working.
Many of the distributional morpheme types contradict the traditional
definition of the morpheme: traditionally the morpheme is the smallest meaningful
lingual unit (this is contradicted by the “empty” morphemes type), built up by
phonemes (this is contradicted by the “supra-segmental” morphemes type), used to
build up words (this is contradicted by the “discontinuous” morphemes type). This
is due to the fact that in Descriptive Linguistics only three lingual units are
distinguished: the phoneme, the morpheme, and syntactic constructions; the notion
of the word is rejected because of the difficulties of defining it. Still, the
classification of distributional morpheme types can be used to summarize and
differentiate various types of word-building and word-changing, though not all of
them are morphemic in the current mainstream understanding of the term
“morpheme”.
LECTURE 3
CATEGORIAL STRUCTURE OF THE WORD
План лекции:
1. Grammatical meaning and the means of its expression. Paradigmatic correlation
of individual grammatical forms.
2. Grammatical category as a system of expressing a generalized grammatical
meaning. Oppositional analysis of grammatical category.
3. The theory of oppositions. The types of oppositions: binary and supra-binary
(ternary, quaternary, etc.) oppositions; privative, gradual, and equipollent
oppositions. Oppositions in grammar. Privative binary opposition as the most
important type of categorial opposition in grammar. The strong (marked,
positive) and the weak (unmarked, negative) members of the opposition, their
formal and functional features.
4. Grammatical category in communication: contextual oppositional reduction
(oppositional substitution). The two types of oppositional reduction:
neutralization and transposition.
5. Synthetical and analytical grammatical forms. The types of synthetical
grammatical forms: outer inflection, inner inflection, and suppletivity. The
principle of identifying an analytical form; grammatical idiomatism of
analytical forms.
6. The types of grammatical categories: immanent and reflective categories,
closed and transgressive categories, constant feature categories and variable
feature categories.
Key terms: category, grammatical category, individual grammatical form
(meaning), categorial grammatical meaning, paradigmatic opposition, common
features, differential features, binary and supra-binary oppositions, privative
(equipollent, gradual) oppositions, formal mark (marker), strong (marked,
positive) member of the opposition, weak (unmarked, negative) member of the
opposition, reduction of the opposition (transposition, neutralization), synthetical
forms, outer inflection, inner inflection, suppletive forms (suppletivity), analytical
forms, grammatical idiomatism, immanent category, reflective category,
transgressive category, closed category, constant feature category, variable
feature category
Grammatical meanings of notional words are rendered by their grammatical
forms. For example, the meaning of the plural in English is regularly rendered by
the grammatical suffix –(e)s: cats, books, clashes. Grammatical meanings of
individual grammatical forms are established as such in paradigmatic correlations:
the plural correlates with the singular (cat – cats), the genitive case of the noun
correlates with the common case (cat – cat’s), the definite article determination
correlates with the indefinite article determination (a cat – the cat), etc.
The generalized meaning rendered by paradigmatically correlated
grammatical forms is called “categorial”. Category is a logical notion denoting the
reflection of the most general properties of phenomena. Categorial meanings in
grammar are expressed by grammatical paradigms. For example, within the system
of the English noun the generalized, categorial meaning of “number” is expressed
grammatically through the paradigmatic correlation (or, opposition in a paradigm)
of two members, of two grammatical forms, each with its own grammatical
meaning: the singular (e.g., cat) and the plural (cats).
Thus, the definition of grammatical category is as follows: grammatical
category is a system of expressing a generalized categorial meaning by means of
paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms. In other words, it is a unity of a
generalized grammatical meaning and the forms of its expression.
Paradigmatic correlations, as shown above, are exposed by “oppositions” of
grammatical forms - the members of a paradigm. Oppositions are analyzed
linguistically with the help of a special method known as “oppositional analysis”.
N. S. Trubetzkoy, a member of the Prague Linguistic Circle, developed it at the
turn of the 20th century for the purposes of phonological research; later it became
widely employed in the analysis of grammatical categories. Opposition members
are characterized by two types of features: common features and differential
features. Common features serve as the basis for uniting the grammatical forms
within the same paradigm; in the example above, the two forms, cat and cats, are
paradigmatically united as forms of one and the same word, sharing the categorical
grammatical meaning of number. Differential features serve to differentiate the
members of an opposition; for example, the grammatical form of the plural, cats,
has an inflection, or a grammatical suffix, which the form of the singular, cat, has
not.
On the basis of various combinations of common and differential features,
several types of oppositions are distinguished. The prevalent type in English
grammar is a binary privative opposition. The term “binary” means, that the
opposition consists of two members, or forms; besides binary oppositions, there
are oppositions, that may include more than two members (‘ternary’, ‘quaternary’,
etc.). The term “privative” means that the members of the opposition are
characterized by the presence/absence of a certain differential feature, which serves
as the formal mark of one of its members; in the example above, cat – cats, the
ending of the plural is its formal mark. The member of the opposition characterized
by the presence of the differential mark is called “marked”, “strong”, or “positive”
(commonly designated by the symbol +). The other member of the opposition,
characterized by the absence of the differential feature, is called “unmarked”,
“weak”, or“negative” (commonly designated by the symbol -). In the category of
number the strong, marked member is the plural form, because it possesses a
special formal mark (either the productive suffix -(e)s, or other formal means, such
as -en in children, etc.), the weak, unmarked member of the opposition is the
singular form, which possesses no special mark. To stress the negative marking of
the weak member it is also defined in oppositional theory with “non-”terms: e.g.,
the singular is referred to as “non-plural”.
Besides the differences in the form, there are also regular semantic differences
between the members of the privative oppositions: the meaning of the weak
member is always more general and more abstract, while the meaning of the strong
member is always more particular and concrete. Due to this difference in meaning,
the weak member of the opposition is used in a wider range of contexts than the
strong member and it can even regularly substitute the strong member in certain
contexts. For example, the singular form of the noun can be used generically to
denote all the objects belonging to a certain class: The rose is my favourite flower
= (All) Roses are my favourite flowers.
Besides privative oppositions, there are gradual and equipollent oppositions,
which are minor types in morphology. Gradual oppositions are formed by a series
of members which are distinguished not by the presence or absence of a
differential feature, but by the degree of it. A gradual morphological opposition in
English can be identified only in the plane of content in the category of
comparison, cf.: big – bigger - biggest. Equipollent oppositions are formed by
members, which are distinguished by a number of their own features. An
equipollent morphological opposition in English can be identified in the plane of
expression in the paradigms of suppletive forms, for example, in the correlation of
the person and number forms of the verb be: am – are – is (was – were).
There are two basic types of means with the help of which grammatical
forms are built: synthetical and analytical. Synthetical (synthetic) grammatical
forms are built by means of the morphemic composition of the word. This includes
the morphemic means, which were described in the previous unit: outer inflexion
with the help of adding grammatical suffixes to the stems of the words, e.g.: cat cats; inner inflexion, or vowel interchange inside the root, e.g.: goose - geese; and
suppletivity, when different roots are combined within the same paradigm, e.g.: go
– went. Analytical grammatical forms are built by the combination of the notional
word with auxiliary words, e.g.: come - have come. Analytical forms consist of two
words which together express one grammatical meaning; in other words, they are
grammatically idiomatic: the meaning of the grammatical form is not immediately
dependent on the meanings of its parts. Analytical grammatical forms are
intermediary between words and word-combinations. Some analytical forms are
closer to a word, because the two parts are inseparable in their grammatical
idiomatism; for example, the forms of the perfect aspect: come - have come. The
components of some other analytical forms are more independent semantically,
and they are less idiomatic grammatically; for example, the degrees of comparison:
beautiful - more beautiful – most beautiful. Such combinations of an auxiliary
component and a basic component are treated by some linguists as free word-
combinations, but as they are correlative members of grammatical paradigms and
express some specific grammatical meaning, they should be recognized as
analytical grammatical forms too. Some lexical means regularly involved in the
expression of common grammatical meanings can also be regarded as marginal
cases of suppletivity or specific analytical forms, e.g.: the use of quantifiers with
uncountable nouns or repetition groups – a bit of joy, the last two items of news,
thousands and thousands, etc.
Analytical grammatical forms are prevalent in English; modern English is an
analytical type of language.
Grammatical oppositions can be reduced in some contextual circumstances,
when one member of the opposition is used with the meaning of the other member,
or, in other words, substitutes its counter-member. This phenomenon in the theory
of oppositions is treated as “oppositional reduction” or “oppositional
substitution”.
Two types of oppositional reduction can be distinguished in grammar:
neutralization and transposition. Neutralization takes place when the grammatical
form, which is used, loses its own functional meaning and acquires the meaning of
its counter-member; in other words, it becomes functionally equivalent with its
oppositional counter-member. This type of oppositional reduction is stylistically
indifferent (neutral); in most cases it happens when the weak member of the
opposition is used in the meaning of the strong one, e.g.: The rose is my favourite
flower (=Roses are my favourite flowers) - the singular, the weak member of the
number category opposition, is used instead of the plural, the strong member.
Transposition takes place in cases where one member of the opposition preserves
to a certain extent its original functional meaning alongside the meaning of its
counterpart; the two functional meanings are actually combined. This type of
oppositional reduction is stylistically marked. Because of the combination of
meanings and the additional stylistic colouring created, transposition can be treated
as a grammatical mechanism of figurativeness, or a grammatical metaphor. In most
cases it happens when the strong member of the opposition is used with the
meaning of the weak one. E.g.: the waters of the ocean, the sands of the desert –
the plural, the strong member of the number category opposition, is used instead of
the singular, the weak member.
Grammatical
categories
are
subdivided
into
several
types.
“Immanent”categories render the meaning innate (or, natural) for the words of a
particular lexical class; for example, the category of number is innate for nouns
since the referents denoted by nouns can potentially be counted. “Reflective”
categories serve as a sign of formal correlation or agreement between the words in
an utterance: in English the verbal number formally reflects the number
characteristics of the noun or of the pronoun with which the verb corresponds in
the utterance; in other words, the verbs agree with the nouns or pronouns in the
category of number, e.g.: The man goes - The men go. For verbs the category of
number is not immanent; it is reflective. Immanent categories can be either
“transgressive” like the category of number, which transgresses the borders of the
noun, or they can be “closed”, confined within the word-class; for example, the
category of gender of nouns is not reflected by any other word-class in English, so
it is a closed category. Another distinction is based on the changeability of the
categorial feature. “Variable feature categories” are categories realized in
changeable grammatical forms of words, e.g.: the category of number is a variable
feature category, because most nouns have two forms, the singular and the plural,
cat – cats. “Constant feature categories” reflect the classification of the words
according to certain unchangeable categorial features, e.g.: the category of gender
in English is a constant feature category - the noun woman is of feminine gender,
substituted only by the feminine pronoun she, man is of masculine gender,
invariably substituted by he, and tree - of neuter gender, substituted only by it.
LECTURE 4
GRAMMATICAL CLASSES OF WORDS
План лекции:
1. The notion of a part of speech as a lexico-grammatical class of words.
2. Grammatically relevant properties of words - criteria for differentiating the
classes of words: semantic, formal and functional criteria.
3. Principles of grammatical classification of words. The traditional classification
of parts of speech.
4. Notional and functional parts of speech in the traditional classification. The
problem of grammatical relevance of the traditional classification of parts of
speech.
5. Polydifferential and monodifferential (heterogeneous and homogeneous)
classifications.
6. The syntactico-distributional classification of words (Ch. Fries). The
combination of the syntactico-distributional and the traditional classifications:
three main layers (supra-classes) of lexicon - notional parts of speech,
substitutional parts of speech (pronouns), and functional parts of speech.
7. Supra-classes, classes, and sub-classes of words. Functional differences
between the three layers of lexicon; their openness and closedness.
Intermediary phenomena between the three major layers. The field approach in
the classification of parts of speech.
Key terms: category, grammatical category, individual grammatical form
(meaning), categorial grammatical meaning, paradigmatic opposition, common
features, differential features, binary and supra-binary oppositions, privative
(equipollent, gradual) oppositions, formal mark (marker), strong (marked,
positive) member of the opposition, weak (unmarked, negative) member of the
opposition, reduction of the opposition (transposition, neutralization), synthetical
forms, outer inflection, inner inflection, suppletive forms (suppletivity), analytical
forms, grammatical idiomatism, immanent category, reflective category,
transgressive category, closed category, constant feature category, variable
feature category
The traditional term “parts of speech” was developed in Ancient Greek
linguistics and reflects the fact that at that time there was no distinction between
language as a system and speech, between the word as a part of an utterance and
the word as a part of lexis. The term “parts of speech” is accepted by modern
linguistics as a conventional, or “non-explanatory” term (“name-term”) to denote
the lexico-grammatical classes of words correlating with each other in the general
system of language on the basis of their grammatically relevant properties.
There are three types of grammatically relevant properties of words that
differentiate classes of words called “parts of speech”: semantic, formal and
functional properties. They traditionally make the criteria for the classification of
parts of speech. The semantic criterion refers to the generalized semantic
properties common to the whole class of words, e.g.: the generalized (or,
categorial) meaning of nouns is “thingness”, of verbs process, of adjectives
substantive property, of adverbs non-substantive property. The formal criterion
embraces the formal features (word-building and word-changing) that are
characteristic for a particular part of speech, e.g.: the noun is characterized by a
specific set of word-building affixes, cf.: property, bitterness, worker, etc., and is
changed according to the categories of number, case and article determination:
boy-boys, boy – boy’s, boy – the boy – a boy, etc. Combinability is also a relevant
formal feature for each particular part of speech; for example, verbs can be
modified by adverbs, while nouns cannot (except in specific contexts). The
functional criterion is based on the functions that the words of a particular class
fulfill in the sentence, e.g.: the most characteristic functions of the noun are those
of a subject and an object; the only function of the finite form of the verb is that of
a predicate; the adjective functions in most contexts as an attribute; the adverb as
an adverbial modifier.
Classifications in general may be based either on one criterion (such
classifications are called homogeneous, or monodifferential), or on a
combination of several criteria (such classifications are called heterogeneous, or
polydifferential). The traditional classification of parts of speech is
polydifferential (heterogeneous); it is based on the combination of all the three
criteria mentioned above: ‘meaning – form – function’.
Traditionally, all parts of speech are subdivided on the upper level of
classification into notional words and functional words. Notional words, which
traditionally include nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns and numerals,
have complete nominative meanings, are in most cases changeable and fulfill selfdependent syntactic functions in the sentence. The noun, for example, as a part of
speech, is traditionally characterized by 1) the categorial meaning of substance
(“thingness”), 2) a specific set of word-building affixes, the grammatical categories
of number, case and article determination, prepositional connections and
modification by an adjective, and 3) the substantive functions of subject, object or
predicative in the sentence. In the same way, all the other notional parts of speech
are described. Functional words, which include conjunctions, prepositions, articles,
interjections, particles, and modal words, have incomplete nominative value, are
unchangeable and fulfill mediatory, constructional syntactic functions.
The employment of the three criteria combined, in present-day mainstream
linguistics, was developed mainly by V. V. Vinogradov, L. V. Scherba, A. I.
Smirnitsky, B. A. Ilyish and others. There are certain limitations and controversial
points in the traditional classification of parts of speech, which make some
linguists doubt its scientific credibility. First of all, the three criteria turn out to be
relevant only for the subdivision of notional words. As for functional words –
prepositions, conjunctions, particles, interjections, etc. – these classes of words do
not distinguish either common semantic, or formal, or functional properties, they
are rather characterized by the absence of all three criteria in any generalized form.
Second, the status of pronouns and the numerals, which in the traditional
classification are listed as notional, is also questionable, since they do not have any
syntactic functions of their own, but rather different groups inside these two classes
resemble in their formal and functional properties different notional parts of
speech: e.g., cardinal numerals function as substantives, while ordinal numerals
function as adjectives; the same can be said about personal pronouns and
possessive pronouns. Third, it is very difficult to draw rigorous borderlines
between different classes of words, because there are always phenomena that are
indistinguishable in their status. E.g., non-finite forms of verbs, such as the
infinitive, the gerund, participles I and II are actually verbal forms, but lack some
of the characteristics of the verb: they have no person or number forms, no tense or
mood forms, and what is even more important, they never perform the
characteristic verbal function, that of a predicate. Equally dubious is the part-ofspeech characterization of auxiliary verbs, intensifying adverbs, conjunctive
adverbs and pronouns, and of many other groups of words which have the
morphological characteristics of notional words, but play mediatory constructional
functions in a sentence, like functional words. There are even words that defy any
classification at all; for example, many linguists doubt whether the words of
agreement and disagreement, yes and no, can occupy any position in the
classification of parts of speech.
These, and a number of other problems, made linguists search for alternative
ways to classify lexical units. Some of them thought that the contradictions could
be settled if parts of speech were classified following what was seen as a strictly
scientific approach, a unified basis of subdivision; in other words, if a
homogeneous, or monodifferential classification of parts of speech were
undertaken.
It must be noted that the idea was not entirely new. The first classification of
parts of speech was homogeneous: in ancient Greek grammar the words were
subdivided mainly on the basis of their formal properties into changeable and
unchangeable; nouns, adjectives and numerals were treated jointly as a big class of
“names” because they shared the same morphological forms. This classical
linguistic tradition was followed by the first English grammars: Henry Sweet
divided all the words in English into “declinables” and “indeclinables”. But the
approach which worked well for the description of highly inflectional languages
turned out to be less efficient for the description of other languages.
The syntactic approach, which establishes the word classes in accord with their
functional characteristics, is more universal and applicable to languages of
different morphological types. The principles of a monodifferential syntacticodistributional classification of words in English were developed by the
representatives of American Descriptive Linguistics, L. Bloomfield, Z. Harris and
Ch. Fries.
Ch. Fries selected the most widely used grammatical constructions and used
them as substitution frames: the frames were parsed into parts, or positions, each of
them got a separate number, and then Ch. Fries conducted a series of substitution
tests to find out what words can be used in each of the positions. Some of the
frames were as follows: The concert was good (always). The clerk remembered the
tax (suddenly). The team went there. All the words that can be used in place of the
article made one group, the ones that could be used instead of the word “clerk”
another, etc. The results of his experiments were surprisingly similar to the
traditional classification of parts of speech: four main positions were distinguished
in the sentences; the words which can be used in these positions without affecting
the meaning of the structures were united in four big classes of words, and
generally speaking coincide with the four major notional parts of speech in the
traditional classification: nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Besides these
“positional words” (“form-words”), Ch. Fries distinguished 15 limited groups of
words, which cannot fill in the positions in the frames. These “function words” are
practically the same as the functional words in the traditional classification.
The syntactico-distributional classification of words distinguished on a
consistently syntactic basis testifies to the objective nature of the classification of
parts of speech. More than that, in some respects the results of this approach turn
out to be even more confusing than the allegedly “non-scientific” traditional
classification: for example, Group A, embracing words that can substitute for the
article “the” in the above given frames, includes words as diverse as “the, no,
your, their, both, few, much, John’s, twenty”, or one word might be found in
different distributional classes. Thus, the syntactico-distributional classification
cannot replace the traditional classification of parts of speech, but the major
features of different classes of words revealed in syntactico-distributional
classification can be used as an important supplement to traditional classification.
The combination of syntactico-distributional and traditional classifications
strongly suggests the unconditional subdivision of the lexicon into two big supraclasses: notional and functional words. The major formal grammatical feature of
this subdivision is their open or closed character. The notional parts of speech are
open classes of words, with established basic semantic, formal and functional
characteristics. There are only four notional classes of words, which correlate with
the four main syntactic positions in the sentence: nouns, verbs, adjectives, and
adverbs. They are interconnected by the four stages of the lexical paradigmatic
series of derivation, e.g.: to decide – decision – decisive – decisively. The
functional words are closed classes of words: they cannot be further enlarged and
are given by lists. The closed character of the functional words is determined by
their role in the structure of the sentence: the functional words expose various
constructional functions of syntactic units, and this makes them closer to
grammatical rather than to lexical means of the language.
As for pronouns and the numerals, according to the functional approach they
form a separate supra-class of substitutional parts of speech, since they have no
function of their own in the sentence, but substitute for notional parts of speech and
perform their characteristic functions. The difference between the four notional
parts of speech and substitutional parts of speech is also supported by the fact that
the latter are closed groups of words like functional parts of speech.
The three supra-classes are further subdivided into classes (the parts of
speech proper) and sub-classes (groups inside the parts of speech). For example,
nouns are divided into personal and common, animate and inanimate, countable
and uncountable, etc.; pronouns are subdivided into personal, possessive (conjoint
and absolute), objective pronouns, demonstrative, reflexive, relative, etc.; numerals
are subdivided into cardinal and ordinal, etc.
The field approach, which was outlined in the previous units, also helps
clarify many disputable points in the traditional classification of parts of speech.
The borderlines between the classes of words are not rigid; instead of borderlines
there is a continuum of numerous intermediary phenomena, combining the features
of two or more major classes of words. Field theory states that in each class of
words there is a core, the bulk of its members that possess all the characteristic
features of the class, and a periphery (marginal part), which includes the words of
mixed, dubious character, intermediary between this class and other classes. For
example, the non-finite forms of the verb (the infinitive, the gerund, participles I
and II) make up the periphery of the verbal class: they lack some of the features of
a verb, but possess certain features characteristic to either nouns, or adjectives, or
adverbs. There are numerous intermediary phenomena that form a continuum
between the notional and functional supra-classes; for example, there are adverbs
whose functioning is close to that of conjunctions and prepositions, e.g.: however,
nevertheless, besides, etc. Notional words of broad meaning are similar in their
functioning to the substitutive functioning of the pronouns, e.g.: He speaks
English better than I do; Have you seen my pen? I can’t find the wretched thing.
Together with the regular pronouns they form the stages of the paradigmatic series,
in which the four notional parts of speech are substitutively represented, cf.: one, it,
thing, matter, way… - do, make, act…- such, similar same… - thus, so, there…
The implementation of the field approach to the distribution of words in parts
of speech was formulated by the Russian linguists G. S. Schur and V. G. Admoni.
LECTURE 5
NOUN: GENERAL
План лекции:
1. Noun as the central nominative lexemic unit of language. Categorial meaning of
the noun. Formal characteristics of the noun.
2. Syntactic functions of the noun. The noun as an attribute (“the cannon ball
problem”).
3. Grammatically relevant subclasses of the noun: common and proper, animate
and inanimate, human and non-human, countable and uncountable, concrete
and abstract nouns.
4. The grammatical peculiarities of different groups of nouns. Selectional
syntagmatic combinability of different groups of nouns.
Key terms: part of speech, classes of words (subclasses, supra-classes), semantic
features (categorial meaning), formal features, functional features, homogeneous
(monodifferential) classification, heterogeneous (polydifferential) classification,
syntactico-distributional classification, notional parts of speech, functional parts
of speech, substitutional part of speech, openness/closedness of word classes
The categorial meaning of the noun is “substance” or “thingness”. Nouns
directly name various phenomena of reality and have the strongest nominative
force among notional parts of speech: practically every phenomenon can be
presented by a noun as an independent referent, or, can be substantivized. Nouns
denote things and objects proper (tree), abstract notions (love), various qualities
(bitterness), and even actions (movement). All these words function in speech in
the same way as nouns denoting things proper. Formally, the noun is characterized
by a specific set of word-building affixes and word-building models, which
unmistakably mark a noun, among them: suffixes of the doer (worker, naturalist,
etc.), suffixes of abstract notions (laziness, rotation, security, elegance, etc.),
special conversion patterns (to find – a find), etc. As for word-changing categories,
the noun is changed according to the categories of number (boy-boys), case (boyboy’s), and article determination (boy, a boy, the boy). Formally the noun is also
characterized by specific combinability with verbs, adjectives and other nouns,
introduced either by preposition or by sheer contact. The noun is the only part of
speech which can be prepositionally combined with other words, e.g.: the book of
the teacher, to go out of the room, away from home, typical of the noun, etc. The
most characteristic functions of the noun in a sentence are the function of a subject
and an object, since they commonly denote persons and things as components of
the situation, e.g.: The teacher took the book. Besides, the noun can function as a
predicative (part of a compound predicate), e.g.: He is a teacher; and as an
adverbial modifier, e.g.: It happened last summer. The noun in English can also
function as an attribute in the following cases: when it is used in the genitive case
(the teacher’s book), when it is used with a preposition (the book of the teacher), or
in contact groups of two nouns the first of which qualifies the second (cannon ball,
space exploration, sea breeze, the Bush administration, etc.).
The last case presents a special linguistic problem, which is sometimes
referred to as “the cannon ball problem”. One aspect of the problem can be
formulated in the following way: is it a contact group of two nouns or is the first
word in this phrase an adjective homonymous with a noun? The arguments which
support the former point of view are as follows: the first word in such contexts
does not display any other qualities of the adjective, except for the function (it can
not form the degrees of comparison, it cannot be modified by an adverb, etc.);
besides, sometimes the first noun in such groups is used in the plural, e.g.:
translations editor. An additional argument is purely semantic, cf.: a dangerous
corner – a danger signal; the adjective dangerous describes the thing referred to
by the following noun, so it is possible to ask a question “What kind of …?”, while
the noun danger tells us what the purpose of the signal is, so the possible question
is “What … for?”
Another aspect of “the cannon ball problem” is as follows: can the
components of such contact groups be considered two separate words, or, as some
linguists maintain, is it a kind of a compound word? The arguments which support
the former point of view are as follows: a compound word is a stable, ready-made
lingual unit, fixed in dictionaries, while most “noun + noun” groups are formed
freely in speech; besides, they can be easily transformed into other types of wordcombinations (this type of transformation test is known as “the isolability test”),
e.g., prepositional word-combinations: a cannon ball  a ball for cannon, space
exploration  exploration of space, etc.; compound words as a rule need
additional transformations which explain their “inner form”, or etymological
motivation, e.g.: a waterfall – water of a stream, river, etc., falling straight down
over rocks. So, combinations like space exploration are combinations of two
nouns, the first of which is used as an attribute of the other. They may include
several noun attributes, especially in scientific style texts, e.g.: population density
factor, space exploration programmes, etc.
It must be admitted, though, that with some “noun + noun” wordcombinations, especially if they become widely used and are fixed in dictionaries,
their status becomes mixed, intermediary between a word and a phrase, and this is
reflected by their one-word spelling and changes in accentuation; incidentally, the
lexeme cannonball today is considered a compound word spelled jointly according
to the latest dictionaries.
As with any other part of speech, the noun is further subdivided into
subclasses, or groups, in accord with various particular semantico-functional and
formal features of the constituent words. The main grammatically relevant
subclasses of nouns are distinguished in the following correlations.
On the basis of “type of nomination” proper nouns are opposed to common
nouns. Common nouns present a general name of any thing belonging to a certain
class of things, e.g.: river – any river, boy – any boy, while the proper nouns have
no generalized meaning; they serve as a label, a nickname of a separate individual
being or thing, e.g.: Mississippi, John, New York, etc. This semantic subdivision of
nouns is grammatically manifested through the differences in their formal features
of the category of article determination and of the category of number. The use of
proper nouns in the plural or with the articles is restricted to a limited number of
contexts: normally, one cannot use the plural form of the word New York, though it
is possible to say There are two Lenas in our group, or The Joneses are to visit us.
If proper nouns are used with articles or other determiners and/or in the plural, in
most contexts it signifies their transposition from the group of proper nouns into
the group of common nouns, e.g.: You are my Romeo!; I can’t approve of young
Casanovas like you.
On the basis of “form of existence” of the referents animate nouns are
opposed to inanimate nouns, the former denoting living beings (man, woman,
dog), the latter denoting things and phenomena (tree, table). This semantic
difference is formally exposed through the category of case forms, as animate
nouns are predominantly used in the genitive case, cf.: John’s leg, but the leg of the
table. This subdivision of nouns is semantically closely connected with the
following one.
On the basis of “personal quality” human animate nouns (person nouns),
denoting human beings, or persons, are opposed to non-human (animate and
inanimate) nouns (non-person nouns), denoting all the other referents. This
lexico-semantic subdivision of nouns is traditionally overlooked in practical and
theoretical courses on grammar, but it is grammatically relevant because only
human nouns in English can distinguish masculine or feminine genders, e.g.: man
– he, woman – she, while the non-human nouns, both animate and inanimate, are
substituted by the neuter gender pronoun ‘it’. The exceptions take place only in
cases of transposition of the noun from one group into another, e.g., in cases of
personification, e.g.: the sun - he, the moon - she, etc.
On the basis of “quantitative structure” of the referent countable (variable)
nouns are opposed to uncountable (invariable) nouns, the former denoting
discrete, separate things which can be counted and form discrete multitudes, e.g.:
table – tables, the latter denoting either substances (sugar), or multitudes as a
whole (police), or abstract notions (anger), and some others entities. This
subdivision is formally manifested in the category of number (see Unit 7).
Besides the formal features enumerated above, the semantic differences
between different groups of nouns are manifested through their selectional
syntagmatic combinability; e.g., it is possible to say The dog is sleeping, but
impossible to say *The table is sleeping.
LECTURE 6
VERB: NON-FINITE FORMS (VERBIDS)
План лекции:
1. The category of finitude: finite and non-finite forms of the verb (finites and
verbids). Problematic status of the non-finite forms of the verb in the
classification of parts of speech.
2. Verbids as phenomena of mixed (hybrid, intermediary) nature; their verbal and
non-verbal features.
3. The infinitive as a verbal form of mixed processual-substantive nature and the
basic form of verbal paradigms. Semi-predicative infinitive constructions. The
infinitive as a constituent of modal action representation. The gerund as a
verbal form of mixed processual-substantive nature. The infinitive, the gerund
and the verbal noun: their correlation in expressing processual semantics (the
lexico-grammatical category of processual representation). Semi-predicative
gerundial constructions.
4. The participle as a verbal form of mixed processual-qualitative nature. The
distinctions between two types of participles: participle I (present participle)
and participle II (past participle). Semi-predicative participial constructions.
Functional differences between participle I and the gerund. The problem of verbal “ing-form”; “half-gerund” ( gerundial participle).
Key terms: determination, determiner (lexical or grammatical), definite article,
indefinite article, zero article (meaningful non-use, absence of an article),
identification,
individualization,
classifying
(relative)
generalization,
classification, absolute generalization, abstraction, substitution tests, insertion
tests, contrast tests, omission, lexicalization, situational rules, unique objects,
thematic (old) information and rhematic (new) information, limiting (restricting,
particularizing) and descriptive attributes, the semantic category of “definiteness –
indefiniteness – generalization” (determiners of definiteness, determiners of
indefiniteness, determiners of generalization)
As was mentioned in the previous unit, on the upper level all verbal forms fall
into two major sets: finite and non-finite. The term “finite” is derived from the
Latin term “verbum finitum”, which shows that these words denote actions
developing in time. Non-finite forms of the verb, the infinitive, the gerund,
participle I (present participle) and participle II (past participle), are otherwise
called “verbals”, or “verbids”. The term, introduced by O. Jespersen, implies that
they are not verbs in the proper sense of the word, because they combine features
of the verb with features of other notional parts of speech. Their mixed, hybrid
nature is revealed in all the spheres of the parts-of-speech characterization:
meaning, formal features, and functions. The non-verbal features of verbids are as
follows: they do not denote pure processes, but present them as specific kinds of
substances and properties; they are not conjugated according to the categories of
person and number, have no tense or mood forms; in some contexts they are
combined with the verbs like non-verbal parts of speech; they never function as
independent predicates; their functions are those characteristic for other notional
parts of speech. The verbal features of verbids are as follows: their grammatical
meaning is basically processual; like finites, they do have (at least, most of them
have) aspect and voice forms and verbal combinability with direct objects and
adverbial modifiers; they can express predication in specific semi-predicative
constructions. Thus, verbids can be characterized as intermediary phenomena
between verbs and other non-verbal parts of speech.
The opposition between finite and non-finite forms of verbs expresses the
category of “finitude”. The grammatical meaning, the content of this category is
the expression of verbal predication: the finite forms of the verb render full
(primary, complete, genuine) predication, the non-finite forms render semipredication, or secondary (potential) predication. The formal differential feature is
constituted by the expression of verbal time and mood, which underlie the
predicative function: having no immediate means of expressing time-mood
categorial semantics, the verbids are the weak member of the opposition.
It is interesting to note that historically verbids in English were at first
separate non-verbal nominative forms, but later they were drawn into the class of
verbs by acquiring aspect and voice forms, verbal combinability, etc.
The Infinitive is the most generalized, the most abstract form of the verb,
serving as the verbal name of a process; it is used as the derivation base for all the
other verbal forms. That is why the infinitive is traditionally used as the head word
for the lexicographic entry of the verb in dictionaries.
The infinitive combines verbal features with features of the noun; it is a
phenomenon of hybrid processual-substantive nature, intermediary between the
verb and the noun. It has voice and aspect forms, e.g.: to write, to be writing, to
have written, to be written, to have been written; it can be combined with nouns
and pronouns denoting the subject or the object of the action, and with the
adverbial modifiers, e.g.: for him to write a letter; to write a letter to someone; to
write a letter very carefully. The non-verbal properties of the infinitive are
displayed in its syntactic functions and its combinability. The infinitive performs
all the functions characteristic of the noun – that of a subject, e.g.: To write a letter
was the main thing he had planned for the day; of a predicative, e.g.: The main
thing he had planned for the day was to write a letter; of an object, e.g.: He wanted
to write a letter to her; of an attribute, e.g.: It was the main thing to do; of an
adverbial modifier, e.g.: He stood on a chair in order to reach for the top shelf. In
these functions the infinitive displays substantive combinability with finite verbs.
If the subject of the action denoted by the infinitive is named, in the sentence
it forms a secondary predicative line with the infinitive. Syntactically, semipredicative infinitive constructions may be free or bound to the primary predicative
part of the sentence. The “for + to infinitive” construction in free use (either as a
subject or as any other substantive notional part of the sentence) includes the
infinitive and its own, inner subject, e.g.: For him to be late for the presentation
was unthinkable; I sent the papers in order for you to study them carefully before
the meeting. The constructions known as “complex object with the infinitive” and
“complex subject with the infinitive” (the passive transformation of the complex
object constructions) intersect with the primary predicative part of the sentence: the
inner subject of the secondary predicative part forms either the object or the subject
of the primary predicative part, e.g.: I saw her enter the room; She was seen to
enter the room. The predicative character of the secondary sentence-situation can
be manifested in the transformation of the whole sentence into a composite
syntactic construction, e.g.: I sent the papers in order for you to study them
carefully before the meeting.  I sent the papers so that you could study them
carefully before the meeting; I saw her enter the room.  I saw her when she was
entering the room.
In most cases the infinitive is used with the particle “to”, which is its formal
mark; it is called a “marked infinitive” and can be treated as an analytical form of
the verb. In certain contexts, enumerated in detail in practical grammar text-books,
the infinitive is used without the particle “to” and is called a “bare infinitive”, or
“unmarked infinitive”; the “bare infinitive” is used when it is combined with
functional and semi-functional predicator-verbs to build the analytical forms of the
finite verbs (the “bound” use of the infinitive) in some fixed constructions, etc.,
e.g.: Will you go there? Why not go there? I’d rather stay at home; etc. The
particle, just like any other auxiliary component of analytical forms, can be
separated from the infinitive by an adverbial modifier, e.g.: to thoroughly think
something over. These cases are usually stylistically marked and are known as the
“split infinitive”.
The gerund is another verbid that serves as the verbal name of a process and
combines verbal features with those of a noun; the gerund, like the infinitive, can
be characterized as a phenomenon of hybrid processual-substantive nature,
intermediary between the verb and the noun. It is even closer to the noun, because
besides performing the substantive functions in a sentence like the infinitive, it can
also be modified by an attribute and can be used with a preposition, which the
infinitive can not do, e.g.: Thank you for listening to me; Your careful listening to
me is very much appreciated. The functions of the gerund in the sentence are as
follows - that of a subject, e.g.: Your listening to me is very much appreciated; It’s
no use crying over spilt milk; of a predicative, e.g.: The only remedy for such
headache is going to bed; of an object, e.g.: I love reading; of an attribute, e.g.: He
had a gift of listening; of an adverbial modifier, e.g.: On entering the house I said
“hello”. In these functions the gerund displays nounal combinability with verbs,
adjectives, and nouns, especially in cases of prepositional connections. As for the
verbal features of the gerund, first of all, there is no denying the fact, that its
meaning is basically processual, which is evident when the gerund is compared
with the nouns, cf.: Thank you for helping me. – Thank you for your help; in
addition, the gerund distinguishes some aspect and voice forms, e.g.: writing, being
written, having written, having been written. Like the finites, it can be combined
with nouns and pronouns denoting the subject and the object of the action, and
with modifying adverbs, e.g.: I have made good progress in understanding
English; She burst out crying bitterly; Her crying irritated me.
The verbal features distinguish the gerund from the verbal noun, which may
be homonymous with the indefinite active form of the gerund, but, first, it has no
other verbal forms (passive or perfect); second, cannot take a direct object, but
only prepositional objects like all other nouns, cf.: reading the letters (gerund) –
the reading of the letters (verbal noun); and, third, like most nouns can be used
with an article and in the plural, cf.: my coming (gerund) – his comings and goings
(verbal noun). In the correlation of the three processual-substantive phenomena,
which constitute a continuum of transitions between the verb and the noun – the
infinitive, the gerund, and the verbal noun, the infinitive is the closest to the verb,
as it is more dynamic and possesses fewer substantive features, the gerund is
somewhere in between the two, semantically semi-dynamic, and the verbal noun is
the closest to the noun, semantically static, possessing practically all the features of
normal nouns. They can be treated as the three stages of a lexico-grammatical
category of processual representation which underlies various situation-naming
constructions in the sphere of syntactic nominalization (see Unit 24), cf.: He
helped us.  for him to help us  his helping us  his help to us.
Another difference between the gerund and the infinitive involves the
category of so-called ‘modal representation’: the infinitive, unlike the gerund, has
a certain modal force, especially in the attributive function, e.g.: There was no one
to tell him the truth (= There was no one who could tell him the truth).
The gerund can express secondary predication, when the gerundial sentencepart, or the semi-predicative gerundial construction has its own, separate subject.
The subject of the secondary predicative part of the sentence can be expressed
either by a possessive pronoun or by a noun in the genitive case, if it denotes an
animate referent, e.g.: Mike’s coming back was a total surprise to us; Do you mind
my smoking?; it can also be expressed by a noun in the common case form or an
objective pronoun, e.g.: She said something about my watch being slow. The
gerundial semi-predicative constructions can be used as different notional parts of
a sentence, cf.: Mike’s coming back was a total surprise to us (the subject); Do you
mind my smoking? (object); I couldn’t sleep because of his snoring (adverbial
modifier); The thought of him being in Paris now was frustrating (attribute).
Participle I (present participle) is fully homonymous with the gerund: it is
also an ‘ing-form’ (or, rather, four ‘ing-forms’, cf.: writing, being written, having
written, having been written). But its semantics is different: it denotes processual
quality, combining verbal features with features of the adjective and the adverb;
participle I can be characterized as a phenomenon of hybrid processual-qualifying
nature, intermediary between the verb and the adjective/adverb. The triple nature
of participle I finds its expression in its mixed valency and syntactic functions. The
verb-type combinability of participle I is revealed in its combinations with nouns
denoting the subject and the object of the action, e.g.: her entering the room, with
modifying adverbs and with auxiliary verbs in the analytical forms of the verb; the
adjective-type combinability of participle I is manifested in its combinations with
modified nouns and modifying adverbs of degree, e.g.: an extremely maddening
presence; the adverb-type combinability of the participle is revealed in its
combinations with modified verbs, e.g.: to speak stuttering at every word. In its
free use, participle I can function as a predicative, e.g.: Her presence is extremely
maddening to me; as an attribute, e.g.: The fence surrounding the garden was
newly painted; and as an adverbial modifier, e.g.: While waiting he whistled.
Like any other verbid, participle I can form semi-predicative constructions if it
is combined with the noun or the pronoun denoting the subject of the action; for
example, complex object with participle I, e.g.: I saw her entering the room;
complex subject with participle I (the passive transformation of the complex object
constructions), e.g.: She was seen entering the room. In addition, participle I can
form a detached semi-predicative construction, known as the absolute participial
construction, which does not intersect in any of its components with the primary
sentence part, e.g.: The weather being fine, we decided to take a walk; I won’t
speak with him staring at me like that.
In complex object and complex subject constructions the difference between
the infinitive and participle I lies in the aspective presentation of the process:
participle I presents the process as developing, cf.: I often heard her sing in the
backyard. – I hear her singing in the backyard.
The absolute homonymy of the gerund and participle I has made some
linguists, among them American descriptivists, the Russian linguists V. Y.Plotkin,
L. S. Barkhudarov, and some others, treat them not as two different verbids, but as
generalized cases of substantive and qualitative functioning of one and the same
“ing-form” verbid. Particularly disputable is the status of the semi-predicative
construction, traditionally defined as the “half-gerund” construction, in which the
semantics of the “ing-form” is neither clearly processual-substantive nor
processual-qualifying and it is combined with the noun in the common case form,
e.g.: I remember the boy singing in the backyard.
The dubious cases can be clarified if the gerund and the participle are
distinctly opposed as polar phenomena. In gerundial constructions the semantic
accent is on the substantivized process itself; the nominal character of the verbid
can be shown by a number of tests, for example, by a question-forming test, cf.: I
remember the boy’s singing (his singing). - What do you remember?; the noun
denoting the subject of the action semantically and syntactically modifies the
gerund – Whose singing do you remember? In participial constructions the
semantic emphasis is on the doer of the action, e.g.: I remember him singing. Whom do you remember?; the present participle modifies its subject, denoting
processual quality. In half-gerund constructions the semantic accent is on the event
described, on the situational content with the processual substance as its core, cf.: I
remember the boy singing in the backyard. – What do you remember about the
boy? This case can be treated as the neutralization of the opposition, as a
transferred participle, or a gerundial participle.
In the attributive function, the semantic differences between participle I and
the gerund are unquestionable: the noun modified by participle I denotes the actual
doer of the action, and the participle denotes its processual qualification; the
meaning of the gerund in the attributive function is non-dynamic; the difference
can be demonstrated in the following tests, cf.: a sleeping girl  a girl who is
sleeping (participle I); a sleeping pill  a pill taken to induce sleep (the gerund).
Participle II, like participle I, denotes processual quality and can be characterized
as a phenomenon of hybrid processual-qualifying nature. It has only one form,
traditionally treated in practical grammar as the verbal “third form”, used to build
the analytical forms of the passive and the perfect of finites, e.g.: is taken; has
taken. The categorial meanings of the perfect and the passive are implicitly
conveyed by participle II in its free use, for example, when it functions as a
predicative or an attribute, e.g.: He answered through a firmly locked door
(participle II as an attribute); The room was big and brightly lit (participle II as a
predicative). The functioning of participle II is often seen as adverbial in cases like
the following: When asked directly about the purpose of her visit she answered
vaguely. But such constructions present cases of syntactic compression rather than
an independent participle II used adverbially, cf.: When asked directly  When she
was asked directly… Thus, participle II can be characterized as a verbid combining
verbal features (processual semantics and combinability) with the features of the
adjective.
Like any other verbid, participle II can form semi-predicative constructions if
combined with the inner subject of its own; they include complex object with
participle II, e.g.: I’d like to have my hair cut; We found the door locked; complex
subject with participle II (the passive transformation of the complex object
constructions), e.g.: The door was found firmly locked; and absolute participial
construction with participle II, e.g.: She approached us, head half turned; He
couldn’t walk far with his leg broken.
The meaning of the perfect is rendered by participle II in correlation with the
aspective lexico-grammatical character of the verb: with limitive verbs participle II
denotes priority (“relative past”) while participle I denotes simultaneity (“relative
present”), cf.: burnt leaves (‘the leaves have already been burnt’; relative past) –
burning leaves (‘the leaves are burning now’; relative present); hence the
alternative terms: participle I – present participle, participle II – past participle.
With unlimitive verbs this difference is neutralized and participle II denotes
simultaneity, e.g.: a brightly lit room. In addition, participle I and participle II are
sometimes opposed as the active participle and the passive participle, cf.: the
person asked (passive) – the person asking the question (active); though participle
II also participates in the structural formation of the passive and the perfect of
participle I, e.g.: being asked, having asked. This, together with the other
differential properties, supports the status of participle II as a separate verbid.
LECTURE 7
ADJECTIVE
План лекции:
1. The adjective as a word denoting the property of a substance. Its formal and
functional characteristics.
2. The category of comparison. Synthetical and analytical forms of the degrees of
comparison; the problem of their grammatical status.
3. Absolute and elative superiority. Direct and reverse comparison.
4. Grammatically relevant semantic subclasses of adjectives: qualitative and
relative adjectives.
5. Functional subdivision of adjectives: evaluative and specificative adjectives.
The correlation of the two subdivisions.
6. The problem of “category of state” words. The problem of substantivized
adjectives; full and partial substantivation (adjectivids).
Key terms: property of a substance, category of comparison, degrees of
comparison, positive degree, comparative degree, superlative degree, relative
(restricted) superiority, absolute (unrestricted) superiority, absolute and elative
superiority, direct (positive) and reverse (negative) comparison, qualitative and
relative adjectives, evaluative and specificative semantic functions, ‘category of
state’ words (statives), substantivation (full and partial)
The adjective expresses the categorial meaning of property of a substance, e.g.:
hard work. That means that semantically the adjective is a bound word of partial
nominative value: it can not be used without a word denoting the substance which
it characterizes. Even in contexts where no substance is named, it is presupposed
(implied) or denoted by a substitutive word “one”, e.g.: Red is my favourite
colour; The blouse is a bit small. Have you got a bigger one? When the adjective
is used independently it is substantivized, i.e. it acquires certain features of a noun
(this issue will be addressed later in the Unit).
Adjectives are distinguished by a specific combinability with the nouns which
they modify, with link verbs and with modifying adverbs. The functions
performed by the adjective correlate with their combinability: when combined with
nouns, adjectives perform the function of an attribute (either in preposition to the
noun modified or in post-position if accompanied by adjuncts), e.g.: a suspicious
man; a man suspicious of his wife; when combined with link verbs they perform
the function of a predicative (part of a compound nominal predicate), e.g.: The
man was very suspicious of his wife. Usually, constructions with the attributive and
predicative use of the adjective are easily transformed into each other, as in the
examples given. But there are adjectives that can be used only attributively, e.g.:
joint (venture), main (point), lone (wolf), live (music), daily (magazine), etc.; there
are adjectives that are used only predicatively (usually adjectives denoting states
and relations), e.g.: glad, fond, concerned, etc.; in addition, the predicative or
attributive use may differentiate homonymous adjectives or different lexicosemantic variants of the same adjective, cf.: a certain man - I’m certain that the
report is ready; ill manners – I’m ill.
Formally, adjectives are characterized by a specific set of word-building
affixes, e.g.: hopeful, flawless, bluish, famous, decorative, accurate, inaccurate,
basic, etc. As for word-changing categories, the adjective had a number of
reflective categories in Old English: it agreed with the noun in number, case and
gender; all these forms were lost in the course of historical development and today
the only morphological category of the adjective is the immanent category of
comparison. The category of comparison expresses the quantitative characteristics
of the quality rendered by the adjective, in other words, it expresses the relative
evaluation of the amount of the quality of some referent in comparison with other
referents possessing the same quality. Three forms constitute this category: the
positive degree, the comparative degree, and the superlative degree forms of the
adjective. The basic form, known as the positive degree, has no special formal
mark, e.g.: tall, beautiful; the comparative degree is marked by two kinds of forms;
synthetical forms with the suffix “-er” and analytical forms with the auxiliary
word more, e.g.: taller, more beautiful; the superlative degree is also formed either
synthetically with the help of the grammatical suffix “-est”, or analytically with the
help of the auxiliary word most, e.g.: tallest, most beautiful. The synthetic and
analytical degrees stand in complementary distribution to each other, their choice
is determined by syllabo-phonetic forms of adjectives and is covered in detail in
practical grammar textbooks. Also, there are suppletive forms of the degrees of
comparison, e.g.: bad – worse – worst.
In the plane of content the category of comparison constitutes a gradual ternary
opposition (see Unit 3). To be consistent with the oppositional approach, the
category of comparison can be reduced to two binary oppositions correlated with
each other in a hierarchy of two levels in the following way:
On the upper level the positive degree, as the unmarked member, is
opposed to the comparative and superlative degrees, as the marked forms of the
opposition, denoting the superiority of a certain referent in the property named by
the adjective.The weak member, the positive degree, has a wider range of
meanings: it denotes either the absence of comparison, or equality/inequality in
special constructions of comparison, e.g.: He is tall; He is as tall as my brother;
He is not so tall as my brother. On the lower level the comparative degree is
opposed to the superlative degree. The comparative degree denotes relative, or
restricted superiority, involving a restricted number of referents compared,
normally two, e.g.: He is taller than my brother. The superlative degree denotes
absolute, or unrestricted superiority, implying that all the members of a certain
class of referents are compared and the referent of the word modified by the
adjective possesses the property in question to the highest possible degree, e.g.: He
is the tallest man I’ve ever seen. The superlative degree at this level of the
opposition is the strong member, being more concrete in its semantics
The opposition can be contextually reduced: the superlative degree can be
used instead of the positive degree in contexts where no comparison is meant, to
denote a very high degree of a certain quality intensely presented, cf.: She is a most
unusual woman (She is an extremely unusual woman); It was most generous of you
(It was very generous of you). This kind of grammatical transposition is known as
“the elative superlative”. Thus, the superlative degree is used in two senses: the
absolute superiority (unrestricted superiority) and the elative superiority (a very
high degree of a certain quality). The formal mark of the difference between the
two cases is the possibility of indefinite article determination or the use of the zero
article with the noun modified by the adjective in the superlative degree, e.g.: It
was a most generous gesture; a sensation of deepest regret.
The same grammatical metaphor is used in Russian, cf.: умнейший человек, с
огромнейшим удовольствием, etc.; it must be noted, though, that the Russian
elative superlative is usually expressed by synthetic forms of adjectives, while in
English analytical forms are most often used.
The quantitative evaluation of a quality involves not only an increase in its
amount or its intensity, but also the reverse, its reduction, rendered by the
combination of the adjective with the words less and least, e.g.: important, less
important, least important. These combinations can be treated as specific
analytical forms of the category of comparison: they denote what can be called
“negative comparison”, or “reverse comparison” and are formed with the help of
the auxiliary words less and least; the regular synthetic and analytical forms
denoting an increase in the amount of a quality may be specified as “direct
comparison”, or “positive comparison” forms. Thus, the whole category of
comparison is constituted not by three forms, but by five forms: one positive
degree form (important), two comparative degree forms, direct and reverse (more
important, less important), and two superlative degree forms: direct and reverse
(most important, least important).
The reverse forms of comparison are rarely studied within the category of
comparison; this can be explained, besides purely semantic reasons, by the fact that
reverse comparison has no synthetical forms of expression, and by the fact that the
grammatical meaning of its forms is not idiomatic: the auxiliary word retains its
own lexical meaning. Still, if the analytical means of direct comparison, whose
idiomatism is also weak, are considered to be grammatical forms of the adjectives,
there is no reason to consider the forms of reverse comparison free wordcombination. Adjectives are traditionally divided on the basis of their semantics
into two grammatically relevant subclasses: qualitative and relative adjectives.
Qualitative adjectives denote the qualities of objects as such, e.g.: red, long
beautiful, etc. Relative adjectives denote qualities of objects in relation to other
objects; such adjectives are usually derived from nouns, e.g.: wood – wooden, ice –
icy, etc. The ability to form degrees of comparison is usually treated as the formal
sign of qualitative adjectives, because they denote qualities which admit of
quantitative estimation, e.g.: very long, rather long, not so long, long – longer longest. But this is not exactly the case. First, there are a number of qualitative
adjectives which have no forms of comparison because their own semantics is
either inherently comparative or superlative, or incompatible with the idea of
comparison at all (non-gradable), e.g.: excellent, semi-final, extinct, deaf, etc.
Second, some relative adjectives, when used figuratively, perform the same
semantic function of qualitative evaluation as qualitative adjectives proper and in
such contexts acquire the ability to change their form according to the category of
comparison, cf.: a golden crown: a relative adjective ‘golden’ is used in its primary
meaning – a crown made of gold; golden hair: a relative adjective ‘golden’ is used
in its figurative meaning – hair of the colour of gold; one can say: Her hair is even
more golden than her mother’s hair. On the other hand, a qualitative adjective may
be used in the specificative function as a relative adjective, specifying the property
of some objects in their relations to the other objects, e.g.: a hard disk – the
basically qualitative adjective ‘hard’ in this context specifies the type of the disk in
relation to other types: hard disks - floppy disks. In such cases qualitative
adjectives do not form the degrees of comparison. Thus, the grammatically
relevant subdivision of adjectives should actually be based not on their general
semantics, but on their semantic function: the basic semantic function of qualitative
adjectives is evaluation, and they normally form the degrees of comparison; the
basic semantic function of relative adjectives is specification, and they normally do
not form the degrees of comparison. Still, when used in the evaluative function,
both qualitative and relative adjectives form the degrees of comparison; when used
in the specificative function, neither qualitative, nor relative adjectives form the
degrees of comparison.
Among the words denoting substantive properties there is a set of words
denoting states, mostly temporary states, that are used predominantly in the
predicative function and are united by a common formal mark, the prefix ‘a-’, e.g.:
afraid, afire, alike, etc. (cf.: the suffix ‘-o’ in Russian - холодно, тепло, весело,
etc.) Their part of speech status is rather problematic. Traditionally they are
referred to as “predicative adjectives” or a subtype of adverbs. In Russian
linguistics such linguists as L. V. Scherba, V. V.Vinogradov and others state that
these words constitute a separate class of words, a part of speech called “the
category of state words”, or “statives”; their status as a separate part of speech in
English is supported by B. Ilyish. There are some arguments, though, which may
challenge this point of view.
 Semantically the statives have no categorial meaning of their own: adjectives
denote not just qualities but, as was shown above, properties of substances, and
that includes stative properties too; the statives are not at all unique
semantically, the same meaning can be rendered by regular adjectives, e.g.:
cases alike = similar cases.
 They have the same adverbial combinability and combinability with link verbs
as regular adjectives, e.g.: The cases are absolutely alike.
 The similarity of functions can be demonstrated in coordinative groups of
homogeneous notional sentence parts expressed by statives and regular
adjectives, e.g.: Both cases are very much alike and highly suspicious.
 As with regular adjectives, they can be used in an evaluative function in a
limited number of contexts and can even form the degrees of comparison, e.g.:
These cases are more alike than the others.
 The prefix ‘a-’ can not serve as sufficient grounds for singling out this group of
words in English, because in English there are statives which have no such
prefix, e.g.: sorry, glad, ill, worth, etc. (The suffix ‘-o’ is not a unifying
property of the statives in Russian either, cf.: жаль, лень, etc.)
 Besides, it is a closed set of words and rather a restricted one: there are no more
than 50-80 words in this group; it is not characterized by openness, like all the
other notional parts of speech.
Thus, we can infer that words denoting states, though possessing important
structural and functional peculiarities, are not a separate part of speech, but a
specific subset within the general class of adjectives. At the beginning of this Unit
the possibility of substantivation of adjectives was mentioned: some adjectives can
transgress the border between the two classes and can acquire some features of the
noun. Strictly speaking, substantivation is a type of conversion - a lexical wordbuilding process of zero-derivation. When adjectives are fully substantivized, they
make a new word, a noun, which is connected with the adjective only
etymologically. Conversion of this type often takes place in cases of one-word
ellipsis in stable attributive word-combinations, e.g.: a private  a private soldier,
a native  a native resident. These nouns acquire all the forms of constitutive
substantive categories: number, case, article determination, e.g.: privates, natives,
private’s, native’s, a private, the private, etc. (Cf.: similar substantivation cases in
Russian: рядовой, больной, etc.)
There is also a group of partially substantivized adjectives which are
characterized by mixed (hybrid) lexico-grammatical features: they convey the
mixed adjectival-nounal semantics of property; in a sentence they perform
functions characteristic of nouns; and they have deficient paradigms of number and
article determination (they are not changed according to the category of number
and are combined only with the definite article). They include words denoting
groups of people sharing the same feature – the rich, the beautiful, the English, and
words denoting abstract notions – the unforgettable, the invisible, etc. The former
resemble the pluralia tantum nouns, and the latter the singularia tantum nouns.
They make up a specific group of adjectives marginal to the nouns and can be
called “adjectivids” by analogy with “verbids”. This type of word-building has
become particularly productive in modern English, involving adjectivized past
participles, which exhibit “triply” mixed meanings, e.g.: the newly wed, the
unemployed, etc. And these tend to acquire more and more substantive features in
the course of time, e.g., one can say the newly-weds, or an unemployed.
LECTURE 8
ADVERB
План лекции:
1. The adverb as a word denoting non-substantive property. Its formal and
functional characteristics.
2. The productive model of adverbial derivation (the suffix -ly): the problem of its
lexical and grammatical status. Other structural types of adverbs. The problem
of adverbs derivationally connected with words of other classes by conversion.
3. Grammatically relevant semantic subdivision of adverbs: qualitative,
quantitative and circumstantial adverbs. Their subdivision into notional and
functional (pronominal) adverbs.
4. The degrees of comparison of adverbs in their correlation with the degrees of
comparison of adjectives.
Key terms: non-substantive property, simple adverbs, derived adverbs, compound
adverbs, stable adverbial phrases (composite phrasal adverbs), partially
substantivized adverbs, “fluctuant conversives”, qualitative, quantitative and
circumstantial (orientative) adverbs, “genuine”, or notional (nominal) adverbs
and (semi-) functional (pronominal) adverbs, connective (conjunctive) adverbs,
degree adverbs
The adverb is a notional part of speech denoting, like the adjective, property;
the adjective, as has been outlined in the previous unit, denotes properties of a
substance, and the adverb denotes non-substantive properties: in most cases the
properties of actions (to walk quickly), or the properties of other properties (very
quick), or the properties of the situations in which the processes occur (to walk
again). In other words, the adverb can be defined as a qualifying word of the
secondary qualifying order, while the adjective is a primary qualifying word.
The adverb is the least numerous and the least independent of all the notional
parts of speech; it has a great number of semantically weakened words
intermediary between notional and functional words; this is why its notional part of
speech status was doubted for a long time: the first grammarians listed adverbs
among the particles.
Adverbs are characterized by their combinability with verbs, adjectives and
other adverbs, which they modify. They perform the functions of various
adverbial modifiers: of time (yesterday), place (there), of manner (secretly), etc.
The adverbs which refer to whole situations are defined as situation“determinants”, e.g.: They quarreled again.
There are certain contexts in which adverbs combine with nouns and perform
a peculiar function of mixed adverbial-attributive character, e.g.: the trip abroad,
his return home, the then President of the US, etc. This is the result of the
nominalization of syntactic constructions (see Unit 20) in which the correspondent
adverb functions as a regular adverbial modifier, cf.: his return home  he
returned home; the then President of the US  the person who was the president
of the US then.
In accordance with their form, adverbs are divided into simple and derived.
There are few simple adverbs, most of them are of a functional or semi-functional
character, e.g.: more, very, there, then, here, etc. The characteristic adverbial wordbuilding affixes are the following: simply, clockwise, backward, ahead, etc. The
most productive derivational model of adverbs is the one with the suffix ‘-ly’. It is
so highly productive that practically every adjective has its adverbial counterpart,
e.g.: simple - simply, soft – softly, etc.; some linguists, for example, A. I.
Smirnitsky, consider them to be not adverbs but specific forms of adjectives.
The other structural types are compound adverbs, e.g.: sometimes, downstairs,
etc., and stable adverbial phrases or composite phrasal adverbs, e.g.: upside down,
at least, a great deal of, from time to time, etc.
There are certain controversies among linguists about the status of phrases
like from above, before now, until then, etc. They are sometimes treated as stable
adverbial phrases (phrasal adverbs), but this approach can be challenged, because
the members of such word combinations are not semantically blended into an
indivisible idiomatic unity. More plausible is the following approach: some
adverbs are freely combined with prepositions and, since combinability with
prepositions is characteristic of nouns, they make a peculiar set of partially
substantivized adverbs (“adverbids”), i.e. their lexico-grammatical status is
intermediary between adverbs and nouns. There is a large group of adverbs
homonymous with words of other parts of speech, both notional and functional.
Some adverbs are adjective-stem conversives (zero-derived adverbs), cf.: a hard
work – to work hard, a flat roof – to fall flat into the water, etc. Among the
adjective-stem converted adverbs there are a few words with the non-specific –ly
originally inbuilt in the adjective, cf.: a kindly man – to talk kindly. Since there are
no other differential features except for their positions, these words can be defined
as “fluctuant conversives”.
Some of the zero-derived adverbs coexist with the ‘-ly’-derived adverbs; the
two adverbs are in most cases different in meaning, cf.: to work hard – to work
hardly at all. If their meanings are similar, the two adverbs differ from the point of
view of functional stylistics: adverbs without ‘-ly’ are characteristic for the
American variant of the English language; additionally, there is some research
showing that adverbs without ‘-ly’ are more often used by men than by women, cf.:
He talks real quick - He talks really quickly.
Some adverbs of weakened pronominal semantics are connected by fluctuant
(positional) conversion with functional words; for example, some adverbs are
positionally interchangeable with prepositions and conjunctions, e.g.: before, since,
after, besides, instead, etc. Cf.: We haven’t met since 1996. – We haven’t met since
we passed our final exams. - We met in 1996, and haven’t seen each other ever
since.
Adverbs should not be confused with adverb-like elements, which are
interchangeable with prepositions (and sometimes prefixes) and when placed after
the verb form a semantic blend with it, e.g.: to give – to give up, to give in, to give
away, etc.; to go down the hill - to download, to downplay - to sit down, to bring
down, to bend down, etc. These functional words make a special set of particles;
they are intermediary between the word and the morpheme and can be called
“postpositives”.
Traditionally, adverbs are divided on the basis of their general semantics into
qualitative, quantitative, and circumstantial. The qualitative adverbs denote the
inherent qualities of actions and other qualities; most of them are derived from
qualitative adjectives, e.g.: bitterly, hard, beautifully, well, etc. The quantitative
adverbs show quantity measure; genuine quantitative adverbs are usually derived
from numerals, e.g.: twice, three times, tenfold, manifold, etc. The circumstantial
adverbs denote mainly the circumstances of time and place (they can also be
defined as “orientative”), e.g.: today, here, when, far, ashore, abroad, often, etc.
Taking into consideration various hybrid types of adverbs of weakened
nominative force, it is important to subdivide adverbs on the basis of their semantic
value into the following groups: “genuine”, or notional (nominal) adverbs of full
semantic value and semi-functional (pronominal) adverbs of partial semantic
value. Quantitative adverbs belong to the group of semi-functional adverbs by their
own pronominal (numerical) semantics. Qualitative adverbs include, on the one
hand, genuine qualitative adverbs, e.g.: bitterly, hard, beautifully, well, etc. and on
the other hand, a group of semi-functional words of degree, quality evaluators of
intermediary qualitative-quantitative semantics. The latter include adverbs of high
degree (intensifiers), e.g.: very, greatly, absolutely, pretty, etc.; adverbs of
excessive degree, e.g.: too, awfully, tremendously, etc.; adverbs of unexpected
degree, e.g.: surprisingly, astonishingly, etc.; adverbs of moderate degree, e.g.:
fairly, relatively, rather, etc.; and some other groups. Circumstantial adverbs are
also divided into notional and functional. Notional (genuine) circumstantial
adverbs are self-dependent words denoting time and space orientation, e.g.:
tomorrow, never, recently, late; homeward, ashore, outside, far, etc. The
functional circumstantial adverbs, besides the quantitative (numerical) adverbs
mentioned above, include pronominal adverbs of time, place, manner, cause,
consequence, e.g.: here, when, where, so, thus, nevertheless, otherwise, etc. They
substitute notional adverbs or other words used in the function of adverbial
modifiers in a sentence, cf.: He stayed at school. – He stayed there; many of them
are used as syntactic connectives and question-forming functionals, e.g.: Where is
he? I do not know where he is now.
Thus, the whole class of adverbs can be divided, first, into nominal and
pronominal, then the nominal adverbs can be subdivided into qualitative and
orientative, the former including genuine qualitative adverbs and degree adverbs,
the latter divided into temporal and local adverbs, with further possible
subdivisions of each group.
Like adjectives, adverbs are also subdivided functionally into evaluative and
specificative. When used in their evaluative function, adverbs (qualitative adverbs,
predominantly) distinguish the category of comparison and have five
morphological forms: one positive, two comparative (direct and reverse) and two
superlative (direct and reverse), e.g.: bitterly – more bitterly, less bitterly – most
bitterly, least bitterly. Their superlative degree form can also be used either in the
absolute sense (to denote absolute superiority) or in the elative sense, denoting a
high degree of the property, e.g.: The youngest kid cried most bitterly of all. – The
kid cried most bitterly. When used in the specificative function, adverbs are
unchangeable, e.g.: We meet today; We came ashore.
LECTURE 9
SYNTAX OF THE PHRASE. SYNTAGMATIC CONNECTIONS OF
WORDS
План лекции:
1. The phrase as a polynominatlve lingual unit. The correlation of the phrase and
the word, of the phrase and the sentence. Syntax of the phrase as ‘minor syntax’
in relation to syntax of the sentence as ‘major syntax’.
2. The problem of definition of the phrase. Notional, formative and functional
phrases. Free and set phrases.
3. Equipotent and dominational connections between the phrase constituents.
Equipotent consecutive (coordinative proper) and equipotent cumulative
connections.
4. Syndetic and asyndetic connections.
5. Dominational consecutive (subordinative proper) and dominational cumulative
connections. The kernel and the adjunct of a subodinative phrase. Domination
realization by different forms of the word (categorial agreement, government),
connective words (prepositional government), or word order (adjoining,
enclosure).
6. The problem of bilateral dominational connections in predicative combinations
of words (of a subject and a predicate). The classification of phrases according
to part-of-speech, functional and positional criteria.
Key terms:
phrase, word-combination, syntagmatic groupings of words,
polynominative lingual unit, polydenoteme (monodenoteme), ‘minor syntax’,
‘major syntax’, notional phrase, formative phrase, functional phrase, equipotent
(paratactic) and dominational (hypotactic) connections, consecutive equipotent
(coordinative proper) and cumulative equipotent connections, dominational
consecutive (subordinative proper) and dominational cumulative connections,
kernel (kernel element, key word, head word), adjunct (adjunct word, expansion),
monolateral (one-way) domination, bilateral (reciprocal, two-way) domination,
agreement, government (prepositional and non-prepositional), adjoining,
enclosure, interdependence, regressive and progressive phrases
The main object of study in syntax is the communicative unit of the language,
the sentence. The phrase is the syntactic unit used as a notional part of a sentence.
As a level-forming unit (see Unit 1), it is characterized by some common and some
differential features with the unit of the lower level, the word, and the unit of the
upper level, the sentence. Like the word, the phrase is a nominative unit, but it
provides a complex nomination of the referent, a polynomination consisting of
several (at least two) nominative components, presenting the referent as a
complicated phenomenon, cf.: a girl – a beautiful girl; a decision – his unexpected
decision; etc. Moreover, the regular free phrase does not enter speech as a readymade unit like the word; it is freely formed in speech, like the sentence according
to a certain grammatical pattern. As for the fixed word-combinations, idioms, they
are closer to the word in the type of nomination: they are ready-made units fixed in
dictionaries and studied mainly by lexicology.
The basic difference between the phrase and the sentence is as follows: the
phrase cannot express full predication, even if it denotes a situation; this becomes
obvious in their mutual transformations, for example, in the so-called
phrasalization, or nominalization of the sentence, cf.: They considered the problem.
– their consideration of the problem; for them to consider the problem; their
considering of the problem. Thus, the phrase enters speech only as a constituent of
a sentence, as “a denoteme” (see Unit 1), to be more exact, as “a polydenoteme” as
contrasted with the word, which enters a sentence as “a monodenoteme”. The
grammatical description of the phrase is seen as a separate part of syntax, the
syntax of the phrase; it is sometimes called “minor syntax”, in distinction to “major
syntax”, studying the sentence and its textual connections.
The definition of the phrase is rather a controversial issue. In Russian
linguistics, the narrow approach, which was put forward by V. V. Vinogradov,
traditionally prevails: only a combination of two notional words, one of which
dominates the other, is considered a word-combination. A much broader approach
was proposed by Leonard Bloomfield and it is shared by many modern linguists.
One of the leading specialists in this field, V. V. Burlakova, defines a wordcombination as any syntactically organized group of syntagmatically connected
words; this includes combinations of functional and notional words, and
predicative and coordinative combinations of words. Critical revision of these two
approaches is possible on the basis of the above given description of the phrase
(the phraseme) as a separate lingual unit.
Defining the phrase as a polynominative lingual unit helps reveal the status of
notional phrases, semantically independent (“autosemantic”) combinations of
notional words, as the basic type of phrasemes. Besides notional phrases (phrases
proper), two other structural types of syntagmatic groupings of words can be
distinguished, which can be defined as phrases or word-combinations only in form:
formative phrases and functional phrases. The formative phrase is a combination
of a notional word with a functional word, which is contextually dependent
(“synsemantic”) and functionally similar to separate notional words used in various
grammatical forms, e.g.: of Peter (= Peter’s); in a moment, without doubt, etc.
Functional phrases are combinations of functional words similar to regular
functional words, e.g.: apart from, as soon as, with reference to, must be able, etc.
Notional phrases are subdivided into different types, which reveal various
grammatical and semantic properties of the phrase constituents and the phrase in
general.
On the basis of constituent rank, the groupings of notional words are
subdivided into dominational (hypotactic) and equipotent (paratactic). The
constituents of equipotent phrases are of equal syntactic rank; none of them
modifies another, e.g.: poor but honest; mad, bad and dangerous; his, not Mary’s;
etc. As these examples show, the syntactic connections in equipotent phrases can
be realized with the help of a coordinative conjunction or without any connecting
element involved; the former are called “syndetic” connections, the latter
“asyndetic” connections. In the above examples, the phrase constituents form
logically consecutive connections, which are defined as “coordinative”. Entering
the structure of the sentence, constituents of coordinative phrases function as
homogeneous notional parts of the sentence, e.g.: He is mad, bad and dangerous
(mad, bad and dangerous are homogeneous predicatives). Besides coordinative
phrases, there are phrases in which the sequential element, although connected
with the foregoing element by a coordinative conjunction, is unequal to it in the
character of nomination, e.g.: came, but late; agreed, or nearly so; etc. Such
formally equipotent phrases of a non-consecutive type are defined as
“cumulative”. Cumulative connection in writing is usually signaled by some
intermediary punctuation mark, such as a comma or a hyphen. The term
“cumulation” is commonly used to denote connections between separate sentences;
so, cumulative connections between words can be defined as “inner cumulation” in
distinction to the “outer cumulation” of sentences.
In dominational phrases, one word modifies another. The principal constituent,
which dominates the other constituent syntactically, is called the kernel, the keyword, or the head word; the subordinate (dominated) constituent, which modifies
the kernel, is called the adjunct, the adjunct-word, or the expansion. For example,
in the word-combination a beautiful girl the word ‘a girl’ is the kernel, and
‘beautiful’ is the adjunct. Dominational connection, like equipotent connection,
can be both consecutive and cumulative, cf.: definitely off the point (consecutive
domination) – off the point, definitely (cumulative domination). Logically
consecutive dominational connections are defined as “subordinative”.
Dominational connection is achieved by different forms of the word
(categorial agreement, government), connective words (prepositions, i.e.
prepositional government), or word order (adjoining, enclosure). Agreement takes
place when the subordinate word assumes a form similar to the form of the kernel,
e.g.: this boy, these boys; the child plays, the children play; in English, words
agree only in number in some grammatical contexts. Government takes place when
a certain form of adjunct is required by its head-word, but it does not coincide with
the form of the head word, e.g.: to see him; to talk to him. Adjoining involves no
special formal mark of dependence between constituents; words are combined by
sheer contact, e.g.: to go home. Enclosure takes place in phrases in which the
subordinate word is placed between two parts of an analytical head-word form,
e.g.: to thoroughly think over, the then government, an interesting question, etc.
Domination achieved by the form of the word, through agreement or government,
is important for inflectional languages; in English, it is the remnant of the old
inflectional system as in the cases shown above. Phrases in which the connections
are expressed by prepositions only or word-order are predominant in English.
The two basic types of dominational connections are bilateral (reciprocal,
two-way) domination and monolateral (one-way) domination. The connections in
most of the examples above are monolateral dominational; the kernel dominates
the adjunct: this boy, to talk to him, a beautiful girl, etc. Bilateral domination is
realized in predicative connections of words, which may be either fully predicative,
or semi-predicative, e.g.: the pupil understands, the pupil’s understanding, the
pupil understanding, for the pupil to understand. In predicative groupings of words
the subject dominates the predicate, determining the person of predication;
formally, domination is manifested by the reflection of the person and number
properties of the subject in the form of the verb performing the function of a
predicate. The predicate dominates the subject, determining the event of
predication, some action, state, or quality; in the transformation of nominalization
the transform of the predicate occupies the position of the head-word, while the
subject becomes its adjunct, cf.: he decided  his decision.
Some linguists challenge the idea of “a predicative word-combination”,
arguing that predication can be expressed only by the sentence. Still, there is no
arguing with the fact, that the groupings of words which constitute the predicative
line in the sentence, predicative sintagmas, are to be distinguished as a specific
type, because bilateral domination is a specific type of syntagmatic connections of
words; to avoid disagreements, L. Hjelmslev suggests the term “interdependence”
to denote the connections between the constituents of bilateral dominational
phrases.
Thus, there are four basic types of syntagmatic connections of words
distinguished in their syntactic groupings: coordination (consecutive equipotent
connection), subordination (consecutive dominational connection), predication, or
interdependence (bilateral dominational connection) and cumulation (inner
cumulation). Besides the classification of word groupings on the basis of the major
syntagmatic connections outlined above, there are further subdivisions and
generalizations, and other approaches possible in the description of the phrase. The
traditional classification of phrases is based on the part-of-speech characteristics of
their constituents (on the part of speech of the kernel in dominational phrases);
there are noun phrases (NP), e.g.: a beautiful girl; men, women and children;
verbal phrases (VP), e.g.: went home; came and went; adjective phrases (AP), e.g.:
quite unexpected; nice and quiet; adverbial phrases (DP), e.g.: quite unexpectedly.
On the base of kernel-adjunct relations, subordinative phrases can be divided into
those with objective connections (direct objective and indirect objective) and
qualifying connections (attributive and adverbial), e.g.: to see a child (direct
objective); put on the table (indirect objective); a beautiful girl (attributive); came
soon (adverbial). On the base of the position of the adjunct in relation to the kernel,
subordinative phrases are characterized as regressive or progressive: in regressive
phrases, the adjunct precedes the kernel, e.g.: a beautiful girl; in progressive
phrases, the adjunct follows the kernel, e.g.: came home.
The phrase, like any other lingual unit consisting of several components, can be
analyzed in a linear way or in a hierarchical way, in an immediate constituents
analysis, which shows the levels of dependences between its components.
LECTURE 10
SENTENCE: GENERAL
План лекции:
1. The sentence as the main unit of syntax. The sentence as a communicative unit.
2. Predication as a fundamental distinguishing feature of the sentence. Nominative
aspect of the sentence in correlation with its predicative aspect. Predication as
syntactic modality. The means of expressing predication.
3. Intonational arrangement of the sentence. The sentence in the system of
language: the notion of sentence pattern (its generalized syntactic model).
4. Nominative aspect in the correlation of the sentence and the word, of the
sentence and the phrase; nominalization of the sentence.
Key terms: predicative lingual unit, predication (syntactic modality), double
nominative-predicative nature, the category of modality, nominalization, ‘actants’,
‘circonstants’, intonational arrangement, sentence models (generalized sentence
patterns), utterance, nominative (syntactic, grammatical) division of the sentence,
proposition, nominative parts (members) of the sentence
The sentence, as has been mentioned, is the central object of study in
syntax. It can be defined as the immediate integral unit of speech built up by words
according to a definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a contextually
relevant communicative purpose.
The correlation of the word and the sentence shows some important
differences and similarities between these two main level-forming lingual units.
Both of them are nominative units, but the word just names objects and
phenomena of reality; it is a purely nominative component of the word-stock,
while the sentence is at the same time a nominative and predicative lingual unit:
it names dynamic situations, or situational events, and at the same time reflects
the connection between the nominal denotation of the event, on the one hand,
and objective reality, on the other hand, showing the time of the event, its being
real or unreal, desirable or undesirable, etc. A sentence can consist of only one
word, as any lingual unit of the upper level can consist of only one unit of the
lower level, e.g.: Why? Thanks. But a word making up a sentence is thereby
turned into an utterance-unit expressing various connections between the
situation described and actual reality. So, the definition of the sentence as a
predicative lingual unit gives prominence to the basic differential feature of the
sentence as a separate lingual unit: it performs the nominative signemic
function, like the word or the phrase, and at the same time it performs the
reality-evaluating, or predicative function.
Another difference between the word and the sentence is as follows: the
word exists in the system of language as a ready-made unit, which is reproduced
in speech; the sentence is produced each time in speech, except for a limited
number of idiomatic utterances. The sentence belongs primarily to the sphere of
speech; earlier logical and psychological oriented grammar treated the sentence
as a portion of the flow of words of one speaker containing a complete thought.
Being a unit of speech, the sentence is distinguished by a relevant
intonation: each sentence possesses certain intonation contours, including
pauses, pitch movements and stresses, which separate one sentence from another
in the flow of speech and, together with various segmental means of expression,
participate in rendering essential communicative-predicative meanings (for
example, interrogation).
But, as was outlined at the beginning of the course, speech presents only
one aspect of language in the broad sense of the term, which dialectically combines
the system of language, language proper (“langue”), and the immediate realization
of it in the process of intercourse, speech proper (“parole”). The sentence as a unit
of communication also includes two sides inseparably connected with each other:
fixed in the system of the language are typical models, generalized sentence
patterns, which speakers follow when constructing their own utterances in actual
speech. The number of actual sentences, or utterances, is infinite; the number of
“linguistic sentences” or sentence patterns in the system of language is definite,
and they are the object of study in grammar. The definition of the category of
predication is similar to the definition of the category of modality, which also
shows a connection between the named objects and actual reality. However,
modality is a broader category, revealed not only in grammar, but in the lexical
elements of language; for example, various modal meanings are expressed by
modal verbs (can, may, must, etc.), by word-particles of specifying modal
semantics (just, even, would-be, etc.), by semi-functional modal words and phrases
of subjective evaluation (perhaps, unfortunately, by all means, etc.) and by other
lexical units. Predication can be defined as syntactic modality, expressed by the
sentence.
The center of predication in the sentence is the finite form of the verb, the
predicate: it is through the finite verb’s categorial forms of tense, mood, and voice
that the main predicative meanings, actual evaluations of the event, are expressed.
L. Tesnière, who introduced the term “valency” in linguistics, described the verbal
predicate as the core around which the whole sentence structure is organized
according to the valencies of the predicate verb; he subdivided all verbal
complements and supplements into so-called “actants”, elements that identify the
participants in the process, and “circonstants”, or elements that identify the
circumstances of the process. Besides the predicate, other elements of the sentence
also help express predication: for example, word order, various functional words
and, in oral speech, intonation. In addition to verbal time and mood evaluation, the
predicative meanings of the sentence include the purpose of communication
(declaration – interrogation – inducement), affirmation and negation and other
meanings (see Unit 24).
As the description above shows, predication is the basic differential feature
of the sentence, but not the only one. There is a profound difference between the
nominative function of the word and the nominative function of the sentence. The
nominative content of a syntagmatically complete average sentence, called a
proposition, reflects a processual situation, an event that includes a certain process
(actional or statal) as its dynamic center, the agent of the process, the objects of the
process, and various conditions and circumstances of the realization of the process.
The situation, together with its various elements, is reflected through the
nominative parts (members) of the sentence, distinguished in the traditional
grammatical or syntactic division of the sentence, which can also be defined as its
nominative division. No separate word, no matter how many stems it consists of,
can express the situation-nominative semantics of a proposition.
To some extent, the nomination of situational events can be realized by expanded
substantive or nominal phrases. Between the sentence and the substantive phrase of
situational semantics direct transformations are possible; the transformation of a
sentence into a nominal phrase is known as “nominalization”, e.g.: His father
arrived unexpectedly  his father’s unexpected arrival, the unexpected arriving of
his father, etc. When a sentence is transformed into a substantive phrase, or
“nominalized”, it loses its processual-predicative character. This, first, supports
once again the idea that the content of the sentence is a unity of two mutually
complementary aspects: of the nominative aspect and the predicative aspect; and,
second, this specifies the definition of predication: predication should be
interpreted not simply as referring the content of the sentence to reality, but as
referring the nominative content of the sentence to reality.
LECTURE 11
ACTUAL DIVISION OF THE SENTENCE
План лекции:
1. The notion of actual division of the sentence (informative perspective of the
sentence). The components of actual division: the theme, the rheme, the
transition.
2. The connection of the actual division of the sentence with the logical analysis
of the proposition (logical subject and logical predicate); their correlation with
the subject and the predicate in the syntactic structure of a sentence.
3. Direct (unspeclalized, unmarked) and inverted (reverse, specialized, marked)
actual division. Actual division of the sentence and context.
4. Lingual means of expressing actual division of the sentence: word order
patterns, constructions with introducers, syntactic patterns of contrastive
complexes, constructions with articles and other determiners, constructions with
intensifying particles, intonation contours.
Key terms: informative value, informative perspective, actual division (functional
analysis, communicative analysis), theme (“basis”, starting point of
communication), rheme (“nucleus”, communicative centre, “peak” of
communication), transition (subrheme, secondary rheme), logical analysis of
proposition (logical subject, logical predicate), direct (unspecialized, unmarked)
actual division, inverted (reverse, specialized, marked) actual division, inverted
word order, rhematic (logical) accent, elliptical sentence
As has been mentioned, besides the nominative aspect of the semantics of the
sentence, which reflects the situation named with its various components, the
sentence expresses predicative semantics, which reflects various relations between
the nominative content of the sentence and reality. One of the first attempts to
analyze linguistically the contextually relevant communicative semantics of the
sentence was undertaken by the scholars of the Prague Lingistic Circle at the
beginning of the 20th century. The Czech linguist Vilém Mathesius was the first to
describe the informative value of different parts of the sentence in the actual
process of communication, making the informative perspective of an utterance and
showing which component of the denoted situation is informationally more
important from the point of view of the speaker. By analogy with the grammatical,
or nominative division of the sentence the idea of the so-called “actual division” of
the sentence was put forward. This linguistic theory is known as the functional
analysis of the sentence, the communicative analysis, the actual division analysis,
or the informative perspective analysis. The main components of the actual
division of a sentence are the theme and the rheme. The theme (originally called
“the basis” by V. Mathesius) is the starting point of communication, a thing or a
phenomenon about which something is reported in the sentence; it usually contains
some old, “already known” information. The rheme (originally called “the
nucleus” by V. Mathesius) is the basic informative part of the sentence, its
contextually relevant communicative center, the “peak” of communication, or the
information reported about the theme; it usually contains some new information.
There may be transitional parts of actual division of various degrees of informative
value, neither purely thematic, nor rhematic; they can be treated as a secondary
rheme, the “subrhematic” part of a sentence; this part is called “a transition” (this
idea was put forward by another scholar of the Prague Linguistic Circle, J. Firbas).
For example: Again Charlie is late. – Again (transition) Charlie (theme) is late
(rheme). The rheme is the obligatory informative component of a sentence, there
may be sentences which include only the rheme; the theme and the transition are
optional.
The theory of actual division of the sentence is connected with the logical
analysis of the proposition. The principal parts of the proposition are the logical
subject and the logical predicate; these two parts correlate with the theme and the
rheme of the sentence respectively. Logical analysis deals with the process of
thinking and the actual division reveals the corresponding lingual means of
rendering the informative content in the process of communication.
The logical subject and the logical predicate, like the theme and the rheme,
may or may not coincide, respectively, with the subject and the predicate of the
sentence. When the actual division of the sentence reflects the natural flow of
thinking directed from the starting point of communication to its semantic core,
from the logical subject to the logical predicate, the theme precedes the rheme and
this type of actual division is called “direct”, “unspecialized”, or “unmarked”. In
English, with its fixed word order, direct actual division means that the theme
coincides with the subject (or the subject group) in the syntactic structure of the
sentence, while the rheme coincides with the predicate (the predicate group) of the
sentence, as in Charlie is late. - Charlie (theme) is late (rheme). In some sentences,
the rheme may be expressed by the subject and it may precede the theme, which is
expressed by the predicate, e.g.: Who is late today? – Charlie (rheme) is late
(theme). This type of actual division is called “inverted”, “reverse”, “specialized”,
or “marked”. The last example shows that actual division of the sentence finds its
full expression only in a concrete context of speech (therefore it is sometimes
referred to as the “contextual” division of the sentence). The close connection of
the actual division of the sentence with the context, which makes it possible to
divide the informative parts of the communication into those “already known” by
the listener and those “not yet known”, does not mean that the actual division is a
purely semantic factor. There are special formal lingual means of expressing the
distinction between the meaningful center of the utterance, the rheme, and the
starting point of its content, the theme. They are as follows: word order patterns,
constructions with introducers, syntactic patterns of contrastive complexes,
constructions with articles and other determiners, constructions with intensifying
particles, and intonation contours.
The connection between word order and actual division has been described
above: direct actual division usually means that the theme coincides with the
subject in the syntactic structure of the sentence, while the rheme coincides with
the predicate. Inverted word order can indicate inverted actual division, though the
correlation is not obligatory. For example: (There was a box.) Inside the box was a
microphone; the adverbial modifier of place at the beginning of the sentence
expresses the theme, while the subject at the end of the utterance is the rheme; the
word order in this sentence is inverted, though its actual division is direct.
Reversed order of actual division, i.e. the positioning of the rheme at the beginning
of the sentence, is connected with emphatic speech, e.g.: Off you go! What a nice
little girl she is!
Constructions with the introducer ‘there’ identify the subject of the sentence
as the rheme, while the theme (usually it is an adverbial modifier of place) is
shifted to the end of the utterance, e.g.: There is a book on the table. The actual
division of such sentences is reverse without any emotive connotations expressed.
Cf.: The book is on the table; in this sentence both the word order and the actual
division are direct: the subject is the theme of the sentence.
Emphatic identification of the rheme expressed by various nominative parts of
the sentence (except for the predicate) is achieved by constructions with the
anticipatory ‘it’, e.g.: It is Charlie who is late; It was back in 1895 that Popov
invented radio.
The opposed nominative parts of the sentence are marked as rhematic in
sentences with contrastive complexes, e.g.: Charlie, not John, is absent today.
Articles and other determiners, in accord with their either identifying or
generalizing semantics, are used to identify the informative part “already known“,
the theme (definite determiners) or the “not yet known” information, the rheme
(indefinite determiners). E.g.: The man (theme) appeared unexpectedly. – A man
(rheme) appeared. But this correlation is not obligatory, because the theme is not
always the information already known; it may be something about which certain
information is given, so, the indefinite article may be used with the theme too, e.g.:
A voice called Mary.
Various intensifying particles, such as only, just, merely, namely, at least,
rather than, even, precisely, etc., identify the nominative part of the sentence
before which they are used as the rheme, e.g.: Only Charlie is late today. Similar is
the function of the intensifying auxiliary verb ‘do’, which turns the predicate into
the rheme of the sentence, while the rest of the predicate group is turned into the
transition or even the theme, e.g.: I did help your sister (cf.: I helped your sister).
The major lingual means of actual division of the sentence is intonation,
especially the stress which identifies the rheme; it is traditionally defined as
“logical accent” or “rhematic accent”. Intonation is universal and inseparable from
the other means of actual division described above, especially from word-order
patterns: in cases of direct actual division (which make up the majority of
sentences) the logical stress is focused on the last notional word in the sentence in
the predicate group, identifying it as the informative center of the sentence; in
cases of reverse actual division, the logical stress may indicate the rheme at the
beginning of the utterance, e.g.: Charlie (theme) is late (logical accent, rheme). Charlie (logical accent, rheme) is late (theme). In written speech the logical accent
is represented by all the other rheme-identifying lingual means, which indicate its
position directly or indirectly. They can be technically supported by special
graphical means of rheme-identification, such as italics, bold type, underlinings,
etc.
As has been mentioned, actual division of the sentence finds its full
expression only in a concrete context of speech, but this does not mean that the
context should be treated as the factor which makes the speaker arrange the
informative perspective of the sentence in a particular way. On the contrary, the
actual division is an active means of expressing functional meanings and it is not
so much context-governed as it is context-governing: it builds up concrete contexts
out of constructional sentence models chosen to reflect different situations and
events (see Unit 29). Contextual relevance of actual division is manifested, in
particular, in cases of contextual ellipsis; the elliptical sentence normally contains
the most important part of the information, the rheme, while the theme is omitted,
e.g.: Who is late today? – Charlie (Charlie is late today).
LECTURE 12
COMMUNICATIVE TYPES OF SENTENCES
План лекции:
1. The notion of the communicative type of the sentence. The basic
communicative types of sentences: declarative, interrogative, and imperative.
Response as the indicator of the communicative purpose of the sentence; the
classification of utterance types by Ch. Fries.
2. Actual division of sentences of different communicative types. The problem of
the exclamatory sentence type: exclamation as the accompanying
communicative feature of the sentence. The status of “purely exclamatory
sentences”.
3. Intermediary (mixed) communicative types of sentences: interrogativedeclarative, imperative-declarative, declarative-interrogative, imperativeinterrogative,
declarative-imperative,
and
interrogative-imperative.
Intermediary communicative types of sentences as the means of expressing various stylistic connotations.
4. The pragmatic aspect of the communicative types of the sentence; classification
of speech acts by J. Austin and J. R. Searle.
Key terms: purpose of communication, declarative, interrogative and imperative
communicative types (expressing statements, questions and inducements), type of
response, non-communicative utterances, exclamation, exclamatory sentence, open
(zero) rheme, pronominal (special) questions, non-pronominal questions,
alternative rheme, explicit alternative (alternative proper) and implicit alternative
(general) questions, basic (cardinal) and intermediary (mixed) communicative
types, indirect questions, rhetorical questions, polite requests, “theory of speech
acts”, pragmatic utterance types (performatives, constatives, promissives, etc.),
indirect speech acts
The sentence is above all a communicative unit; therefore, the primary
classification of sentences is based on the communicative principle, traditionally
defined as “the purpose of communication”. According to the purpose of
communication, sentences are subdivided into declarative, interrogative and
imperative. Declarative sentences are traditionally defined as those expressing
statements, either affirmative or negative, e.g.: He (didn’t) shut the window.
Imperative sentences express inducements of various kinds (orders or requests);
they may also be either affirmative or negative, e.g.: (Don’t) Shut the window,
please. Interrogative sentences express questions, or requests for information, e.g.:
Did he shut the window?
There have been attempts to refute this traditional classification of
communicative sentence types and to introduce a new one. For example, Charles
Fries suggested classifying all the utterances not on the basis of their own
semantics, but on the kind of responses which they elicit, or according to their
external characteristics. He distinguished, first, utterances which are followed by
oral responses (greetings, calls, questions, etc.); second, utterances followed by
action responses (requests or commands); and third, utterances which elicit signals
of attention to further conversation (statements); additionally, he distinguished a
minor group of utterances, which are not directed to any interlocutor in particular
and presuppose no response (“non-communicative utterances”, e.g., interjectional
outcries).
Fries’s classification does not refute the traditional classification of
communicative sentence types, but rather confirms and specifies it: the purpose of
communication inherent in the addressing sentence is reflected in the listener’s
response. Therefore, the two approaches can be combined in the descriptions of
each type of sentence according to their inner and outer communicative features:
declarative sentences are defined as sentences which express statements and can be
syntagmatically connected with the listener’s signals of attention (his or her
appraisal, agreement, disagreement, etc.), e.g.: He didn’t shut the window. - Oh,
really?; imperative sentences express inducements, situationally connected with
the listener’s actions or verbal agreement/disagreement to perform these actions,
e.g.: Shut the window, please. – OK, I will; interrogative sentences express requests
for information and are syntagmatically connected with answers, e.g.: Did he shut
the window? – Yes, he did. The other types utterances distinguished by Fries are
minor intermediary communicative types of sentences: greetings make up the
periphery of the declarative sentence type as statements of good will at meeting
and parting; calls can be treated as the periphery of the inducement sentence type,
as requests for attention; “non-communicative” utterances are excluded from the
general category of the sentence as such, because they lack major constituent
features of sentences (see Unit 23).
Further distinctions between the three cardinal types of sentences may be
revealed in the light of the actual division of the sentence: each communicative
sentence type is distinguished by its specific actual division features, especially,
the nature of the rheme.
The strictly declarative sentence immediately expresses a certain proposition,
and the actual division of the declarative sentence presents itself in the most
developed and complete form: the rheme of the declarative sentence provides the
immediate information that constitutes the informative center of the sentence in
opposition with its thematic part, e.g.: He (theme) shut the window (rheme).
The strictly imperative sentence does not express any statement of fact, i.e.
any proposition proper. It is only based on a proposition, without formulating it
directly, e.g.: Let him shut the window (He hasn’t shut the window). Thus, the
rheme of the imperative sentence expresses the informative nucleus not of an
explicit proposition, but of an inducement, an action wanted, required, necessary,
etc. (or, unwanted, unnecessary, etc.). Due to the communicative nature of the
inducement addressed to the listener, the theme of the imperative sentence may be
omitted or may take the form of an address, e.g.: Shut the window, please; Tom,
shut the window.
The rheme of the interrogative sentence is informationally open: it is an
informative gap, which is to be filled by the answer. This rhematic “zero” in
pronominal (“special”) questions is expressed by an interrogative pronoun, which
is substituted by the actual information wanted in the answer, e.g.: Who shut the
window? – Tom (did). The interrogative pronoun in the question and the rheme of
the answer make up the rhematic unity in the question-answer construction. The
openness of the rheme in non-pronominal questions consists in the alternative
semantic suggestions from which the listener has to choose the appropriate one.
The semantic choice is explicit in the structure of alternative questions, e.g.: Did he
or his friend shut the window? The rheme of non-pronominal questions requiring
either confirmation or negation (“general” question of yes-no response type) is
implicitly alternative, implying the choice between the existence or non-existence
of an indicated fact (true to life or not true to life?), e.g.: Did he shut the window? –
Yes, he did (No, he didn’t). The thematic part of the answer, being expressed in the
question, is easily omitted, fully or partially, as the examples show. Traditionally,
the so-called exclamatory sentence is distinguished as one more communicative
type of sentence. Exclamatory sentences are marked by specific intonation patterns
(represented by an exclamation mark in written speech), word-order and special
constructions with functional-auxiliary words, rendering the high emotional
intensity of the utterance. But these regular grammatical features can not be treated
as sufficient grounds for placing the exclamatory sentences on the same level as
the three cardinal communicative types of sentences. In fact, each cardinal
communicative type, declarative, imperative or interrogative, may be represented
in its exclamatory, emotionally coloured variant, as opposed to a non-exclamatory,
unemotional variant, cf.: She is a nice little girl – What a nice little girl she is!;
Open the door. – For God’s sake, open the door!; Why are you late? – Why on
earth are you late?! Exclamation is actually an accompanying feature of the three
cardinal communicative types of sentences, which discriminates emotionally
intense constructions from emotionally neutral ones at the lower level of analysis,
but it does not constitute a separate communicative type.
As for so-called “purely exclamatory sentences”, such as My God!; Goodness
gracious!; etc., as was mentioned earlier, they are not sentences in the proper sense
of the term: though they occupy isolated positions like separate utterances in
speech and resemble regular sentences in written representation, these interjectiontype outcries do not render any situational nomination or predication and they
possess no informative perspective. They can be defined as “non-sentential
utterances” which serve as symptoms of emotional reactions; they are also treated
as “pseudo-sentences”, “sentence-substitutes” or “non-communicative utterances”
(according to Ch. Fries).
Besides the three cardinal monofunctional communicative types of sentences,
there is a number of constructional sentence models of intermediary, mixed
communicative character. The transfer of certain communicative features from one
communicative type of sentence to another can be observed in correlations of all
three cardinal communicative types, i.e. in statement – question, statement –
inducement, and inducement – question correlations.
So-called indirect questions have the form of a declarative sentence, but
actually express a request for information, e.g.: I wonder who shut the window (cf.:
Who shut the window?). An answer is expected, as with a regular question, e.g.: I
wonder who shut the window. – Tom did; the response supports the mixed
communicative character of this sentence type. Sentences of this type, declarative
in form and intermediary between statements and questions in meaning, render the
connotation of insistence in asking for information. On the other hand, so-called
rhetorical questions are interrogative in their structural form, but express a
declarative functional meaning of high intensity, e.g.: How can you say a thing like
this? The sentence does not express a question; it is a reprimand. No answer is
expected; the responses elicited by rhetorical questions correspond to responses
elicited by declarative sentences (signals of attention, appraisals, expressions of
feelings, etc.), e.g.: How can you say a thing like this? – Oh, I’m terribly sorry, I
did not mean it. If a direct answer follows the rhetorical question, it emphasizes
implications opposite to the content of the question; often it is the speaker himself
or herself, who answers the rhetorical question, e.g.: Who is to be blamed for it?
No one, but myself.
Intermediary between statements and inducements are formally declarative
sentences with modal verbs and other lexical means of inducement, e.g.: You must
shut the window; I want you to shut the window (cf.: Shut the window, please!).
The responses to these sentences are similar to those elicited by imperative
sentences proper, i.e. actional responses or verbal agreement or disagreement to
perform the actions, e.g.: I want you to shut the window. - O.K., I will. On the other
hand, inducive constructions can be used to express a declarative meaning of high
expressiveness and intensity, in particular, in various proverbs and maxims, e.g.:
Scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours (= One good turn deserves another). They
presuppose no actional response.
Inducive constructions can also be used to express a request for information,
inducing the listener to verbal response of information rendering; they represent
another type of indirect question, e.g.: Tell me who shut the window (сf.: Who shut
the window?) The reverse intermediary construction, that of inducement in the
form of a question, is very characteristic of English; it is employed to convey
various shades of politeness, suggestion, softening of a command, etc., e.g.: Will
you, please, shut the window? Could you shut the window, please? The response
elicited by such polite requests resembles the one to a proper inducement, e.g.:
Will you, please, shut the window? - O.K., I will.
Thus, the classification of the communicative sentence types, in addition to
three cardinal communicative types, includes six intermediary subtypes of
sentences of mixed communicative features; first, mixed sentence patterns of
declaration (interrogative-declarative, imperative-declarative), second, mixed
sentence patterns of interrogation (declarative-interrogative, imperativeinterrogative), and, third, mixed sentence patterns of inducement (declarativeimperative, interrogative-imperative). Most of the intermediary communicative
types of sentences perform distinct stylistic functions, and can be treated as cases
of transposition of the communicative types of sentences presented in oppositions,
paradigmatically (see Unit 24). The communicative description of utterances was
undertaken at the end of the 1960s by J. R. Searle within the framework of the socalled “theory of speech acts”, on the basis of philosophical ideas formulated by J.
L. Austin. Utterances are interpreted as actions or acts by which the speaker does
something (the title of the book by J. L. Austin was How to Do Things with
Words). On the basis of various communicative intentions of the speaker, J. R.
Searle produced a detailed classification of so-called pragmatic (i.e. pertaining to
the participants and the circumstances of the particular speech act) utterance types.
The two basic utterance types are defined as performatives and constatives
(representatives): performatives are treated as utterances by which the speaker
explicitly performs a certain act, e.g.: I surrender; I pronounce you husband and
wife; and constatives (representatives) as utterances by which the speaker states
something, e.g.: I am a teacher; constatives are further subdivided into minor
types, such as promissives (commissives), e.g.: I will help you; expressives, e.g.:
How very sad!; menacives, e.g.: I’ll kill you!, directives, e.g.: Get out!; requestives,
e.g.: Bring the chalk, please; etc. From the purely linguistic point of view, various
speech acts correlate structurally and functionally with the three cardinal
communicative types of sentences. The mixed communicative types of sentences
can be interpreted in the theory of speech acts as indirect speech acts, e.g.: ‘There
is no chalk left’ may be interpreted as a representative or as a directive: There is no
chalk left (= bring some more); ‘I’ll be watching you!’ under different
communicative circumstances may be either a constative, a promissive or even a
menacive.
Later the theory of speech acts developed into a separate branch of linguistics
known as “pragmatic linguistics” (“pragmalinguistics”, or “pragmatics”); this
approach is used in syntactic studies as complementary to the classification of the
grammatically distinguished communicative types of sentences.
LECTURE 13
SIMPLE SENTENCE: CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE
План лекции:
1. The notion of a predicative line; simple sentence as a monopredicative
construction. Nominative division of the sentence into syntactic and semantic
constituents.
2. The traditional classification of notional parts (members of the sentence):
principal (subject, predicate), secondary (object, attribute, adverbial modifier),
detached (apposition, address, parenthesis, interjection). The notions of surface
and deep (conceptual) structures of the sentence; the classification of ‘semantic
cases’, or ‘semantic roles’ (“case grammar” theory of Ch. Fillmore). Parsing of
the sentence into its ‘immediate constituents’.
3. Verb as the predicative centre of the sentence. The notion of the “elementary”
sentence. Expanded and unexpanded simple sentences. The problem of
sentence completeness: complete and incomplete (elliptical) sentences. The two
axes of the sentence; one-axis and two-axis sentences, their correlation with
complete and elliptical sentences. Free and fixed one-axis sentences; their direct
or indirect (‘vague’) associations with two-axis sentences. Fixed one-axis
sentence-representatives.
4. Semantic classification of simple sentences: personal (definite and indefinite)
and impersonal (factual and perceptional) sentences; process featuring (verbal
actional and verbal statal) and substance featuring (nominal factual and
nominal perceptional) sentences; subjective, objective and neutral (“potentially”
objective) sentences.
Key terms: predicative line, monopredicative, or simple sentences and
polypredicative, or composite and semi-composite sentences, grammatical
(syntactic, nominative) division of the sentence, nominative (positional) parts,
principal notional parts (subject, predicate), secondary notional parts (object,
attribute, adverbial modifier), detached notional parts (apposition, address,
parenthesis, interjection), the transformational grammar theory, deep (semantic,
conceptual) structure, surface (syntactic) structure, the theory of case grammar,
‘semantic cases’ (‘semantic roles’, ‘case roles’), elementary simple sentence,
expanded and unexpanded sentences, the axes of the sentence (the axis of subject,
the axis of predicate), complete (two-member, two-axis) and incomplete (onemember, one-axis) sentences, elliptical sentence, free (contextually-bound) and
fixed one-axis sentences, direct and indirect (‘vague’) implications, representation,
categorial meanings of the subject, personal and impersonal sentences, human
(definite and indefinite) and non-human (animate and inanimate) sentences,
categorial meanings of the predicate, process featuring (verbal) and substance
featuring (nominal) sentences, actional and statal verbal predicates, factual and
perceptional nominal predicates, simple and compound (verbal and nominal)
predicates, subjective, objective and neutral (“potentially” objective) sentences
The finite verb, expressing the basic predicative meaning of the sentence
and performing the function of the predicate, and the subject combined with it
form the so-called “predicative line” of the sentence. On the basis of predicative
line presentation, sentences are divided into monopredicative (with one predicative
line expressed), i.e. simple, and polypredicative (with two or more predicative lines
expressed), i.e. composite and semi-composite.
Traditionally, the simple sentence has been studied primarily from the point of
view of its grammatical, or nominative division: the content of the situational event
reflected by the sentence, which includes a certain process as its dynamic center,
the agent of the process, the objects of the process, various conditions and
circumstances of the process, form the basis of the traditional syntactic division of
the sentence into its nominative (positional) parts, or members of the sentence. In
other words, each notional part expresses a certain semantic component or “role”
in the situation; in the structure of the sentence, they perform the function of
modifying either each other or the sentence in general.
The syntactic functions or the members of the sentence are traditionally
divided into principal (main) and secondary. The principal parts of the sentence
are the subject and the predicate, which modify each other: the subject is the
“person” modifier of the predicate, and the predicate is the “process” modifier of
the subject; they are interdependent. The secondary parts are: the object – a
substance modifier of the predicate; the attribute – a quality modifier of
substantive parts, either the subject or the object; the adverbial modifier – a quality
modifier of the predicate; the apposition – a substance modifier of the subject; the
parenthesis (parenthetical enclosure) - a detached speaker-bound modifier either
of one of the nominative parts of the sentence or of the sentence in general; the
address (addressing enclosure) – a modifier of the destination of the whole
sentence; the interjection (interjectional enclosure) – an emotional modifier. In the
middle of the 20th century, new approaches to the analysis of the sentence were
developed. In particular, the American linguist Noam Chomsky proposed the
distinction between the level of the deep, semantic, or conceptual structure of the
sentence and the level of its surface, or syntactic structure, different types of
construction being connected by various transformations. Chomsky’s
transformational grammar theory in the sphere of the nominative division of the
sentence was further developed by C. J. Fillmore, who formulated the theory of
case grammar: its central idea is that each notional part of the sentence correlates
with one element of the underlying semantic level and possesses a ‘semantic case’
which represents its semantic role. In traditional linguistics, only adverbial
modifiers enjoy a detailed semantic sub-classification into adverbial modifiers of
time, place, manner, attendant circumstances, etc. In the classification of semantic
roles, all semantic components of the situation are taken into consideration. For
example, the “Agent” is the personal doer of the action, the “Power” the
impersonal doer of the action, the “Patient” the direct object of the action, the
“Instrument” the object with the help of which the action is fulfilled, the
“Locative” some point or location in space, etc. The classification of semantic
roles is complementary to the classification of notional parts of the sentence, and
the two classifications can be employed together to better describe the nominative
aspect of the sentence. For instance, the subject can be described as subject-agent,
e.g.: I opened the door; as subject-patient, e.g.: The door was opened; subjectpower, e.g.: The wind opened the door; subject-instrument, e.g.: The key opened
the door; subject-locative, e.g.: Moscow hosted a summit, etc.
All nominative parts of the sentence are syntagmatically connected, and the
modificational relations between them can be analyzed in a linear as well as in a
hierarchical way (“immediate constituents” analysis, IC analysis), The structural
pattern of the sentence is determined by the valency of the verb-predicate; the verb
functions as the central predicative organizer of the sentence constituents. The
subdivision of all notional sentence parts into obligatory and optional in accord
with the valency of the verb-predicate makes it possible to distinguish the category
of “elementary sentence”: it is a sentence in which all the positions are obligatory;
in other words, an “elementary sentence” includes, besides the principal parts, only
complementive modifiers.
The elementary sentence coincides structurally with the so-called
unexpanded simple sentence, a monopredicative sentence, which includes only
obligatory nominative parts. The expanded simple sentence includes also some
optional parts, i.e. supplementive modifiers, which do not violate the syntactic
status of the simple sentence, i.e. do not make it into a composite or semicomposite sentence. For example, the sentence ‘He gave me the book’ is
unexpanded, because all the nominative parts of this sentence are required by the
obligatory valency of the verb to give; cf.: *He gave…; He gave me… - these
constructions would be semantically and structurally deficient. The sentence ‘He
gave me a very interesting book’ is expanded, because it includes an expansion, the
attribute-supplement very interesting; the second sentence is reducible to the
elementary unexpanded sentence built on the syntagmatic pattern of the
bicomplementive verb to give. The two principal parts of the sentence, the subject
and the predicate, with the subordinate secondary parts attached to them are the
two constitutive members or “axes” of the sentence: the subject group (the subject
“axis”) and the predicate group (the predicate “axis”). On the basis of their
representation in the outer structure of the sentence, sentences are subdivided into
complete sentences and incomplete sentences: in complete sentences both the
subject group and the predicate group are present; they are also called “twomember sentences” or “two-axis sentences”; if only one axis is expressed in the
outer structure of the sentence, the sentence is defined as incomplete; it is also
called “one-member sentence”, “one-axis sentence”, or “elliptical sentence”.
Traditionally, one-axis sentences and elliptical sentences are distinguished
in the following way: only those sentences in which the nominative parts are
contextually omitted are considered to be elliptical, e.g.: Who is there? – Your
brother. Since the missing parts are easily restored (“understood”) from the
context, elliptical sentences are treated as two-member sentences. “Genuine” onemember sentences are traditionally treated as those which do not imply the missing
member on contextual lines, e.g.: What a nice day! But, strictly speaking,
“ellipsis”, as a mechanism of sentence structure-curtailing, can affect both two-axis
sentences and one-axis sentences; as far as the immediate outer structure of the
above given sentences is concerned, in both cases we are dealing with one-member
sentences, in which the predicate axis is missing. Still, in some cases the ellipsis is
“free”, determined by direct and obvious contextual axis-implications, and in other
sentences the ellipsis “fixed”, and the absent axis cannot be restored with the same
ease and accuracy. For example, the following elliptical structures are fixed in the
system of language: emotionally colored name-callings, e.g.: Brute!;
psychologically tense descriptions, e.g.: Night. Silence. No one in sight (so-called
nominative sentences); various emphatic constructions, e.g.: To ask a question like
this! What a joy!; some conversational formulas, e.g.: Thank you! Nice meeting
you!; etc. Fixed one-axis sentences are also related to two-axis sentences, though
the associations are indirect and vague, cf.: Brute! – You are a brute; You brute; I
consider you a brute; etc. The additional semantics of the fixed one-axis sentences
(like the emotional “scream-style” name-calling of the sentence analyzed) is
destroyed by such restorations. Nevertheless, there is no strictly defined
demarcation line between free and fixed one-axis sentences: there is a continuum
of sentences, related to the two-axis sentences by direct or indirect associations,
cf.: Open the door. – You open the door; Thank you! – I thank you; etc.
As for negation and affirmation formulas (Yes; No; All right), vocative
sentences (Ladies and gentlemen! Dear friends!), greeting and parting formulas
(Hello! Good-bye!) and other similar constructions, they constitute the periphery of
the category of the sentence: they are not exactly word-sentences, but rather
sentence-representatives, related to the corresponding two-axis sentences not by
“vague” implications, but by representation. Most of them exist only in
syntagmatic combinations with full-sense antecedent predicative constructions.
Cf.: Are you going to come? – No (= I am not going to come). The isolated
exclamations of interjectional type, like My God! For heaven’s sake! Gosh!, etc.,
are not related to any two-axis constructions at all, either by vague implications or
by representation, being “pseudo-sentences”, or “non-communicative utterances”
and rendering no situational nomination, predication or informative perspective of
any kind (see Unit 22). The semantic classification of simple sentences is based on
principal parts semantics. On the basis of subject categorial meaning, sentences
are divided into impersonal, e.g.: It drizzles; There is no use crying over spilt milk;
and personal; personal sentences are further subdivided into human and nonhuman. Human sentences are further subdivided into definite, e.g.: I know it; and
indefinite, e.g.: One never knows such things for sure. Non-human sentences are
further subdivided into animate, e.g.: A cat entered the room; and inanimate, e.g.:
The wind opened the door. Impersonal sentences may be further subdivided into
factual, e.g.: It drizzles; and perceptional, e.g. It looks like rain.
On the basis of predicate categorialmeaning, sentences are divided into
process featuring (“verbal”) and substance featuring (“nominal”); process
featuring sentences are further subdivided into actional, e.g.: I play ball; and
statal, e.g.: I enjoy your party; substance featuring sentences are further subdivided
into factual, e.g.: She is clever; and perceptional, e.g.: She seems to be clever. As
the examples show, the differences in subject categorial meaning are sustained by
obvious differences in the subject-predicate combinability.
In practical courses on grammar, various subdivisions of simple sentences
are usually based on the structure of the predicate: predicates are subdivided into
simple (I read) and compound, which are further subdivided into compound verbal
predicates (She started crying) and compound nominal predicates with pure and
specifying link verbs (She looked beautiful).
On the basis of subject-object relations, simple sentences are divided into
subjective, e.g.: He is a writer; objective, e.g.: He is writing a book; and neutral or
“potentially” objective, e.g.: He is writing
LECTURE 14
COMPOSITE SENTENCE AS A POLYPREDICATIVE
CONSTRUCTION
План лекции:
1. Composite sentences as polypredicative constructions. A clause in a composite
sentence; its correlation with a separate sentence.
2. Subordinative polypredication (hypotaxis) and coordinative polypredication
(parataxis); complex and compound sentences as the two basic types of
composite sentences.
3. Syndeton and asyndeton vs. coordination and subordination.
4. Cumulative polypredication; cumulative sentences as intermediary
constructions between composite sentences and sequences of separate
sentences.
5. Polypredication of fused type; semi-composite sentences as intermediary
constructions between simple and composite sentences.
Key terms: polypredication, composite sentence, coordination (parataxis),
subordination (hypotaxis), subordinative (dominational) polypredication, complex
sentence,
coordinative (equipotent) polypredication, compound sentence,
principal clause, subordinate clause, leading clause, sequential clause, syndetic
and asyndetic connections, cumulative (loose, detached) polypredication,
cumulation, cumulative construction, introductory and commenting-deviational
parenthesis, semi-composite sentence
It has been mentioned, that composite sentences differ from simple sentences
by the number of predicative lines represented: simple sentences are
monopredicative syntactic constructions, formed by only one predicative line,
while composite sentences are polypredicative syntactic constructions, formed by
two or more predicative lines, each with a subject and a predicate of its own. This
means, that the composite sentence reflects two or more situations or events
making up a unity.
Each predicative unit in a composite sentence forms a clause. A clause as a
part of a composite sentence corresponds to a separate sentence, but a composite
sentence is not at all equivalent to a sequence of the simple sentences underlying
its clauses. Cf.: This is the issue I planned to discuss withyou. - This is the issue. I
planned to discuss it with you. The purpose of communication in the composite
sentence above is the presentation of a certain topic; this is lost in the
transformation of the sentence into a sequence of simple sentences There are two
principal types of composite sentences: complex and compound. In compound
sentences, the clauses are connected on the basis of coordinative connections
(parataxis); by coordination the clauses are arranged as units of syntactically equal
rank, i.e. equipotently (cf. equipotent, or coordinative phrases; see Unit 19). In
complex sentences, the clauses are united on the basis of subordinative
connections (hypotaxis); by subordination the clauses are arranged as units of
syntactically unequal rank, one of which dominates another (cf. dominational, or
subordinative phrases; see Unit 19). In terms of the positional structure of the
sentence; this means that by subordination one of the clauses (subordinate) is
placed in a notional position of the other (principal). This structural characteristic
has an essential semantic implication: a subordinate clause, however important the
information rendered by it might be for the whole communication, presents it as
naturally supplementing the information in the principal clause, cf.: This is the
issue I planned to discuss with you. As for coordinated clauses, their equality in
rank is expressed above all in each sequential clause explicitly corresponding to a
new effort of thought, which can be introduced by the purely copulative
conjunction and or the adversative conjunction but, cf.: I want to discuss
something with you, but we can talk about it later. The sequential clause in a
compound sentence is usually rigidly fixed and refers to the whole of the leading
clause, whereas the subordinate clause in a complex sentence usually refers to one
notional constituent in the principal clause and can vary positionally (as in the
examples above). The connections between the clauses in a composite sentence
may be effected syndetically, i.e. by means of special connecting words,
conjunctions and other conjunctional words or word-combinations, or
asyndetically, i.e. without any conjunctional words used.
There is some controversy concerning the status of syndeton and asyndeton
versus coordination and subordination. According to the traditional view, all
composite sentences are to be subdivided on the upper level into compound and
complex, and on the lower level of subdivision each type is represented by
syndetic and asyndetic connections. This view was challenged by N. S. Pospelov
and some other Russian linguists, who treated this subdivision in the opposite way:
at the higher level of classification all composite sentences should be divided into
syndetic and asyndetic, while at the lower level the syndetic composite sentences
(and only these) should be divided into compound and complex ones in accordance
with the connective words used. This approach was also challenged, in particular,
by B. A. Ilyish, who pointed out the mixture of two different criteria – formal and
semantic - in both classifications. Indeed, the semantic equality of syndetic and
asyndetic constructions is unquestionable in the following example: This is the
issue I planned to discuss with you. – This is the issue, which I planned to discuss
with you; both sentences include the subordinate attributive clause. Besides,
asyndetic connection of clauses often displays its own specific functional value,
which supports arguments for the existence of asyndetic polypredication.
Alongside the two basic types of composite sentences there is one more type of
polypredicative construction, in which the connections between the clauses are
rather loose, syntactically detached: the following clause is like an afterthought, an
expansion or a comment to the proceeding clause. In oral speech its formal sign is
often the tone of sentential completion, followed by a shorter pause than the usual
pause between separate sentences. In written speech such clauses are usually
separated by semi-final punctuation marks: a dash, a colon, a semi-colon or
brackets, e.g.: I wasn’t going to leave; I’d only just arrived. This type of
connection is called cumulation (see Unit 19), and such composite sentences can
be called cumulative. The status of cumulative sentences is intermediary between
composite sentences proper and combinations of sentences in supra-sentential
constructions.
Various parenthetical clauses of introductory and commenting-deviational
semantics can be treated as specific cumulative clauses, which give a background
to the essential information of the expanded clause, e.g.: As I have already told
you, they are just friends. Alongside the “completely” composite sentence, built up
by two or more fully predicative lines, there are polypredicative constructions, in
which one predicative line may be partially predicative (potentially predicative,
semi-predicative), as, for example, in sentences with various verbid complexes,
e.g.: I heard him singing in the backyard (see Unit 11). Such sentences actually
render two situations and present two predicative lines in fusion, or blended with
each other; this can be demonstrated in explanatory transformations of these
constructions into composite sentences: I heard him, when he was singing in the
backyard; He was singing in the backyard and I heard him. The transformations
show that such sentences are derived from two base sentences and that their
systemic status can be treated as intermediary between the simple sentence and the
composite sentence. They can be defined as “semi-composite sentences”. (They
will be analyzed in Unit 28).
LECTURE 15 SYNTAX OF THE TEXT
План лекции:
1. Text as an object of research. The problem of text in the hierarchy of language
levels. Topical (semantic) unity and semantico-syntactic cohesion as basic
differential features (categories) of the text.
2. Monologue and dialogue sequences of sentences. The problem of textual units:
a supra-phrasal unity (a complex syntactic unity), a dialogue unity; a cumuleme
and an occurseme.
3. Prospective (cataphoric) and retrospective (anaphoric) cumulation of sentences
in the text. Conjunctive cumulation: pure conjunctions, conjunction-like
adverbial and parenthetical connectors. Correlative cumulation: substitution and
representation. Cumulation of mixed type.
4. Communicative unity of sentences in textual sequences: linear and parallel
connections of sentences. The dicteme as an elementary textual unit. Functions
of the dicteme: the topical function, the functions of nomination, of predication
and of stylization. Intonational delimitation of a dicteme in the text. The
correlation of a dicteme and a paragraph.
5. Intermediary phenomena between the sentence and the supra-sentential
construction; parcellation and its stylistic load. Text as the sphere of functional
manifestation of the sentence.
Key terms: coherent stretch of speech, topical (semantic) unity, semanticosyntactic cohesion, monologue sequences, dialogue sequences, supra-phrasal
unity, complex syntactic unity, supra-sentential construction, dialogue unity,
cumulation, cumulative connections, cumuleme, occursive connections, occurseme,
prospective (cataphoric) cumulation, retrospective (anaphoric) cumulation,
conjunctive cumulation (conjunctions, adverbial and parenthetical connectors),
correlation (correlative cumulation), substitution, representation, succeedent,
antecedent, leading sentence, sequential sentence, communicative unity (the themerheme arrangement of sentences in a cumuleme), linear (progressive) and parallel
connections, theme-rheme chain, dicteme, stylization, intonational delimitation,
paragraph, parcellation, inner cumulation, macro-topic (micro-topic), macro-text
(pleni-text), micro-text (parti-text)
Syntax of the text is one of the youngest branches of grammar. The sentence
and the phrase, as a constituent of the sentence, have been traditional objects of
study in linguistics in general and of grammar in particular for centuries, starting
with ancient linguistics. The text (oral or written) has been studied primarily by
stylistics, rhetoric and literary studies, from the point of view of the means used by
the speaker or the author of a written text to achieve the desired effect on the
listener or the reader, the recipient of the text. Some linguistic aspects of textual
sequences of sentences were also addressed: for example, connections between
sentences were described in the works of the Russian linguists N. S. Pospelov, L.
A. Bulakhovsky and others; the linguists of the Prague Linguistic Circle showed
that the actual semantics of the sentence and the use of such lingual elements as
articles or substitutive words cannot be accounted for without reference to the
broader textual context. But it was only in the 1980s-90s that the majority of
linguists admitted, that the sentence is not the largest grammatically arranged
lingual unit.
Sentences are unified by a certain topic and are organized in speech according
to a communicative purpose in a particular communicative situation. The linguistic
description of the text is as follows: it is a speech sequence of lingual units
interconnected semantically (topically) and syntactically (structurally); in other
words, it is a coherent stretch of speech, characterized by semantic and syntactic
unity. Topical (semantic) unity and semantico-syntactic cohesionare the basic
differential features (categories) of the text.
On the basis of the communicative direction of their component sentences,
sentence sequences in speech are divided into monologue sequences and dialogue
sequences. In a monologue, sentences are directed from one interlocutor
(participant of communication) to another: from a speaker to a listener, or from an
author to a reader, e.g.: Once upon a time there lived a beautiful princess. She had
many suitors from far countries. In a dialogue, the sentences are directed from one
interlocutor to another in turn, to meet one another, e.g.: “Who is absent today?” –
“John.” “What’s the matter with him?” – “He is ill.” Traditionally, a monologue
sequence of sentences united by a common topic is identified as the basic textual
unit; it is called a “supra-phrasal unity” (the term of L. A. Bulakhovsky) or a
“complex syntactic unity” (the term of N. S. Pospelov); a two-directed sequence of
sentences is sometimes called a “dialogue unity”.
The elements of a dialogue can be used in a monologue text: for example, the
author of the text can ask a question and answer it in his or her “inner dialogue”
(also known in stylistics as “dramatic monologue”), e.g.: What can I do in this
situation? Nothing whatsoever. And vice versa, one-direction sequences can be
used in a dialogue, e.g.: “He is not a very nice person.” – “And he never was.”
Dialogues can contain stretches of speech by a single speaker, which are actually
monologues: descriptions, narrations, jokes, etc.
Thus, more consistent is the definition of the two types of sentence sequences
on the basis of syntactic connections used: the supra-sentential construction of the
one-direction communicative type is based on cumulation of sentences, so it can be
defined as a cumulative sequence, or a “cumuleme”: the connections between the
components of a dialogue sequence can be defined as “occursive” (from the Latin
word “to meet”) and the supra-sentential construction based on occursive
connections can be called an “occurseme”.
The occurseme as an element of the system occupies a place above the
cumuleme: the occurseme can be built by separate sentences or by cumulative
sequences. Both occursemes and cumulemes are topical textual entities.
Cumulation in sentence sequences may be of two types: prospective (cataphoric)
cumulation and retrospective (anaphoric) cumulation.
Prospective or cataphoric cumulation presupposes the use of connective
elements which relate the sentence in which they are used, to the sentence which
follows. In other words, prospective connective elements make the preceding or
leading sentence semantically incomplete; they signal that this sentence is to be
semantically developed in the following, sequential sentence or sentences. E.g.: Let
me tell you this. Jack will never let you down. In this cumulative sequence, the
demonstrative pronoun this functions as a prospective connector. Among the other
prospectives are: the following, as follows, the following thing (way), one thing,
two things, etc.
Retrospective or anaphoric cumulation presupposes the use of connective
elements relating the sentence in which they are used to the one that precedes it. In
other words, retrospective (anaphoric) connectors make the sequential sentence
dependent on the leading sentence of the sequence. E.g.: She was taken aback.
However, she tried to pull herself together. Retrospective cumulation is the basic,
the most neutral, and the most widely used type of text connection; prospective
cumulation is much rarer, characteristic mostly of scientific and technical texts.
According to the connective means used, cumulation is divided into two types:
conjunctive and correlative.
Conjunctive cumulation is achieved by functional or semi-functional
conjunction-like words and word combinations: pure conjunctions (coordinative or
subordinative), adverbial connectors, such as however, thus, yet, then, etc., or
parenthetical connectors, such as firstly, secondly, on the one hand, on the other
hand, in other words, as mentioned above, etc. Conjunctive cumulation is always
retrospective (anaphoric).
Correlative cumulation is achieved by a pair of elements, one of which, the
“succeedent”, refers to the other, the “antecedent”. Correlative cumulation may be
either prospective or retrospective. Correlative cumulation can be divided into
substitutional connection and representative connection. Substitutional correlation
is based on the use of various substitutes, for example, pronouns, e.g.: I saw a girl.
She looked very much upset; the girl is the antecedent of the pronoun she. The
whole preceding sentence, or its clause, can be the antecedent of a correlative
substitute, e.g.: We’re getting new machines next month. This (= this fact) will help
us to increase productivity. Representative cumulation is achieved by elements
which are semantically connected without the factor of replacement, e.g.: I saw a
girl. Her face seemed familiar to me. Representative correlation includes repetition
(so-called “repeated nomination”): simple lexical repetition or repetition
complicated by different variations (by the use of synonyms, by certain semantic
development, periphrasis, association, etc.), e.g.: I answered very sharply. My
answer didn’t upset her.
Conjunctive and correlative types of cumulation are often used together in
supra-sentential constructions. Semantic unity and syntactic cohesion are supported
by communicative unity of sentences, or theme-rheme arrangement (organization)
of the cumuleme. As was mentionned, the role of actual division of the sentence in
the forming of the text was first demonstrated by the linguists of the Prague
linguistic school (F. Daneč, in particular). There are two basic types of themerheme arrangement of sentences in textual sequences: linear (progressive)
connection and parallel connection of sentences. With linear connection of
sentences, the rheme of the leading sentence becomes the theme of the sequential
sentence, forming what is known as a theme-rheme chain, e.g.: There was a girl on
the platform She was wearing a hat. The hat was decorated with flowers and
ribbons. With parallel connection of sentences, the component sentences share the
same theme within the supra-sentential construction, e.g.: George was an honest
man. He had graduated from Harvard. He was a member of the American
Academy of Arts.
As was mentioned earlier, in Unit 1, a cumuleme (a cumulative suprasentential construction) correlates with a separate sentence which is placed in the
text in a topically significant position. Thus, the general elementary unit-segment
of text built up by either a cumuleme or by a single sentence can be defined as a
“dicteme” (from Latin ‘dicto’ ‘I speak’).
The basic communicative function of the dicteme is topical. But the dicteme
is polyfunctional; in the text, besides the topical function, it performs the functions
of nomination, predication, and stylization: besides combining various lingual
units into a topical unity, it names propositional events, refers them to reality, and
regulates the choice of lingual units, appropriate for communication in specific
conditions.
In oral text, dictemes are delimited intonationally: pauses between dictemes
are longer than pauses between sentences within the same cumuleme.
In written text, the dicteme is normally represented by a paragraph, but it
must be noted that the two units are not identical. The paragraph is a unit of written
speech delimited by a new (indented) line at the beginning and an incomplete line
at the close; it is a purely literary-compositional device. A paragraph can include
more than one dicteme, or it may divide one dicteme into parts, for example, for
the introduction of utterances in a dialogue or for the introduction of separate
points in enumerations. Still, though the paragraph is not a strictly syntactic device,
the borderlines between paragraphs are basically the same as the borderlines
between dictemes. Both multidicteme paragraphs and one-sentence paragraphs are
stylistically marked features of the text.
There are some syntactic constructions intermediary between the sentence and
the sequence of sentences. The first one is known as parcellation: in a parcellated
construction, the two parts are separated by a finalizing sentence tone in oral
speech and by a full stop in written speech, but they relate to each other as parts of
one and the same sentence, e.g.: I am always shy. With you. Parcellation can be
treated as transposition of a sentence into a cumuleme; it adds some topical
significance to the part parcellated. The second intermediary phenomenon is the
result of transposing a cumuleme into a sentence when two or more semantically
independent sentences are forced into one. This is characteristic of a casual manner
of speech or, on the other hand, for prolonged literary passages; in written speech
such constructions usually include semi-final punctuation marks, such as, for
example, a semi-colon or brackets (see Unit 25; inner cumulation).
Dictemes and paragraphs are connected within the framework of larger
elements of texts in various groupings, each of them being characterized by
semantic (topical) unity and syntactic cohesion. A large text, or macro-text (plenitext), united by a macro-topic, is semantically subdivided into smaller texts, or
micro-texts (parti-texts), united by micro-topics; for example, a novel can be
subdivided into parts, chapters, sections, and paragraphs. The smallest topical unit
of this hierarchy is the dicteme. These are the main grammatical aspects of texts.
The text is studied in greater detail by a special branch of linguistics, text
linguistics, by literary studies, and by stylistics. For example, in stylistics, various
images, allusions, compositional peculiarities and other stylistic devices are treated
as the means which contribute to the semantic unity and structural cohesion of the
text. Various textual categories are distinguished, such as the category of textual
time, the category of author, modality of the text, etc.
It must be noted, however, that from the point of view of grammar, the
sentence remains the main element of syntax, while the text is the sphere of its
functional manifestation; it is through combining different sentence-predications
that topical reflections of reality are achieved in all the numerous forms of lingual
communication.