Download 5 . CONCLUSION The sentence patterns of English and Kashmiri

5.
CONCLUSION
The sentence patterns of English and Kashmiri, studied
contrastively in the preceding chapters, have shown that
relativization, complementation and coordination are three
important metfhanisms of sentence combination in the two
languages.
Yet they are only three of the numerous ways of
linch-pinning various communicative contexts in our day-to-day
life .
However, an actual discourse or soliloquy, which is
always supple, spontaneous and organic, has a complex pattern
of its own which makes language functional and in which the
constituent sentences are found not markedly discrete but
inter-woven.
A description of syntactic patterns, however
hard we try to remain faithful to the actual discourse,
remains after all a description of the written language. It
is invariably the sentence of the written language that we
describe in a syntactic study like the present one.
it is
likely, therefore, that some of the sentence types in Kashmiri,
which correspond 8>o closely to those in English and have been
cited as illustrative examples in this study, may seem a bit
unfamiliar to some readers.
Taking into account the immense
possibilities of sentence patterning in a language, such
sentences in Kashmiri have been seen as possible grammatical
patterns notwithstanding the fact that they are not in common
use.
Ttle intuition of the native speaker has been assumed
239
to be the most reliable guide in recognising sentences
(including the deviant forms) as grammatical.
The apparent unfamiliarity of some Kashmiri sentences
may also be attributed to the fact that Kashmiri prose is
s till in its infancy and we do not find the variety of styles
in it that wfe do in spoken Kashmiri, a variety it is Bound
to exhibit in the years to come.
Many contemporary Kashmiri
w i t e r s and educated speakers in this region have had a
background of education through English,
inevitably, they
must have been influenced by the syntactic patterns of English
in framing sentences we come across in written discourses in
Kashmiri,
Since we do not have a long tradition of Kashmiri
prose, a study of its historical syntax is out of the question,
A speech act, as Halliday puts it, is "a simultaneous
selection from among a large number of interlated options.
These options represent the ’ meaning potential’ of language.
In speaking we choose: whether to make a statement, or ask a
Question, whether to generalize or particularise, whether to
repeat or add something new, whether or not intrude our
judgement, and so on,"-*-
1
M ,A. Halliday,
The context of speech situation
"Language 6tructure and Language Function,"
in NewHortZon& in Linguistics ed, John Lyons, (Penguine Books,
1970), p. 142,
240
conditions our options when we speak or write.
For the
purpose of convenience of description, we take account of
various syntactic patterns separately, but a speech situation
hardly arises for a separate syntactic pattern isolated from
the other patterns.
It is yet to be known whether a complex or compound
sentence is produced independently or is the result of
subordinating or coordinating smaller sentences.
Dominant
theories in modern linguistics, including generative
transformational grammar, support the latter view.
The relation
between smaller underlying sentences in the deep structure and
larger sentences in the surface structure, as discussed and
illustrated at the appropriate places in the preceding chapters,
is shown below diagrammatically:
Deep
structure
Sur face structure
Context of
the speech
situation
s3 >
Sentence
combining
rules
Optional
and
obligatory
transforma­
tional
rules
S.
X
c
$2
2
= relativization
_~ complementation
~
3 ~ coordination
S4
*
Sn
i
s4 = S l+S2+S3 <
n
In the foregoing chapters of this thesis, we mainly
studied the agreements and disagreements at the syntactic
level between English and Kashmiri in respect of the three
major sentence forming mechanisms mentioned.
These agreements
241
and disagreements are summarised below:
1. For the purpose of modifying a noun phrase restrictively,
a restrictive clause is used in both languages (see
pp. 56-57)
2. In Kashmiri, a non-restrictive construction does not appear
as a relative clause construction, while in English it does
(see pp. 64-68)
>
3. In English the relative pronoun is either an interrogative
pronoun who, which, whose e t c ., or a connective that while
in Kashmiri the relative pronoun is distinct from the
interrogative and demonstrative pronouns, beginning
invariably with
morpheme (see pp. 69-70)
4 . In both languages, the choice of the relative pronoun
depends on the personal and non-personal character of the
antecedent.
The personal pronoun in Kashmiri, however,
agrees in number and gender with the antecedent noun
phrase (see p. 71).
5 . in both languages, there are adverbial relative pronouns
showing time, place and manner.
In Kashmiri such relative
pronouns, however, outnumber those in English (see p p.76-79)
6. in both languages, there are connective relatives:
Eng.
as, such + as, so + as,
Kash.
yuth + t'uth,
yu:t + t 'u :t
242
in Kashmiri, unlike English, the connective relatives
decline according to the number, gender and case of the
antecedent (see pp. 79-83).
7* The word order of a relative clause in the two languages
is dissimilar.
(i)
In Kashmiri,
it is
S - 0 - V - Aux (when the relative NP is
the subject),
and
(ii)
0 - S - V - Aux (when the relative NP is
the
object)
In English, on the other hand, the normal word order
remains unchanged when the relative noun phrase is the
subject, but the verb takes the final position when the
relative noun phrase is the object (see pp. 86-91)
8.
In Kashmiri, unlifce English, the antecedent noun phrase can
be pro nominal ized while the relative noun phrase may
be
retained as a full lexical houn phrase after the relative
pronoun (see pp. 91-94)
9. In both languages we find postnominal, replacive and
extraposed relative clauses.
10. In both languages the postnominal relative clause at the
sentence final position has the highest frequency (see
P .
11.
96)
In Kashmiri, unlike English, the relative clause can
extraposed either to the left or right pf the clause
be
243
containing the antecedent and there is a regular system
o f correlative morphemes marking the two clauses (see
pp. 101-10 2)
Correlative relativization in English is possible only when
the reference of the coreferential noun phrases is non­
specific while in Kashmiri it is permissible with specific
reference as well (see p. 106)
13. In both languages the whole of the relative clause can be
extraposed to sentence final position provided that the
intervening material between the two clauses is not too
long to blur the meaning
14.
(see pp. 114-115)
In both languages two or more than two relatrfceclauses can
be coordinated to modify the same antecedent noun phrase.
In Kashmiri, however, we come across double correlative
relative clauses as well
15.
(see p. H 8 )
The relative clause occurs in cleft sentences in
languages.
both
In such sentences, a relative proform is
obligatory in Kashmiri while in English it is optional
(see p. 123).
16. The word order in cleft sentences is nearly identical
in the two languages (see p. 124)
17. Complex complement, defining either the subject or object
can occur after an intensive, a monotransitive or a
ditransitive verb in both languages (see pp. 130-132)
244
18. A complement can appear in the form of either a finite
or non-finite clause in both languages.
19. The word order of a finite clause in intensive complementation
is nearly identical in the two languages;
20. The complementizer that /
languages.
zf or ki is optional in both
There are two patterns of intensive
compl ement at io n:
(i)
NP + be
+ Adj P + that/zi + S
(i i)
It /y i +
be
+ Adj P + that/zi + S
(in this case, there is a comment on a £active
statement)
21. English finite clause is sometimes passivized, which is
not commonly done in spoken Kashmiri (see p. 144)
22. In both languages,
can
an
be modified by an
adjective in an intensive relation
infinitive when the subjectof the
matrix clause is the object of the complement.
However,
in English, unlike Kashmiri, it can also be modified by an
infinitive when the subject of
the matrix clause is
subject of the complement (see
pp. 145 ) .
23. In Kashmiri, unlike English, a
the
non-finite clause complement
can appear in the form of a past participle (see p.
149)
24. In Kashmiri, unlike English, an adjective in an intensive
relation can be modified by a duplicated verb in past
indefinite form (see p. 150).
245
25. In monotransitive complementation, a finite clause appears
as a that/zi - clause or a question clause in both
languages (see pp. 153-58)
26. The matrix clause in monotransitive complementation can be
passivized in both languages (see p. 160)
27. In Kashmiri , there is no change in the person and tense
of a finite clause in ditransitive complementation as it
is in English, the reason being that there is no indirect
narration in Kashmiri (see pp. 172-74)
28. In Kashmiri, unlike English, the subject noun phrase in
a non-finite complement in ditransitive complementation
always takes a genitive inflection (see p. 179)
29. In both languages there are three central coordinators:
t i (=and), y a :/n a ti ( =or) , v^g^v/magar (=but).
30. In Kashmiri, there is a separate coordinator kini for
interrogative, which corresponds to or in English
(see p. 182 and p. 203)
31. In both languages, there are three correlative pairs of
coordinators
t i. . . t i
(dboth.. .a n d ), y a :...n a t i (either. . .or) ,
n 3 . . . t i na (=neither.. .nor)
(see pp. 209-214).
32. In phrasal coordination, the form of the verb in Kashmiri
246
agrees in number and gender with the noun phrase nearest
to it; there is no such concord in English.
However, in
English the auxiliary or copula in the present and past
tenses takes the plural form in phrasal coordination
(see pp. 185-88)
33, Coordination by various coordinators occurs under similar
semantic constraints in the two languages.
34. The two rules of coordination reduction, v i z . , Deletion
Rule and Regrouping Rule operate in almost identical ways
in the two languages.
However, in Kashmiri, the regrouping
rule not only restores the grammatical order of the
constituents of the sentences after deletion but also
adds necessary morphemes to them (see pp. 214-236)
As we take a look at the observations listed above, it
becomes evident that Kashmiri and English largely belong
together in respect of syntax.
The agreements between the two
languages far outnumber the disagreements; the former are so
striking that they cannot be expressed as simply a case of
coincidence.
The study has further demonstrated that
syntactic typology provides an adequate basis for a contrastive
study of languages such as English and Kashmiri, though
genealogically and geographically they are so remote from
each other.