Theoretical English grammar
ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА АНГЛИЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКА
М. Я. Блох
Допущено Министерством
просвещения СССР
в качестве учебника для
студентов
педагогических институтов по
специальности
№ 2103 «Иностранные языки»
Для некоммерческого
использования.
Орфография из амер. переведена
в брит.
Рецензенты
кафедра английского языка
Горьковского педагогического института иностранных языков им. Н. А. Добролюбова
и доктор филол. наук, проф. Л. Л. Нелюбин.
Блох М. Я.
Б70 Теоретическая грамматика
английского языка: Учебник. Для студентов филол. фак. ун-тов и фак. англ. яз.
педвузов. - М.: Высш. школа, 1983.- с. 383 В пер.: 1 р.
В учебнике рассматриваются
важнейшие проблемы морфологии и синтаксиса английского языка в свете ведущих
принципов современного системного языкознания. Введение в теоретические
проблемы грамматики осуществляется на фоне обобщающего описания основ
грамматического строя английского языка. Особое внимание уделяется специальным
методам научного анализа грамматических явлений и демонстрации исследовательских
приемов на конкретном текстовом материале с целью развития у студентов
профессионального лингвистического мышления. Учебник написан на английском
языке.
ББК 81.2 Англ-9 4И
(Англ)
© Издательство «Высшая школа»,
1983.
CONTENTS
Preface
Chapter I.
Grammar in the Systemic Conception of Language.
Chapter II.
Morphemic Structure of the Word
Chapter III.
Categorial Structure of the Word
Chapter IV.
Grammatical Classes of Words
Chapter V.
Noun: General
Chapter VI.
Noun: Gender
Chapter
VII. Noun: Number
Chapter
VIII. Noun: Case
Chapter IX.
Noun: Article Determination
Chapter X.
Verb: General
Chapter XI.
Non-Finite Verbs (Verbids)
Chapter XII.
Finite Verb: Introduction
Chapter
XIII. Verb: Person and Number
Chapter XIV.
Verb; Tense
Chapter XV.
Verb: Aspect
Chapter XVI.
Verb: Voice
Chapter
XVII. Verb: Mood
Chapter
XVIII. Adjective
Chapter XIX.
Adverb
Chapter XX.
Syntagmatic Connections of Words
Chapter XXI.
Sentence: General
Chapter
XXII. Actual Division of the Sentence
Chapter
XXIII. Communicative Types of Sentences
Chapter
XXIV. Simple Sentence: Constituent StructureXXV. Simple Sentence: Paradigmatic
Structure
Chapter
XXVI. Composite Sentence as a Polypredicative Construction
Chapter
XXVII. Complex Sentence
Chapter
XXVIII. Compound Sentence
Chapter
XXIX. Semi-Complex Sentence
Chapter XXX.
Semi-Compound Sentence
Chapter
XXXI. Sentence in the Text
A List of
Selected Bibliography
Subject
Index
PREFACE
book, containing a
theoretical outline of English grammar, is intended as a manual for the
departments of English in Universities and Teachers' Colleges. Its purpose is
to present an introduction to the problems of up-to-date grammatical study of
English on a systemic basis, sustained by demonstrations of applying modern
analytical techniques to various grammatical phenomena of living English
speech.
The suggested
description of the grammatical structure of English, reflecting the author's
experience as a lecturer on theoretical English grammar for students
specialising as teachers of English, naturally, cannot be regarded as
exhaustive in any point of detail. While making no attempt whatsoever to depict
the grammar of English in terms of the minutiae of its arrangement and functioning
(the practical mastery of the elements of English grammar is supposed to have
been gained by the student at the earlier stages of tuition), we rather deem it
as our immediate aims to supply the student with such information as will
enable him to form judgments of his own on questions of diverse grammatical
intricacies; to bring forth in the student a steady habit of trying to see into
the deeper implications underlying the outward appearances of lingual
correlations bearing on grammar; to teach him to independently improve his
linguistic qualifications through reading and critically appraising the
available works on grammatical language study, including the current materials
in linguistic journals; to foster his competence in facing academic controversies
concerning problems of grammar, which, unfortunately but inevitably, are liable
to be aggravated by polemical excesses and terminological discrepancies.
In other words, we
wish above all to provide for the condition that, on finishing his study of the
subject matter of the book, under the corresponding guidance of his College
tutor, the student should progress in developing a grammatically-oriented mode of
understanding facts of language, viz. in mastering that which, in the long run,
should distinguish a professional linguist from a layman.
The emphasis laid
on cultivating an active element in the student's approach to language and its
grammar explains why the book gives prominence both to the technicalities of
grammatical observations and to the general methodology of linguistic
knowledge: the due application of the latter will lend the necessary
demonstrative force to any serious consideration of the many special points of
grammatical analysis. In this connection, throughout the whole of the book we
have tried to point out the progressive character of the development of modern
grammatical theory, and to show that in the course of disputes and continued research
in manifold particular fields, the grammatical domain of linguistic science
arrives at an ever more adequate presentation of the structure of language in
its integral description.
We firmly believe
that this kind of outlining the foundations of the discipline in question is
especially important at the present stage of the developing linguistic
knowledge - the
knowledge which, far from having been by-passed by the general twentieth century
advance of science, has found itself in the midst of it. Suffice it to cite
such new ideas and principles introduced in the grammatical theory of our
times, and reflected in the suggested presentation, as the grammatical aspects
of the correlation between language and speech; the interpretation of
grammatical categories on the strictly oppositional basis; the demonstration of
grammatical semantics with the help of structural modelling; the
functional-perspective patterning of utterances; the rise of the paradigmatic
approach to syntax; the expansion of syntactic analysis beyond the limits of a
separate sentence into the broad sphere of the continual text; and, finally,
the systemic principle of description applied to the interpretation of language
in general and its grammatical structure in particular.
It is by actively
mastering the essentials of these developments that the student will be enabled
to cope with the grammatical aspects of his future linguistic work as a
graduate teacher of English.
Materials
illustrating the analysed elements of English grammar have been mostly
collected from the literary works of British and American authors. Some of the
offered examples have been subjected to slight alterations aimed at giving the
necessary prominence to the lingual phenomena under study. Source references
for limited stretches of text are not supplied except in cases of special
relevance (such as implications of individual style or involvement of
contextual background).
The author pays
tribute to his friends and colleagues - teachers
of the Lenin State Pedagogical Institute (Moscow) for encouragement and help
they extended to him during the years of his work on the presented matters.
The author's
sincere thanks are due to the staff of the English Department of the
Dobrolyubov State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages (Gorky) and to
Prof. L. L. Nelyubin for the trouble they took in reviewing the manuscript.
Their valuable advice and criticisms were carefully taken into consideration
for the final preparation of the text.
M. Blokh
CHAPTER I.
GRAMMAR IN THE SYSTEMIC CONCEPTION OF LANGUAGE
Language is a means
of forming and storing ideas as reflections of reality and exchanging them in
the process of human intercourse. Language is social by nature; it is
inseparably connected with the people who are its creators and users; it grows
and develops together with the development of society.*
Language
incorporates the three constituent parts ("sides"), each being
inherent in it by virtue of its social nature. These parts are the phonological
system, the lexical system, the grammatical system. Only the unity of these
three elements forms a language; without any one of them there is no human
language in the above sense.
The phonological
system is the subfoundation of language; it determines the material
(phonetical) appearance of its significative units. The lexical system is the
whole set of naming means of language, that is, words and stable word-groups.
The grammatical system is the whole set of regularities determining the
combination of naming means in the formation of utterances as the embodiment of
thinking process.
Each of the three
constituent parts of language is studied by a particular linguistic discipline.
These disciplines, presenting a series of approaches to their particular
objects of analysis, give the corresponding "descriptions" of
language consisting in ordered expositions of the constituent parts in
question. Thus, the phonological description of language is effected by the
science of phonology; the lexical description of language is effected by the
science of lexicology; the grammatical
description of language is effected by the science of grammar.
Any linguistic
description may have a practical or theoretical purpose. A practical description
is aimed at providing the student with a manual of practical mastery of the
corresponding part of language (within the limits determined by various factors
of educational destination and scientific possibilities). Since the practice of
lingual intercourse, however, can only be realised by employing language as a
unity of all its constituent parts, practical linguistic manuals more often
than not comprise the three types of description presented in a complex. As for
theoretical linguistic descriptions, they pursue analytical aims and therefore
present the studied parts of language in relative isolation, so as to gain
insights into their inner structure and expose the intrinsic mechanisms of
their functioning. Hence, the aim of theoretical grammar of a language is to
present a theoretical description of its grammatical system, i.e. to
scientifically analyse and define its grammatical categories and study the
mechanisms of grammatical formation of utterances out of words in the process
of speech making.
In earlier periods
of the development of linguistic knowledge, grammatical scholars believed that
the only purpose of grammar was to give strict rules of writing and speaking
correctly. The rigid regulations for the correct ways of expression, for want
of the profound understanding of the social nature of language, were often
based on purely subjective and arbitrary judgements of individual grammar
compilers. The result of this "prescriptive" approach was, that
alongside of quite essential and useful information, non-existent
"rules" were formulated that stood in sheer contradiction with the
existing language usage, i.e. lingual reality. Traces of this arbitrary
prescriptive approach to the grammatical teaching may easily be found even in
to-date's school practice.
To refer to some of
the numerous examples of this kind, let us consider the well-known rule of the
English article stating that the noun which denotes an object "already
known" by the listener should be used with the definite article. Observe, however,
English sentences taken from me works of distinguished authors directly
contradicting
"I've just
read a book of yours about Spain and I wanted to ask you about it." -
"It's not a very good book, I'm
afraid" (S. Maugham). I feel a good deal of hesitation about telling you
this story of my own. You see it is not a story like other stories I have been
telling you: it is a true story (J. K. Jerome).
Or let us take the
rule forbidding the use of the continuous tense-forms with the verb be as a
link, as well as with verbs of perceptions. Here are examples to the contrary:
My holiday at Crome
isn't being a disappointment (A. Huxley). For the first time, Bobby felt, he
was really seeing the man (A. Christie).
The given examples
of English articles and tenses, though not agreeing with the above
"prescriptions", contain no grammar mistakes in them.
The said
traditional view of the purpose of grammar has lately been re-stated by some
modern trends in linguistics. In particular, scholars belonging to these trends
pay much attention to artificially constructing and analysing incorrect
utterances with the aim of a better formulation of the rules for" the
construction of correct ones. But their examples and deductions, too, are often
at variance with real facts of lingual usage.
Worthy of note are
the following two artificial utterances suggested as far back as 1956:
Colourless green
ideas sleep furiously. Furiously sleep ideas green colourless.
According to the
idea of their creator, the American scholar N.
Chomsky, the first of the utterances, although
nonsensical logically, was to be classed as grammatically correct, while the
second one, consisting of the same words placed in the reverse order, had to be
analysed as a disconnected, "ungrammatical" enumeration, a
"non-sentence". Thus, the examples, by way of contrast, were
intensely demonstrative (so believed the scholar) of the fact that grammar as a
whole amounted to a set of non-semantic rules of sentence formation.
However, a couple
of years later this assessment of the lingual value of the given utterances was
disputed in an experimental investigation with informants -
natural speakers of English, who could not come
to a unanimous conclusion about
the correctness or incorrectness of both of them. In particular, some of the
informants classed the second utterance as "sounding like poetry".
To understand the
contradictions between the bluntly formulated "rules" and reality, as
well as to evaluate properly the results of informant tests like the one
mentioned above, we must bear in mind that the true grammatical rules or
regularities cannot be separated from the expression of meanings; on the
contrary, they are themselves meaningful. Namely, they are connected with the
most general and abstract parts of content inherent in the elements of
language. These parts of content, together with the formal means through which
they are expressed, are treated by grammarians in terms of "grammatical
categories". Such are, for instance, the categories of number or mood in
morphology, the categories of communicative purpose or emphasis in syntax, etc.
Since the grammatical forms and regularities are meaningful, it becomes clear
that the rules of grammar must be stated semantically, or, more specifically,
they must be worded functionally. For example, it would be fallacious to state
without any further comment that the inverted word order in the English
declarative sentence is grammatically incorrect. Word order as an element of
grammatical form is laden with its own meaningful functions. It can express, in
particular, the difference between the central idea of the utterance and the
marginal idea, between emotive and unemotive modes of speech, between different
types of style. Thus, if the inverted word order in a given sentence does
express these functions, then its use should be considered as quite correct.
E.g.: In the centre of the room, under the chandelier, as became a host, stood
the head of (he family, old Jolyon himself (J. Galsworthy).
The word
arrangement in the utterance expresses a narrative description, with the
central informative element placed in the strongest semantic position in
narration, i.e. at the end. Compare the same sort of arrangement accompanying a
plainer presentation of subject matter: Inside on a wooden bunk lay a young
Indian woman (E. Hemingway).
Compare, further,
the following:
And ever did his
Soul tempt him with evil, and whisper of terrible things. Yet did it not
prevail against him, so great was the power of his love (O. Wilde). (Here the
inverted word order is employed to render intense emphasis in a legend-stylised
narration.) One thing and one thing only could she do for him (R. Kipling).
(Inversion in this case is used to express emotional intensification of the
central idea.)
Examples of this
and similar kinds will be found in plenty in Modern English literary texts of
good style repute.
The nature of
grammar as a constituent part of language is better understood in the light of
explicitly discriminating the two planes of language, namely, the plane of
content and the plane of expression
The plane of
content comprises the purely semantic elements contained in language, while the
plane of expression comprises the material (formal) units of language taken by
themselves, apart from the meanings rendered by them. The two planes are
inseparably connected, so that no meaning can be realised without some material
means of expression. Grammatical elements of language present a unity of
content and expression (or, in somewhat more familiar terms, a unity of form
and meaning). In this the grammatical elements are similar to the lingual
lexical elements, though the quality of grammatical meanings, as we have stated
above, is different in principle from the quality of lexical meanings.
On the other hand,
the correspondence between the planes of content and expression is very
complex, and it is peculiar to each language. This complexity is clearly
illustrated by the phenomena of polysemy, homonymy, and synonymy.
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 instance, the verbal form of the
present indefinite (one unit in the plane of expression) polysemantically
renders the grammatical meanings of habitual action, action at the present
moment, action taken as a general truth (several units in the plane of content).
The morphemic material element -s/-es (in pronunciation [-s, -z, -iz]), i.e.
one unit in the plane of expression (in so far as the functional semantics of
the elements is common to all of them indiscriminately), homonymically renders
the grammatical meanings of the third person singular of the verbal present
tense, the plural of the noun, the possessive form of the noun, i.e. several
units of the plane of content.
In cases of
synonymy, conversely, two or more units of the plane of expression correspond
to one unit of the plane of
content. For instance, the forms of the verbal future indefinite, future
continuous, and present continuous (several units in the plane of expression)
can in certain contexts synonymically render the meaning of a future action
(one unit in the plane of content).
Taking into
consideration the discrimination between the two planes, we may say that the
purpose of grammar as a linguistic discipline is, in the long run, to disclose
and formulate the regularities of the correspondence between the plane of
content and the plane of expression in the formation of utterances out of the
stocks of words as part of the process of speech production.
Modern linguistics
lays a special stress on the systemic character of language and all its
constituent parts. It accentuates the idea that language is a system of signs
(meaningful units) which are closely interconnected and interdependent. Units
of immediate interdependencies (such as classes and subclasses of words,
various subtypes of syntactic constructions, etc.) form different microsystems
(subsystems) within the framework of the global macrosystem (supersystem) of
the whole of language.
Each system is a
structured set of elements related to one another by a common function. The
common function of all the lingual signs is to give expression to human
thoughts.
The systemic nature
of grammar is probably more evident than that of any other sphere of language,
since grammar is responsible for the very organisation of the informative
content of utterances [Блох,
4, 11 и
сл.].
Due to this fact, even the earliest grammatical
treatises, within the cognitive limits of their times, disclosed some systemic
features of the described material. But the scientifically sustained and
consistent principles of systemic approach to language and its grammar were
essentially developed in the linguistics of the twentieth century, namely,
after the publication of the works by the Russian scholar Beaudoin de Courtenay
and the Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure. These two great men demonstrated
the difference between lingual synchrony (coexistence of lingual elements) and
diachrony (different time-periods in the development of lingual elements, as
well as language as a whole) and defined language as a synchronic system of
meaningful elements at any stage of its historical evolution.
On the basis of
discriminating synchrony and diachrony, the difference between language proper
and speech proper can
be strictly defined, which is of crucial importance for the identification of
the object of linguistic science.
Language in the
narrow sense of the word is a system of means of expression, while speech in
the same narrow sense should be understood as the manifestation of the system
of language in the process of intercourse.
The system of
language includes, on the one hand, the body of material units -
sounds, morphemes, words, word-groups; on the
other hand, the regularities or "rules" of the use of these units.
Speech comprises both the act of producing utterances, and the utterances
themselves, i.e. the text. Language and speech are inseparable, they form
together an organic unity. As for grammar (the grammatical system), being an
integral part of the lingual macrosystem it dynamically connects language with
speech, because it categorially determines the lingual process of utterance
production.
Thus, we have the
broad philosophical concept of language which is analysed by linguistics into
two different aspects - the
system of signs (language proper) and the use of signs (speech proper). The
generalising term "language" is also preserved in linguistics,
showing the unity of these two aspects [Блох,
16].
The sign
(meaningful unit) in the system of language has only a potential meaning. In
speech, the potential meaning of the lingual sign is "actualised",
i.e. made situationally significant as part of the grammatically organised
text.
Lingual units stand
to one another in two fundamental types of relations: syntagmatic and
paradigmatic.
Syntagmatic
relations are immediate linear relations between units in a segmental sequence
(string). E.g.: The spaceship was launched without the help of a booster
rocket.
In this sentence
syntagmatically connected are the words and word-groups "the
spaceship", "was launched", "the spaceship was
launched", "was launched without the help", "the help of a
rocket", "a booster rocket".
Morphemes within
the words are also connected syntagmatically. E.g.: space/ship; launch/ed;
with/out; boost/er.
Phonemes are
connected syntagmatically within morphemes and words, as well as at various
juncture points (cf. the processes of assimilation and dissimilation).
The combination of
two words or word-groups one of which is modified by the other forms a unit
which is referred to as a syntactic "syntagma". There are four main
types of notional syntagmas: predicative (the combination of a subject and a
predicate), objective (the combination of a verb and its object), attributive
(the combination of a noun and its attribute), adverbial (the combination of a
modified notional word, such as a verb, adjective, or adverb, with its
adverbial modifier).
Since syntagmatic
relations are actually observed in utterances, they are described by the Latin
formula as relations "in praesentia" ("in the presence").
The other type of
relations, opposed to syntagmatic and called "paradigmatic", are such
as exist between elements of the system outside the strings where they
co-occur. These intra-systemic relations and dependencies find their expression
in the fact that each lingual unit is included in a set or series of connections
based on different formal and functional properties."
In the sphere of
phonology such series are built up by the correlations of phonemes on the basis
of vocality or consonantism, voicedness or devoicedness, the factor of
nazalisation, the factor of length, etc. In the sphere of the vocabulary these
series are founded on the correlations of synonymy and antonymy, on various
topical connections, on different word-building dependencies. In the domain of
grammar series of related forms realise grammatical numbers and cases, persons
and tenses, gradations of modalities, sets of sentence-patterns of various
functional destination, etc.
Unlike syntagmatic
relations, paradigmatic relations cannot be directly observed in utterances,
that is why they are referred to as relations "in absentia""
("in the absence").
Paradigmatic
relations coexist with syntagmatic relations in such a way that some sort of
syntagmatic connection is necessary for the realisation of any paradigmatic
series. This is especially evident -in a classical grammatical paradigm which
presents a productive series of forms each consisting of a syntagmatic
connection of two elements: one common for the whole of the series (stem), the
other specific for every individual form in the series (grammatical feature -
inflexion, suffix, auxiliary word). Grammatical
paradigms express various grammatical categories.
The minimal
paradigm consists of two form-stages. This kind of paradigm we see, for
instance, in the expression of the category of number: boy -
boys. A more complex paradigm can be divided
into component paradigmatic series, i.e. into the corresponding sub-paradigms
(cf. numerous paradigmatic series constituting the system of the finite verb).
In other words, with
paradigms, the same as with any other systemically organised material, macro-
and micro-series are to be discriminated.
Units of language
are divided into segmental and suprasegmental. Segmental units consist of
phonemes, they form phonemic strings of various status (syllables, morphemes,
words, etc.). Supra-segmental units do not exist by themselves, but are
realised together with segmental units and express different modificational
meanings (functions) which are reflected on the strings of segmental units. To
the supra-segmental units belong intonations (intonation contours), accents,
pauses, patterns of word-order.
The segmental units
of language form a hierarchy of levels. This hierarchy is of a kind that units
of any higher level are analysable into (i.e. are formed of) units of the
immediately lower level. Thus, morphemes are decomposed into phonemes, words
are decomposed into morphemes, phrases are decomposed into words, etc.
But this
hierarchical relation is by no means reduced to the mechanical composition of
larger units from smaller ones; units of each level are characterised by their
own, specific functional features which provide for the very recognition of the
corresponding levels of language.
The lowest level of
lingual segments is phonemic: it is formed by phonemes as the material elements
of the higher -level
segments. The phoneme has no meaning, its function is purely differential: it
differentiates morphemes and words as material bodies. Since the phoneme has no
meaning, it is not a sign.
Phonemes are
combined into syllables. The syllable, a rhythmic segmental group of phonemes,
is not a sign, either; it has a purely formal significance. Due to this fact,
it could hardly stand to reason to recognise in language a separate syllabic
level; rather, the syllables should be considered in the light of the
intra-level combinability properties of phonemes.
Phonemes are
represented by letters in writing. Since the letter has a representative
status, it is a sign, though different in principle from the level-forming
signs of language.
Units of all the
higher levels of language are meaningful; they may be called
"signemes" as opposed to phonemes (and letters as phoneme-representatives).
The level located
above the phonemic one is the morphemic
level. The morpheme is the elementary meaningful
part of the word. It is built up by phonemes, so that the shortest morphemes
include only one phoneme. E.g.: ros-y [-1]; a-fire
[э-];
come-s [-z].
The morpheme
expresses abstract, "significative" meanings which are used as
constituents for the formation of more concrete, "nominative"
meanings of words.
The third level in
the segmental lingual hierarchy is the level of words, or lexemic level.
The word, as
different from the morpheme, is a directly naming (nominative) unit of
language: it names things and their relations. Since words are built up by
morphemes, the shortest words consist of one explicit morpheme only. Cf.: man;
will; but; I; etc.
The next higher
level is the level of phrases (word-groups), or phrasemic level.
To level-forming
phrase types belong combinations of two or more notional words. These
combinations, like separate words, have a nominative function, but they represent
the referent of nomination as a complicated phenomenon, be it a concrete thing,
an action, a quality, or a whole situation. Cf., respectively: a picturesque
village; to start with a jerk; extremely difficult; the unexpected arrival of
the chief.
This kind of
nomination can be called "polynomination", as different from
"mononomination" effected by separate words.
Notional phrases
may be of a stable type and of a free type. The stable phrases (phraseological
units) form the phraseological part of the lexicon, and are studied by the
phraseological division of lexicology. Free phrases are built up in the process
of speech on the existing productive models, and are studied in the lower
division of syntax. The grammatical description of phrases is sometimes called
"smaller syntax", in distinction to "larger syntax"
studying the sentence and its textual connections.
Above the phrasemic
level lies the level of sentences, or "proposemic" level.
The peculiar
character of the sentence ("proposeme") as a signemic unit of
language consists in the fact that, naming a certain situation, or situational
event, it expresses predication, i.e. shows the relation of the denoted event
to reality. Namely. it shows whether this event is real or unreal, desirable or
obligatory, stated as a truth or asked about, etc. In this sense, as different
from the word and the phrase, the sentence
is a predicative unit. Cf.: to receive -
to receive a letter -
Early in June I received a letter from Peter
Mel« rose.
The sentence is
produced by the speaker in the process of speech as a concrete, situationally
bound utterance. At the same time it enters the system of language by its
syntactic pattern which, as all the other lingual unit-types, has both
syntagmatic and paradigmatic characteristics.
But the sentence is
not the highest unit of language in the hierarchy of levels. Above the
proposemic level there is still another one, namely, the level of
sentence-groups, "supra-sentential constructions". For the sake of
unified terminology, this level can be called "supra-proposemic".
The
supra-sentential construction is a combination of separate sentences forming a
textual unity. Such combinations are subject to regular lingual patterning
making them into syntactic elements. The syntactic process by which sentences
are connected into textual unities is analysed under the heading of
"cumulation". Cumulation, the same as formation of composite
sentences, can be both syndetic and asyndetic. Cf.:
He went on with his
interrupted breakfast. Lisette did not speak and there was silence between them.
But his appetite satisfied, his mood changed; he began to feel sorry for
himself rather than angry with her, and with a strange ignorance of woman's
heart he thought to arouse Lisette's remorse by exhibiting himself as an object
of pity (S. Maugham).
In the typed text,
the supra-sentential construction commonly coincides with the paragraph (as in
the example above). However, unlike the paragraph, this type of lingual signeme
is realised not only in a written text, but also in all the varieties of oral
speech, since separate sentences, as a rule, are included in a discourse not
singly, but in combinations, revealing the corresponding connections of
thoughts in communicative progress.
We have surveyed
six levels of language, each identified by its own functional type of segmental
units. If now we carefully observe the functional status of the level-forming
segments, we can distinguish between them more self-sufficient and less
self-sufficient types, the latter being defined only in relation to the functions
of other level units. Indeed, the phonemic, lexemic and proposemic levels are
most strictly and exhaustively identified from the functional point of
view: the function of the phoneme is
differential, the function of the word is nominative, the function of the
sentence is predicative. As different from these, morphemes are identified only
as significative components of words, phrases present polynominative
combinations of words, and supra-sentential constructions mark the transition
from the sentence to the text.
Furthermore,
bearing in mind that the phonemic level forms the subfoundation of language,
i.e. the non-meaningful matter of meaningful expressive means, the two notions
of grammatical description shall be pointed out as central even within the framework
of the structural hierarchy of language: these are, first, the notion of the
word and, second, the notion of the sentence. The first is analysed by
morphology, which is the grammatical teaching of the word; the second is
analysed by syntax, which is the grammatical teaching of the sentence.
II. MORPHEMIC
STRUCTURE OF THE WORD
The morphological
system of language reveals its properties through the morphemic structure of
words. It follows from this that morphology as part of grammatical theory faces
the two segmental units: the morpheme and the word. But, as we have already
pointed out, the morpheme is not identified otherwise than part of the word;
the functions of the morpheme are effected only as the corresponding
constituent functions of the word as a whole.
For instance, the
form of the verbal past tense is built up by means of the dental grammatical
suffix: train-ed [-d]; publish-ed [-t]; meditat-ed [-id].
However, the past
tense as a definite type of grammatical meaning is expressed not by the dental
morpheme in isolation, but by the verb (i.e. word) taken in the corresponding
form (realised by its morphemic composition); the dental suffix is immediately
related to the stem of the verb and together with the stem constitutes the
temporal correlation in the paradigmatic system of verbal categories
Thus, in studying
the morpheme we actual study the word in the necessary
details or us composition and functions.
It is very
difficult to give a rigorous and at the same time universal definition to the
word, i.e. such a definition as would unambiguously apply to all the different
word-units of the lexicon. This difficulty is explained by the fact that the
word is an extremely complex and many-sided phenomenon. Within the framework of
different linguistic trends and theories the word is defined as the minimal
potential sentence, the minimal free linguistic form, the elementary component
of the sentence, the articulate sound-symbol, the grammatically arranged
combination of sound with meaning, the meaningfully integral and immediately
identifiable lingual unit, the uninterrupted string of morphemes, etc., etc.
None of these definitions, which can be divided into formal, functional, and
mixed, has the power to precisely cover all the lexical segments of language
without a residue remaining outside the field of definition.
The said
difficulties compel some linguists to refrain from accepting the word as the
basic element of language. In particular, American scholars -
representatives of Descriptive Linguistics founded
by L. Bloomfield - recognised
not the word and the sentence, but the phoneme and the morpheme as the basic
categories of linguistic description, because these units are the easiest to be
isolated in the continual text due to their "physically" minimal,
elementary segmental character: the phoneme being the minimal formal segment of
language, the morpheme, the minimal meaningful segment. Accordingly, only two
segmental levels were originally identified in language by Descriptive
scholars: the phonemic level and the morphemic level; later on a third one was
added to these - the
level of "constructions", i.e. the level of morphemic combinations.
In fact, if we take
such notional words as, say, water, pass, yellow and the like, as well as their
simple derivatives, e.g. watery, passer, yellowness, we shall easily see their
definite nominative function and unambiguous segmental delimitation, making
them beyond all doubt into "separate words of language". But if we
compare with the given one-stem words the corresponding composite formations,
such as waterman, password, yellowback, we shall immediately note that the
identification of the latter as separate words is much complicated by the fact
that they themselves are decomposable into separate words. One could point out
that the peculiar property distinguishing composite words from phrases is their
linear indivisibility, i.e. the impossibility
tor them to be divided by a third word. But this
would-be rigorous criterion is quite irrelevant for analytical wordforms, e.g.:
has met - has never met; is coming -is not by any means or under any
circumstances coming.
As
for the criterion according to which the word is
identified as a minimal sign capable of functioning alone (the word understood
as the "smallest free form", or interpreted as the "potential
minimal sentence"), it is irrelevant for the bulk of functional words
which cannot be used "independently" even in elliptical responses (to
say nothing of the fact that the very notion of ellipsis is essentially the
opposite of self-dependence).
In spite of the
shown difficulties, however, there remains the unquestionable fact that each
speaker has at his disposal a ready stock of naming units (more precisely,
units standing to one another in nominative correlation) by which he can build
up an infinite number of utterances reflecting the ever changing situations of
reality.
This circumstance
urges us to seek the identification of the word as a lingual unit-type on other
lines than the "strictly operational definition". In fact, we do find
the clarification of the problem in taking into consideration the difference
between the two sets of lingual phenomena: on the one hand, "polar"
phenomena; on the other hand, "intermediary" phenomena.
Within a complex
system of interrelated elements, polar phenomena are the most clearly
identifiable, they stand to one another in an utterly unambiguous opposition.
Intermediary phenomena are located in the system in between the polar
phenomena, making up a gradation of transitions or the so-called
"continuum". By some of their properties intermediary phenomena are
similar or near to one of the corresponding poles, while by other properties
they are similar to the other, opposing pole. The analysis of the intermediary
phenomena from the point of view of their relation to the polar phenomena
reveal their own status in the system. At the same time this kind of analysis
helps evaluate the definitions of the polar phenomena between which a continuum
is established.
In this connection,
the notional one-stem word and the morpheme should be described as the opposing
polar phenomena among the meaningful segments of language; it is these elements
that can be defined by their formal and functional features most precisely and
unambiguously. As for functional
words, they occupy intermediary positions between these poles, and their very
intermediary status is gradational. In particular, the variability of their
status is expressed in the fact that some of them can be used in an isolated
response position (for instance, words of affirmation and negation,
interrogative words, demonstrative words, etc.), while others cannot (such as
prepositions or conjunctions).
The nature of the
element of any system is revealed in the character of its function. The
function of words is realised in their nominative correlation with one another.
On the basis of this correlation a number of functional words are distinguished
by the "negative delimitation" (i.e. delimitation as a residue after
the identification of the co-positional textual elements),* e.g.-. the/people;
to/speak; by/way/of.
The "negative
delimitation'' immediately connects these functional words with the directly
nominative, notional words in the system. Thus, the correlation in question
(which is to be implied by the conventional term "nominative
function") unites functional words with notional words, or
"half-words" (word-morphemes) with "full words". On the
other hand, nominative correlation reduces the morpheme as a type of segmental
signeme to the role of an element in the composition of the word.
As we see, if the
elementary character (indivisibility) of the morpheme (as a significative unit)
is established in the structure of words, the elementary character of the word
(as a nominative unit) is realised in the system of lexicon.
Summing up what has
been said in this paragraph, we may point out some of the properties of the
morpheme and the word which are fundamental from the point of view of their
systemic status and therefore require detailed investigations and descriptions.
the morpheme is a
meaningful segmental component of the word; the morpheme is formed by phonemes;
as a meaningful component of the word it is elementary (i.e. indivisible into
smaller segments as regards its significative function).
The word is a
nominative unit of language; it is formed by morphemes; it enters the lexicon
of language as its elementary component (i.e. a component indivisible into
smaller segments as regards its nominative function); together with
other nominative units the word is used for the
formation of the sentence - a
unit of information in the communication process.
In traditional
grammar the study of the morphemic structure of the word was conducted in the
light of the two basic criteria: positional (the location of the marginal
morphemes in relation to the central ones) and semantic or functional (the
correlative contribution of the morphemes to the general meaning of the word).
The combination of these two criteria in an integral description has led to the
rational classification of morphemes that is widely used both in research
linguistic work and in practical lingual tuition.
In accord with the
traditional classification, morphemes on the upper level are divided into
root-morphemes (roots) and affixal morphemes (affixes). The roots express the
concrete, "material" part of the meaning of the word, while the
affixes express the specificational part of the meaning of the word, the
specifications being of lexico-semantic and grammatico-semantic character.
The roots of notional
words are classical lexical morphemes.
The affixal
morphemes include prefixes, suffixes, and inflexions (in the tradition of the
English school grammatical inflexions are commonly referred to as
"suffixes"). Of these, prefixes and lexical suffixes have
word-building functions, together with the root they form the stem of the word;
inflexions (grammatical suffixes) express different morphological categories.
The root, according
to the positional content of the term (i.e. the border-area between prefixes
and suffixes), is obligatory for any word, while affixes are not obligatory.
Therefore one and the same morphemic segment of functional (i.e. non-notional)
status, depending on various morphemic environments, can in principle be used
now as an affix (mostly, a prefix), now as a root. Cf.:
out -
a root-word (preposition, adverb, verbal
postposition, adjective, noun, verb);
throughout -
a composite word, in which -out serves as one of
the roots (the categorial status of the meaning of both morphemes is the same);
outing -
a two-morpheme word, in which out is a root, and
-ing is a suffix;
outlook, outline,
outrage, out-talk, etc. - words,
in which out- serves as a prefix;
look-out,
knock-out, shut-out, time-out, etc. - words
(nouns), in which -out serves as a suffix.
The morphemic
composition of modern English words has a wide range of varieties; in the
lexicon of everyday speech the preferable morphemic types of stems are
root-stems (one-root stems or two-root stems) and one-affix stems. With
grammatically changeable words, these stems take one grammatical suffix {two
"open" grammatical suffixes are used only with some plural nouns in
the possessive case, cf.: the children's toys, the oxen's yokes).
Thus, the abstract
complete morphemic model of the common English word is the following: prefix +
root + lexical
suffix+grammatical suffix.
The syntagmatic
connections of the morphemes within the model form two types of hierarchical
structure. The first is characterised by the original prefixal stem (e.g.
prefabricated), the second is characterised by the original suffixal stem (e.g.
inheritors). If we use the symbols St for stem, R for root, Pr for prefix, L
for lexical suffix, Gr for grammatical suffix, and, besides, employ three
graphical symbols of hierarchical grouping -
braces, brackets, and parentheses, then the two
morphemic word-structures can be presented as follows:
= {[Pr
+ (R +
L)] +Gr}; W2 = {[(Pr + R) +L] + Gr}
In the morphemic
composition of more complicated words these model-types form different combinations.
Further insights
into the correlation between the formal and functional aspects of morphemes
within the composition of the word may be gained in the light of the so-called
"allo-emic" theory put forward by Descriptive Linguistics and broadly
used in the current linguistic research.
In accord with this
theory, lingual units are described by means of two types of terms: allo-terms
and eme-terms. Eme-terms denote the generalised invariant units of language
characterised by a certain functional status: phonemes, morphemes. Allo-terms
denote the concrete manifestations, or variants of the generalised units
dependent on the regular co-location with
other elements of language: allophones,
allomorphs. A set of iso-functional allo-units identified in the text on the
basis of their co-occurrence with other lingual units (distribution) is
considered as the corresponding eme-unit with its fixed systemic status.
The allo-emic
identification of lingual elements is achieved by means of the so-called
"distributional analysis". The immediate aim of the distributional
analysis is to fix and study the units of language in relation to their textual
environments, i.e. the adjoining elements in the text.
The environment of
a unit may be either "right" or "left", e.g.: un-pardon-able.
In this word the
left environment of the root is the negative prefix
un-, the right environment of the root is the
qualitative suffix -able. Respectively, the root -pardon- is the right
environment for the prefix, and the left environment for the suffix.
The distribution of
a unit may be defined as the total of all its environments; in other words, the
distribution of a unit is its environment in generalised terms of classes or
categories.
In the
distributional analysis on the morphemic level, phonemic distribution of
morphemes and morphemic distribution of morphemes are discriminated. The study
is conducted in two stages.
At the first stage,
the analysed text (i.e. the collected lingual materials, or "corpus")
is divided into recurrent segments consisting of phonemes. These segments are
called "morphs", i.e. morphemic units distributionally
uncharacterised, e.g.: the/boat/s/were/gain/ing/speed.
At the second
stage, the environmental features of the morphs are established and the
corresponding identifications are effected.
Three main types of
distribution are discriminated in the distributional analysis, namely,
contrastive distribution, non-contrastive distribution, and complementary
distribution.
Contrastive and
non-contrastive distributions concern identical environments of different
morphs. The morphs are said to be in contrastive distribution if their meanings
(functions) are different. Such morphs constitute different morphemes. Cf. the
suffixes -(e)d and -ing in the verb-forms returned, returning. The morphs are
said to be in non-contrastive distribution (or free alternation) if their
meaning (function) is the same. Such morphs constitute "free
alternants", or "free variants" of the same morpheme. Cf. the
suffixes -(e)d and -t
in the verb-forms learned, learnt.
As different from
the above, complementary distribution concerns different environments of
formally different morphs which are united by the same meaning (function). If
two or more morphs have the same meaning and the difference in (heir form is
explained by different environments, these morphs are said to be in
complementary distribution and considered the allomorphs of the same morpheme.
Cf. the allomorphs of the plural morpheme /-s/, /-z/, /-iz/ which stand in
phonemic complementary distribution; the plural allomorph -en in oxen,
children, which stands in morphemic complementary distribution with the other
allomorphs of the plural morpheme.
As we see, for
analytical purposes the notion of complementary distribution is the most
important, because it helps establish the identity of outwardly altogether
different elements of language, in particular, its grammatical elements.
As a result of the
application of distributional analysis to the morphemic level, different types
of morphemes have been discriminated which can be called the
"distributional morpheme types". It must be stressed that the
distributional classification of morphemes cannot abolish or in any way
depreciate the traditional morpheme types. Rather, it supplements the
traditional classification, showing some essential features of morphemes on the
principles of environmental study.
We shall survey the
distributional morpheme types arranging them in pairs of immediate correlation.
On the basis of the
degree of self-dependence, "free" morphemes and "bound"
morphemes are distinguished. Bound morphemes cannot form words by themselves,
they are identified only as component segmental parts of words. As different
from this, free morphemes can build up words by themselves, i.e. can be used
"freely".
For instance, in
the word handful the root hand is a free morpheme, while the suffix -ful is a
bound morpheme.
There are very few
productive bound morphemes in the morphological system of English. Being
extremely narrow, the list of them is complicated by the relations of homonymy.
These morphemes are the following:
1) the segments
-(e)s [-z,
-s, -iz]: the plural of nouns, the possessive
case of nouns, the third person singular present of verbs;
2)
the segments -(e)d [-d, -t, -id]:
the past and past participle of verbs;
3)
the segments -ing: the gerund and
present participle;
4)
the segments -er, -est: the
comparative and superlative degrees of adjectives and adverbs.
The auxiliary
word-morphemes of various standings should be interpreted in this connection as
"semi-bound" morphemes, since, being used as separate elements of
speech strings, they form categorial unities with their notional stem-words.
On the basis of formal
presentation, "overt" morphemes and "covert" morphemes are
distinguished. Overt morphemes are genuine, explicit morphemes building up
words; the covert morpheme is identified as a contrastive absence of morpheme
expressing a certain function. The notion of covert morpheme coincides with the
notion of zero morpheme in the oppositional description of grammatical
categories (see further).
For instance, the
word-form clocks consists of two overt morphemes: one lexical (root) and one
grammatical expressing the plural. The outwardly one-morpheme word-form clock,
since it expresses the singular, is also considered as consisting of two
morphemes, i.e. of the overt root and the co\ert (implicit) grammatical suffix
of the singular. The usual symbol for the covert morpheme employed by linguists
is the sign of the empty set: 0.
On the basis of
segmental relation, "segmental" morphemes and
"supra-segmental" morphemes are distinguished. Interpreted as
supra-segmental morphemes in distributional terms are intonation contours,
accents, pauses.
The said elements
of language, as we have stated elsewhere, should beyond dispute be considered
signemic units of language, since they are functionally bound. They form the
secondary line of speech, accompanying its primary phonemic line (phonemic
complexes). On the other hand, from what has been stated about the morpheme
proper, it is not difficult to see that the morphemic interpretation of
suprasegmental units can hardly stand to reason. Indeed, these units are
functionally connected not with morphemes, but with larger elements of
language: words, word-groups, sentences, supra-sentential constructions.
On the basis of
grammatical alternation, "additive" morphemes and
"replacive" morphemes are distinguished. Interpreted as additive morphemes
are outer grammatical suffixes, since, as a rule, they are opposed to the
absence of morphemes in grammatical alternation. Cf. look+ed; small+er, etc. In
distinction to these, the root phonemes of grammatical interchange are
considered as replacive morphemes, since they replace one another in the
paradigmatic forms. Cf. dr-i-ve - dr-o-ve
- dr-i-ven; m-a-n -
m-e-n; etc.
It should be
remembered that the phonemic interchange is utterly unproductive in English as
in all the Indo-European languages. If it were productive, it might rationally
be interpreted as a sort of replacive "infixation" (correlated with "exfixation"
of the additive type). As it stands, however, this type of grammatical means
can be understood as a kind of suppletivity (i.e. partial suppletivity).
On the basis of
linear characteristic, "continuous" (or "linear") morphemes
and "discontinuous" morphemes are distinguished.
By the
discontinuous morpheme, opposed to the common, i.e. uninterruptedly expressed,
continuous morpheme, a two-element grammatical unit is meant which is
identified in the analytical grammatical form comprising an auxiliary word and
a grammatical suffix. These two elements, as it were, embed the notional stem;
hence, they are symbolically represented as follows:
be ...
ing - for
the continuous verb forms (e.g. is going); have ...
en - for
the perfect verb forms (e.g. has gone); be ...
en - for
the passive verb forms (e.g. is taken)
It is easy to see
that the notion of morpheme applied to the analytical form of the word violates
the principle of the identification of morpheme as an elementary meaningful
segment: the analytical "framing" consists of two meaningful
segments, i.e. of two different morphemes. On the other hand, the general
notion "discontinuous constituent", "discontinuous unit" is
quite rational and can be helpfully used in linguistic description in its proper
place.
CHAPTER III.
CATEGORIAL STRUCTURE OF THE WORD
words, first of all
verbs and nouns, possess some morphemic features expressing grammatical
(morphological) meanings. These features determine the grammatical form of the
word.
Grammatical
meanings are very abstract, very general. Therefore the grammatical form is not
confined to an individual word, but unites a whole class of words, so that each
word of the class expresses the corresponding grammatical meaning together with
its individual, concrete semantics.
For instance, the
meaning of the substantive plural is rendered by the regular plural suffix
-(e)s, and in some cases by other, more specific means, such as phonemic
interchange and a few lexeme-bound suffixes. Due to the generalised character
of the plural, we say that different groups of nouns "take" this form
with strictly defined variations in the mode of expression, the variations
being of more systemic (phonological conditioning) and less systemic
(etymological conditioning) nature. Cf.: faces, branches, matches, judges;
books, rockets, boats, chiefs, proofs; dogs, beads, films, stones, hens; lives,
wives, thieves, leaves; girls, stars, toys, heroes, pianos, cantos; oxen,
children, brethren, kine; swine, sheep, deer; cod, trout, salmon; men, women,
feet, teeth, geese, mice, lice; formulae, antennae; data, errata, strata,
addenda, memoranda; radii, genii, nuclei, alumni; crises, bases, analyses,
axes; phenomena, criteria.
As we see, the
grammatical form presents a division of the word on the principle of expressing
a certain grammatical meaning.
The most general
notions reflecting the most general properties of phenomena are referred to in
logic as "categorial notions", or "categories". The most
general meanings rendered by language and expressed by systemic correlations of
word-forms are interpreted in linguistics as categorial grammatical meanings.
The forms themselves are identified within definite paradigmatic series.
The categorial
meaning (e.g. the grammatical number) unites the individual meanings of the
correlated paradigmatic forms (e.g. singular -
plural) and is exposed through them; hence, the
meaning of the grammatical category and the meaning of the grammatical form are
related to each other on the principle of the logical relation between the
categorial and generic notions.
As for the
grammatical category itself, it presents, the
same as the grammatical "form", a
unity of form (i.e. material factor) and meaning (i.e. ideal factor) and
constitutes a certain signemic system.
More specifically,
the grammatical category is a system of expressing a generalised grammatical
meaning by means of paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms.
The ordered set of
grammatical forms expressing a categorial function constitutes a paradigm.
The paradigmatic
correlations of grammatical forms in a category are exposed by the so-called
"grammatical oppositions".
The opposition (in
the linguistic sense) may be defined as a generalised correlation of lingual
forms by means of which a certain function is expressed. The correlated
elements (members) of the opposition must possess two types of features: common
features and differential features. Common features serve as the basis of
contrast, while differential features immediately express the function in
question.
The oppositional
theory was originally formulated as a ; phonological
theory. Three main qualitative types of oppositions were established in
phonology: "privative", "gradual", and
"equipollent". By the number of members contrasted, oppositions were
divided into binary (two members) and more than binary (ternary, quaternary,
etc.).
The most important
type of opposition is the binary privative opposition; the other types of
oppositions are reducible to the binary privative opposition.
The binary
privative opposition is formed by a contrastive pair of members in which one
member is characterised by the presence of a certain differential feature
("mark"), while the other member is characterised by the absence of
this feature. The member in which the feature is present is called the
"marked", or "strong", or "positive" member, and
is commonly designated by the symbol + (plus);
the member in which the feature is absent is called the "unmarked",
or "weak", or "negative" member, and is commonly designated
by the symbol - (minus).
For instance, the
voiced and devoiced consonants form a privative opposition [b, d, g -p,
t, k]. The differential feature of the opposition is "voice". This
feature is present in the voiced consonants, so their set forms the marked
member of the opposition. The devoiced consonants, lacking the feature, form
the unmarked member of the opposition. To stress the marking quality of
"voice" for the opposition in
question, the devoiced consonants may be
referred to as «nоn-voiced".
The gradual
opposition is formed by a contrastive group of members which are distinguished
not by the presence or аbsenсе
of a feature, but by the degree of it.
For instance, the
front vowels [i:-i-e-ae]
form a quaternary gradual opposition, since they are differentiated by the
degree of their openness (their length, as is known, is' also relevant, as well
as some other individualising properties, but these factors do not spoil the
gradual opposition as such).
The equipollent
opposition is formed by a contrastive pair or group in which the members are
distinguished by different positive features.
For instance, the
phonemes [m] and [b], both bilabial consonants, form an equipollent opposition,
[m] being sonorous nazalised, [b ] being
plosive.
We have noted above
that any opposition can be reformulated in privative terms. Indeed, any
positive feature distinguishing an oppositionally characterised lingual element
is absent in the oppositionally correlated element, so that considered from the
point of view of this feature alone, the opposition, by definition, becomes
privative. This reformulation is especially helpful on an advanced stage of
oppositional study of a given microsystem, because it enables us to
characterise the elements of the system by the corresponding strings
("bundles") of values of their oppositional featuring ("bundles
of differential features"), each feature being represented by the values +
or -.
For instance, [p]
is distinguished from [b] as voiceless (voice -),
from [t ]
as bilabial (labialisation +),
from [m] as non-nazalised (nazalisation -),
etc. The descriptive advantages of this kind of
characterisation are self-evident.
Unlike phonemes
which are monolateral lingual elements, words as units of morphology are
bilateral; therefore morphological oppositions must reflect both the plane of
expression (form) and the plane of content (meaning).
The most important
type of opposition in morphology, the same as in phonology, is the binary
privative opposition.
The privative
morphological opposition is based on a morphological differential feature which
is present in its strong parked) member and absent in its weak (unmarked)
member. In another kind of wording, this differential feature may be
said to mark one of the members of the opposition
positively (the strong member), and the other one negatively (the weak member).
The featuring in question serves as the immediate means of expressing a
grammatical meaning.
For instance, the
expression of the verbal present and past tenses is based on a privative
opposition the differential feature of which is the dental suffix -(e)d. This
suffix, rendering the meaning of the past tense, marks the past form of the
verb positively (we worked), and the present form negatively (we work).
The meanings differentiated
by the oppositions of signemic units (signemic oppositions) are referred to as
"semantic features", or "semes".
For instance, the
nounal form cats expresses the seme of plurality, as opposed to the form cat
which expresses, by contrast, the seme of singularity. The two forms constitute
a privative opposition in which the plural is the marked member. In order to
stress the negative marking of the singular, it can be referred to as
"non-plural".
It should be noted
that the designation of the weak members of privative morphological oppositions
by the "non-" terms is significant not only from the point of view of
the plane of expression, but also from the point of view of the plane of
content. It is connected with the fact that the meaning of the weak member of
the privative opposition is more general and abstract as compared with the
meaning of the strong member, which is, respectively, more particular and
concrete. Due to this difference in meaning, the weak member is used in a wider
range of contexts than the strong member. For instance, the present tense form
of the verb, as different from the past tense, is used to render meanings much
broader than those directly implied by the corresponding time-plane as such.
Cf.:
The sun rises in
the East. To err is human. They don't speak French in this part of the country.
Etc.
Equipollent
oppositions in the system of English morphology constitute a minor type and are
mostly confined to formal relations only. An example of such an opposition can
be seen in the correlation of the person forms of the verb be: am -
are - is.
Gradual oppositions
in morphology are not generally recognised; in principle, they can be
identified as a minor type on the semantic level only. An example of the
gradual morphological
opposition can be seen in the category of comparison: strong -
stronger -
strongest.
A grammatical
category must be expressed by at least one opposition of forms. These forms are
ordered in a paradigm in grammatical descriptions.
Both equipollent
and gradual oppositions in morphology, the same as in phonology, can be reduced
to privative oppositions within the framework of an oppositional presentation
of some categorial system as a whole. Thus, a word-form, like a phoneme, can be
represented by a bundle of values of differential features, graphically
exposing its categorial structure. For instance, the verb-form listens is
marked negatively as the present tense (tense -),
negatively as the indicative mood (mood -),
negatively as the passive voice (voice-),
positively as the third person (person +),
etc. This principle of presentation, making a
morphological description more compact, at the same time has the advantage of
precision and helps penetrate deeper into the inner mechanisms of grammatical
categories.
In various
contextual conditions, one member of an opposition can be used in the position
of the other, counter-member. This phenomenon should be treated under the
heading of "oppositional reduction" or "oppositional
substitution". The first version of the term ("reduction")
points out the fact that the opposition in this case is contracted, losing its
formal distinctive force. The second version of the term ("substitution")
shows the very process by which the opposition is reduced, namely, the use of
one member instead of the other.
By way of example,
let us consider the following case of the singular noun-subject: Man conquers
nature.
The noun man in the
quoted sentence is used in the singular, but it is quite clear that it stands
not for an individual person, but for people in general, for the idea of
"mankind". In other words, the noun is used generically, it implies
the class of denoted objects as a whole. Thus, in the oppositional light, here
the weak member of the categorial opposition of number has replaced the strong
member.
Consider another
example: Tonight we start for London.
The verb in this
sentence takes the form of the present, while its meaning in the context is the
future. It means that the opposition "present -
future" has been reduced, the weak member
(present) replacing the strong one (future).
The oppositional
reduction shown in the two cited cases is stylistically indifferent, the
demonstrated use of the forms does not transgress the expressive conventions of
ordinary speech. This kind of oppositional reduction is referred to as
"neutralisation" of oppositions. The position of neutralisation is,
as a rule, filled in by the weak member of the opposition due to its more general
semantics.
Alongside of the
neutralising reduction of oppositions there exists another kind of reduction,
by which one of the members of the opposition is placed in contextual
conditions uncommon for it; in other words, the said reductional use of the
form is stylistically marked. E.g.: That man is constantly complaining of
something.
The form of the
verbal present continuous in the cited sentence stands in sharp contradiction
with its regular grammatical meaning "action in progress at the present
time". The contradiction is, of course, purposeful: by exaggeration, it
intensifies the implied disapproval of the man's behaviour.
This kind of
oppositional reduction should be considered under the heading of
"transposition". Transposition is based on the contrast between the
members of the opposition, it may be defined as a contrastive use of the
counter-member of the opposition. As a rule (but not exclusively)
transpositionally employed is the strong member of the opposition, which is
explained by its comparatively limited regular functions.
The means employed
for building up member-forms of categorial oppositions are traditionally
divided into synthetical and analytical; accordingly, the grammatical forms
themselves are classed into synthetical and analytical, too.
Synthetical
grammatical forms are realised by the inner morphemic composition of the word,
while analytical grammatical forms are built up by a combination of at least
two words, one of which is a grammatical auxiliary (word-morpheme), and the
other, a word of "substantial" meaning. Synthetical grammatical forms
are based on inner inflexion, outer inflexion, and suppletivity; hence, the
forms are referred to as inner-inflexional, outer-inflexional, and suppletive.
Inner inflexion, or
phonemic (vowel) interchange, is not productive in modern Indo-European
languages, but it is peculiarly employed in some of their basic, most ancient
lexemic elements. By this feature, the whole
family of Indo-European languages is identified in linguistics as typologically
"inflexional".
Inner inflexion (grammatical
"infixation", see above) is used in English in irregular verbs (the
bulk of them belong to the Germanic strong verbs) for the formation of the past
indefinite and past participle; besides, it is used in a few nouns for the
formation of the plural. Since the corresponding oppositions of forms are based
on phonemic interchange, the initial paradigmatic form of each lexeme should
also be considered as inflexional. Cf.: take -
took - taken,
drive - drove
- driven, keep -
kept - kept,
etc.; man - men,
brother - brethren,
etc.
Suppletivity, like
inner inflexion, is not productive as a purely morphological type of form. It
is based on the correlation of different roots as a means of paradigmatic
differentiation. In other words, it consists in the grammatical interchange of
word roots, and this, as we pointed out in the foregoing chapter, unites it in
principle with inner inflexion (or, rather, makes the latter into a specific
variety of the former).
Suppletivity is
used in the forms of the verbs be and go, in the irregular forms of the degrees
of comparison, in some forms of personal pronouns. Cf.: be -
am - are
- is -
was - were;
go - went; good -
better; bad -
worse; much -
more; little -
less; I -
me; we - us;
she - her.
In a broader
morphological interpretation, suppletivity can be recognised in paradigmatic
correlations of some modal verbs, some indefinite pronouns, as well as certain
nouns of peculiar categorial properties (lexemic suppletivity -
see Ch. IV, §
8). Cf.: can -
be able; must -
have (to), be obliged (to); may -
be allowed (to); one -
some; man -
people; news -
items of news; information -
pieces of information; etc.
The shown
unproductive synthetical means of English morphology are outbalanced by the
productive means of affixation (outer inflexion), which amount to grammatical
suffixation (grammatical prefixation could only be observed in the Old English
verbal system).
In the previous
chapter we enumerated the few grammatical suffixes possessed by the English
language. These are used to build up the number and case forms of the noun; the
Person-number, tense, participial and gerundial forms of the verb; the
comparison forms of the adjective and adverb. In the oppositional correlations
of all these forms, the initial paradigmatic
form of each opposition is distinguished by a zero suffix. Cf.: boy + ø
- boys; go + ø
- goes; work + ø
- worked; small + ø
-smaller; etc.
Taking this into
account, and considering also the fact that each grammatical form paradigmatically
correlates with at least one other grammatical form on the basis of the
category expressed (e.g. the form of the singular with the form of the plural),
we come to the conclusion that the total number of synthetical forms in English
morphology, though certainly not very large, at the same time is not so small
as it is commonly believed. Scarce in English are not the synthetical forms as
such, but the actual affixal segments on which the paradigmatic differentiation
of forms is based.
As for analytical
forms which are so typical of modern English that they have long made this
language into the "canonised" representative of lingual analytism,
they deserve some special comment on their substance.
The traditional
view of the analytical morphological form recognises two lexemic parts in it,
stating that it presents a combination of an auxiliary word with a basic word.
However, there is a tendency with some linguists to recognise as analytical not
all such grammatically significant combinations, but only those of them that
are "grammatically idiomatic", i.e. whose relevant grammatical
meaning is not immediately dependent on the meanings of their component
elements taken apart. Considered in this light, the form of the verbal perfect
where the auxiliary "have" has utterly lost its original meaning of
possession, is interpreted as the most standard and indisputable analytical
form 'in English morphology. Its opposite is seen in the analytical degrees of
comparison which, according to the cited interpretation, come very near to free
combinations of words by their lack of "idiomatism" in the above
sense [Смирницкий,
(2), 68 и
сл.;
Бархударов,
(2), 67 и
сл.].*
The scientific
achievement of the study of "idiomatic" analytism in different
languages is essential and indisputable. On the other hand, the demand that
"grammatical idiomatism" should be regarded as the basis of
"grammatical analytism" seems, logically, too strong. The analytical
means underlying the forms in question consist in the discontinuity of the
corresponding lexemic constituents. Proceeding
from this
fundamental principle, it can hardly stand to reason to exclude
"unidiomatic" grammatical combinations (i.e. combinations of
oppositional-categorial significance) from the system of analytical expression
as such. Rather, they should be regarded as an integral part of this system, in
which, the provision granted, a gradation of idiomatism is to be recognised. In
this case, alongside of the classical analytical forms of verbal perfect or
continuous, such analytical forms should also be discriminated as the
analytical infinitive (go - to
go), the analytical verbal person (verb plus personal pronoun), the analytical
degrees of comparison of both positive and negative varieties (more important -
less important), as well as some other, still
more unconventional form-types.
Moreover, alongside
of the standard analytical forms characterised by the unequal ranks of their
components (auxiliary element-basic
element), as a marginal analytical form-type grammatical repetition should be
recognised, which is used to express specific categorial semantics of
processual intensity with the verb, of indefinitely high degree of quality with
the adjective and the adverb, of indefinitely large quantity with the noun.
Cf.:
He knocked and
knocked and knocked without reply (Gr. Greene). Oh, I feel I've got such
boundless, boundless love to give to somebody (K. Mansfield). Two white-haired
severe women were in charge of shelves and shelves of knitting materials of
every description (A. Christie).
§ 5. The
grammatical categories which are realised by the described types of forms
organised in functional paradigmatic oppositions, can either be innate for a
given class of words, or only be expressed on the surface of it, serving as a
sign of correlation with some other class.
For instance, the
category of number is organically connected with the functional nature of the
noun; it directly exposes the number of the referent substance, e.g. one ship -
several ships. The category of number in the
verb, however, by no means gives a natural meaningful characteristic to the
denoted process: the process is devoid of numerical features such as are
expressed by the grammatical number. Indeed, what is rendered by the verbal
number is not a quantitative characterisation of the process, but a numerical
featuring of the subject-referent. Cf.:
The girl is
smiling. - The
girls are smiling. The ship is in the harbour. -
The ships are in the harbour.
Thus, from the
point of view of referent relation, grammatical categories should be divided
into "immanent" categories, i.e. categories innate for a given
lexemic class, and "reflective" categories, i.e. categories of a
secondary, derivative semantic value. Categorial forms based on subordinative
grammatical agreement (such as the verbal person, the verbal number) are
reflective, while categorial forms stipulating grammatical agreement in lexemes
of a contiguous word-class (such as the substantive-pronominal person, the
substantive number) are immanent. Immanent are also such categories and their
forms as are closed within a word-class, i.e. do not transgress its borders; to
these belong the tense of the verb, the comparison of the adjective and adverb,
etc.
Another essential
division of grammatical categories is based on the changeability factor of the
exposed feature. Namely, the feature of the referent expressed by the category
can be either constant (unchangeable, "derivational"), or variable
(changeable, "demutative").
An example of
constant feature category can be seen in the category of gender, which divides
the class of English nouns into non-human names, human male names, human female
names, and human common gender names. This division is represented by the
system of the third person pronouns serving as gender-indices (see further).
Cf.:
It (non-human):
mountain, city, forest, cat, bee, etc. He (male human): man, father, husband,
uncle, etc. She (female human): woman, lady, mother, girl, etc. He or she
(common human): person, parent, child, cousin, etc.
Variable feature
categories can be exemplified by the substantive number (singular -
plural) or the degrees of comparison (positive -
comparative -
superlative).
Constant feature
categories reflect the static classifications of phenomena, while variable
feature categories expose various connections between phenomena. Some marginal
categorial forms may acquire intermediary status, being located in-between the
corresponding categorial poles. For instance, the nouns singularia tantum and
pluralia tantum present a case of hybrid variable-constant formations, since
their variable feature of number has become "rigid",
or "lexicalised". Cf.: news, advice,
progress; people, police; bellows, tongs; colours, letters; etc.
In distinction to these,
the gender word-building pairs should be considered as a clear example of
hybrid constant-variable formations, since their constant feature of gender has
acquired some changeability properties, i.e. has become to a certain extent
"grammaticalised". Cf.: actor -
actress, author -
authoress, lion -
lioness, etc.
In the light of the
exposed characteristics of the categories, we may specify the status of
grammatical paradigms of changeable forms.
Grammatical change
has been interpreted in traditional terms of declension and conjugation. By
declension the nominal change is implied (first of all, the case system), while
by conjugation the verbal change is implied (the verbal forms of person,
number, tense, etc.). However, the division of categories into immanent and
reflective invites a division of forms on a somewhat more consistent basis.
Since the immanent
feature is expressed by essentially independent grammatical forms, and the
reflective feature, correspondingly, by essentially dependent grammatical forms,
all the forms of the first order (immanent) should be classed as
"declensional", while all the forms of the second order (reflective)
should be classed as "conjugational".
In accord with this
principle, the noun in such synthetical languages as Russian or Latin is
declined by the forms of gender, number, and case, while the adjective is
conjugated by the same forms. As for the English verb, it is conjugated by the
reflective forms of person and number, but declined by the immanent forms of
tense, aspect, voice, and mood.
CHAPTER IV.
GRAMMATICAL CLASSES OF WORDS
The words of
language, depending on various formal and semantic features, are divided into
grammatically relevant sets or classes. The traditional grammatical classes of
words are called "parts of speech". Since the word is distinguished
not only by grammatical, but also by semantico-lexemic properties, some
scholars refer to parts of speech as
"lexico-grammatical" series of words, or as "lexico-grammatical
categories" [Смирницкий,
(1), 33; (2), 100].
It should be noted
that the term "part of speech" is purely traditional and
conventional, it can't be taken as in any way defining or explanatory. This
name was introduced in the grammatical teaching of Ancient Greece, where the
concept of the sentence was not yet explicitly identified in distinction to the
general idea of speech, and where, consequently, no strict differentiation was
drawn between the word as a vocabulary unit and the word as a functional
element of the sentence.
In modern
linguistics, parts of speech are discriminated on the basis of the three
criteria: "semantic", "formal", and "functional".
The semantic criterion presupposes the evaluation of the generalised meaning,
which is characteristic of all the subsets of words constituting a given part
of speech. This meaning is understood as the "categorial meaning of the
part of speech". The formal criterion provides for the exposition of the
specific inflexional and derivational (word-building) features of all the
lexemic subsets of a part of speech. The functional criterion concerns the syntactic
role of words in the sentence typical of a part of speech. The said three
factors of categorial characterisation of words are conventionally referred to
as, respectively, "meaning", "form", and
"function".
In accord with the
described criteria, words on the upper level of classification are divided into
notional and functional, which reflects their division in the earlier
grammatical tradition into changeable and unchangeable.
To the notional
parts of speech of the English language belong the noun, the adjective, the
numeral, the pronoun, the verb, the adverb.
The features of the
noun within the identificational triad "meaning -
form - function"
are, correspondingly, the following: 1) the
categorial meaning of substance ("thingness"); 2)
the changeable forms of number and case; the
specific suffixal forms of derivation (prefixes in English do not discriminate
parts of speech as such); 3) the
substantive functions in the sentence (subject, object, substantival
predicative); prepositional connections; modification by an adjective.
The features of the
adjective: 1) the
categorial meaning of property (qualitative and relative); 2)
the forms of the degrees of comparison (for
qualitative adjectives); the specific suffixal forms of derivation; 3)
adjectival functions in the sentence (attribute
to a noun, adjectival predicative).
The features of the
numeral: 1) the
categorial meaning of number (cardinal and ordinal); 2)
the narrow set of simple numerals; the specific
forms of composition for compound numerals; the specific suffixal forms of
derivation for ordinal numerals; 3) the
functions of numerical attribute and numerical substantive.
The features of the
pronoun: 1) the
categorial meaning of indication (deixis); 2)
the narrow sets of various status with the
corresponding formal properties of categorial changeability and word-building; 3)
the substantival and adjectival functions for
different sets.
The features of the
verb: 1) the categorial meaning of process (presented in the two upper series
of forms, respectively, as finite process and non-finite process); 2)
the forms of the verbal categories of person,
number, tense, aspect, voice, mood; the opposition of the finite and non-finite
forms; 3) the
function of the finite predicate for the finite verb; the mixed verbal -
other than verbal functions for the non-finite
verb.
The features of the
adverb: 1) the
categorial meaning of the secondary property, i.e. the property of process or
another property; 2) the
forms of the degrees of comparison for qualitative adverbs; the specific
suffixal forms of derivation; 3) the
functions of various adverbial modifiers.
We have surveyed
the identifying properties of the notional parts of speech that unite the words
of complete nominative meaning characterised by self-dependent functions in the
sentence.
Contrasted against
the notional parts of speech are words of incomplete nominative meaning and
non-self-dependent, mediatory functions in the sentence. These are functional
parts of speech.
On the principle of
"generalised form" only unchangeable words are traditionally treated
under the heading of functional parts of speech. As for their individual forms
as such, they are simply presented by the list, since the number of these words
is limited, so that they needn't be identified on any general, operational
scheme.
To the basic
functional series of words in English belong the article, the preposition, the
conjunction, the particle, the modal word, the interjection.
The article
expresses the specific limitation of the substantive functions.
The preposition
expresses the dependencies and interdependences of substantive referents.
The conjunction
expresses connections of phenomena.
The particle unites
the functional words of specifying and limiting meaning. To this series,
alongside of other specifying words, should be referred verbal postpositions as
functional modifiers of verbs, etc.
The modal word,
occupying in the sentence a more pronounced or less pronounced detached
position, expresses the attitude of the speaker to the reflected situation and
its parts. Here belong the functional words of probability (probably, perhaps,
etc.), of qualitative evaluation (fortunately, unfortunately, luckily, etc.),
and also of affirmation and negation.
The interjection,
occupying a detached position in the sentence, is a signal of emotions.
Each part of speech
after its identification is further subdivided into subseries in accord with
various particular semantico-functional and formal features of the constituent
words. This subdivision is sometimes called "subcategorisation" of
parts of speech.
Thus, nouns are
subcategorised into proper and common, animate and inanimate, countable and
uncountable, concrete and abstract, etc. Cf.:
Mary, Robinson,
London, the Mississippi, Lake Erie - girl,
person, city, river, lake;
man, scholar,
leopard, butterfly - earth,
field, rose, machine;
coin/coins,
floor/floors, kind/kinds - news,
growth, water, furniture;
stone, grain, mist,
leaf - honesty,
love, slavery, darkness.
Verbs are
subcategorised into fully predicative and partially predicative, transitive and
intransitive, actional and statal, factive and evaluative, etc. Cf.:
walk, sail,
prepare, shine, blow - can,
may, shall, be, become;
take, put, speak,
listen, see, give - live,
float, stay, ache, ripen, rain;
write, play,
strike, boil, receive, ride - exist,
sleep, rest, thrive, revel, suffer;
roll, tire, begin,
ensnare, build, tremble - consider,
approve, mind, desire, hate, incline.
Adjectives are
subcategorised into qualitative and relative, of constant feature and temporary
feature (the latter are referred to as "statives" and identified by
some scholars as a separate part of speech under the heading of "category
of state"), factive and evaluative, etc. Cf.:
long, red, lovely,
noble, comfortable - wooden,
rural, daily, subterranean, orthographical;
healthy, sickly,
joyful, grievous, wry, blazing - well,
ill, glad, sorry, awry, ablaze;
tall, heavy,
smooth, mental, native - kind,
brave, wonderful, wise, stupid.
The adverb, the
numeral, the pronoun are also subject to the corresponding subcategorisations.
§ 4. We
have drawn a general outline of the division of the lexicon into part of speech
classes developed by modern linguists on the lines of traditional morphology.
It is known that
the distribution of words between different parts of speech may to a certain
extent differ with different authors. This fact gives cause to some linguists
for calling in question the rational character of the part of speech
classification as a whole, gives them cause for accusing it of being subjective
or "prescientific" in essence. Such nihilistic criticism, however,
should be rejected as utterly ungrounded.
Indeed, considering
the part of speech classification on its merits, one must clearly realise that
what is above all important about it is the fundamental principles of
word-class identification, and not occasional enlargements or diminutions of
the established groups, or re-distributions of individual words due to
re-considerations of their subcategorial features. The very idea of
subcategorisation as the obligatory second stage of the undertaken
classification testifies to the objective nature of this kind of analysis.
For instance,
prepositions and conjunctions can be combined into one united series of
"connectives", since the function of both is just to connect notional
components of the sentence. In this case, on the second stage of
classification, the enlarged word-class of connectives will be subdivided into
two main subclasses, namely, prepositional connectives and conjunctional
connectives. Likewise, the articles can be included as a subset into the more
general set of particles-specifiers. As is known, nouns and adjectives, as well
as numerals, are treated in due contexts of description under one common
class-term "names": originally, in the Ancient Greek grammatical
teaching they were not differentiated because they had the same forms of
morphological change (declension). On the other hand, in various descriptions
of English grammar such narrow lexemic sets as the two words yes and no, the
pronominal determiners of nouns, even the one anticipating pronoun it are given
a separate class-item status - though
in no way challenging or distorting the functional character of the treated
units.
It should be
remembered that modern principles of part of speech identification have been
formulated as a result of painstaking research conducted on the vast materials
of numerous languages; and it is in Soviet linguistics that the three-criteria
characterisation of parts of speech has been developed and applied to practice
with the utmost consistency. The three celebrated names are especially notable
for the elaboration of these criteria, namely, V. V. Vinogradov in connection
with his study of Russian grammar, A. I. Smirnitsky and B. A. Ilyish in
connection with their study of English grammar.
Alongside of the
three-criteria principle of dividing the words into grammatical
(lexico-grammatical) classes modern linguistics has developed another, narrower
principle of word-class identification based on syntactic featuring of words
only.
The fact is, that
the three-criteria principle faces a special difficulty in determining the part
of speech status of such lexemes as have morphological characteristics of notional
words, but are essentially distinguished from notional words by their playing
the role of grammatical mediators in phrases and sentences. Here belong, for
instance, modal verbs together with their equivalents -
suppletive fillers, auxiliary verbs, aspective
verbs, intensifying adverbs, determiner pronouns. This difficulty, consisting
in the intersection of heterogeneous properties in the established
word-classes, can evidently be overcome by recognising only one criterion of
the three as decisive.
Worthy of note is
that in the original Ancient Greek grammatical
teaching which put forward the first outline of the part of speech theory, the
division of words into grammatical classes was also based on one determining
criterion only, namely, on the formal-morphological featuring. It means that
any given word under analysis was turned into a classified lexeme on the
principle of its relation to grammatical change. In conditions of the primary
acquisition of linguistic knowledge, and in connection with the study of a
highly inflexional language this characteristic proved quite efficient.
Still, at the
present stage of the development of linguistic science, syntactic
characterisation of words that has been made possible after the exposition of
their fundamental morphological properties, is far more important and universal
from the point of view of the general classificational requirements.
This
characterisation is more important, because it shows the distribution of words
between different sets in accord with their functional destination. The role of
morphology by this presentation is not underrated, rather it is further
clarified from the point of view of exposing connections between the categorial
composition of the word and its sentence-forming relevance.
This characterisation
is more universal, because it is not specially destined for the inflexional
aspect of language and hence is equally applicable to languages of various
morphological types.
On the material of
Russian, the principles of syntactic approach to the classification of word
stock were outlined in the works of A. M. Peshkovsky. The principles of
syntactic (syntactico-distributional) classification of English words were
worked out by L. Bloomfield and his followers Z. Harris and especially Ch. Fries.
The syntactico-distributional
classification of words is based on the study of their combinability by means
of substitution testing. The testing results in developing the standard model
of four main "positions" of notional words in the English sentence:
those of the noun (N), verb (V), adjective (A), adverb (D). Pronouns are
included into the corresponding positional classes as their substitutes. Words
standing outside the "positions" in the sentence are treated as
function words of various syntactic values.
Here is how Ch.
Fries presents his scheme of English word-classes [Fries].
For his materials
he chooses tape-recorded spontaneous conversations comprising about 250,000
word entries (50
hours of talk). The words isolated from this
corpus are tested on the three typical sentences (that are isolated from the
records, too), and used as substitution test-frames:
Frame A. The
concert was good (always).
Frame B. The clerk
remembered the tax (suddenly).
Frame C. The team
went there.
The parenthesised
positions are optional from the point of view of the structural completion of
sentences.
As a result of
successive substitution tests on the cited "frames" the following
lists of positional words ("form-words", or "parts of
speech") are established:
Class 1.
(A) concert, coffee, taste, container,
difference, etc. (B) clerk, husband, supervisor, etc.; tax, food, coffee, etc.
(C) team, husband, woman, etc.
Class 2.
(A) was, seemed, became, etc. (B) remembered,
wanted, saw, suggested, etc. (C) went, came, ran,... lived, worked, etc.
Class 3.
(A) good, large, necessary, foreign, new, empty,
etc.Class 4. (A)
there, here, always, then, sometimes, etc.
(B) clearly,
sufficiently, especially, repeatedly, soon, etc.
(C) there,
back, out, etc.; rapidly, eagerly, confidently, etc. All these words can fill
in the positions of the frames
without affecting
their general structural meaning (such as "thing and its quality at a
given time" - the
first frame; "actor - action
- thing acted upon -
characteristic of the action" -
the second frame; "actor -
action - direction
of the action" - the
third frame). Repeated interchanges in the substitutions of the primarily
identified positional (i.e. notional) words in different collocations determine
their morphological characteristics, i.e. characteristics referring them to
various subclasses of the identified lexemic classes.
Functional words
(function words) are exposed in the cited process of testing as being unable to
fill in the positions of the frames without destroying their structural
meaning. These words form limited groups totalling 154
units.
The identified
groups of functional words can be distributed among the three main sets. The
words of the first set are used as specifiers of notional words. Here belong
determiners of nouns, modal verbs serving as specifiers of notional
verbs, functional modifiers and intensifiers of
adjectives and adverbs. The words of the second set play the role of
inter-positional elements, determining the relations of notional words to one
another. Here belong prepositions and conjunctions. The words of the third set
refer to the sentence as a whole. Such are question-words {what, how, etc.),
inducement-words (lets, please, etc.), attention-getting words, words of
affirmation and negation, sentence introducers (it, there) and some others.
Comparing the
syntactico-distributional classification of words with the traditional part of
speech division of words, one cannot but see the similarity of the general
schemes of the two: the opposition of notional and functional words, the four
absolutely cardinal classes of notional words (since numerals and pronouns have
no positional functions of their own and serve as pro-nounal and pro-adjectival
elements), the interpretation of functional words as syntactic mediators and
their formal representation by the list.
However, under
these unquestionable traits of similarity are distinctly revealed essential
features of difference, the proper evaluation of which allows us to make some
important generalisations about the structure of the lexemic system of
language.
One of the major
truths as regards the linguistic mechanism arising from the comparison of the
two classifications is the explicit and unconditional division of the lexicon
into the notional and functional parts. The open character of the notional part
of the lexicon and the closed character of the functional part of it (not
excluding the intermediary field between the two) receives the strict status of
a formal grammatical feature.
The unity of
notional lexemes finds its essential demonstration in an inter-class system of
derivation that can be presented as a formal four-stage series permeating the
lexicon and reflected in regular phrase correlations. Cf.:
a recognising note -
a notable recognition -
to note recognisingly -
to recognise notably; silent disapproval -
disapproving silence -
to disapprove silently -
to silence disapprovingly; etc.
This series can symbolically
be designated by the formula St (n.v.a.d.) where St represents the morphemic
stem of the
series, while the small letters in parentheses stand for the derivational
features of the notional word-classes (parts of speech). Each stage of the
series can in principle be filled in by a number of lexemes of the same stem
with possible hierarchical relations between them. The primary presentation of
the series, however, may be realised in a four-unit version as follows:
strength -
to strengthen -
strong - strongly
peace - to
appease - peaceful
- peacefully nation -
to nationalise -
national -
nationally friend -
to befriend -
friendly -
friendly, etc.
This derivational
series that unites the notional word-classes can be named the "lexical
paradigm of nomination". The general order of classes in the series
evidently corresponds to the logic of mental perception of reality, by which a
person discriminates, first, objects and their actions, then the properties of
the former and the latter. Still, as the actual initial form of a particular
nomination paradigm within the general paradigmatic scheme of nomination can
prove a lexeme of any word-class, we are enabled to speak about the concrete
"derivational perspective" of this or that series, i. e. to identify
nomination paradigms with a nounal (N-V), verbal (V→), adjectival (A→),
and adverbial (D→) derivational perspectives. Cf.:
N→ power -
to empower -
powerful -
powerfully
V→ to
suppose -supposition
- supposed -
supposedly
A→ clear -
clarity -
to clarify -
clearly
D→ out -
outing - to
out - outer
The nomination
paradigm with the identical form of the stem for all the four stages is not
represented on the whole of the lexicon; in this sense it is possible to speak
of lexemes with a complete paradigm of nomination and lexemes with an
incomplete paradigm of nomination. Some words may even stand apart from this
paradigm, i.e. be nominatively isolated (here belong, for instance, some simple
adverbs).
an end -
to end final -
finally
good -
goodness well -
to better
evidence -
evident -
evidently to make evident
wise -
wisely - wisdom to
grow wise, etc.
The role of
suppletivity within the framework of the lexical paradigm of nomination (hence,
within the lexicon as a whole) is extremely important, indeed. It is this type
of suppletivity, i.e. lexemic suppletivity, that serves as an essential factor
of the open character of the notional lexicon of language.
Functional words
re-interpreted by syntactic approach also reveal some important traits that
remained undiscovered in earlier descriptions.
The essence of
their paradigmatic status in the light of syntactic interpretation consists in
the fact that the lists of functional words may be regarded as paradigmatic
series themselves - which,
in their turn, are grammatical constituents of higher paradigmatic series on
the level of phrases and especially sentences.
As a matter of
fact, functional words, considered by their role in the structure of the
sentence, are proved to be exposers of various syntactic categories, i.e. they
render structural meanings referring to phrases and sentences in constructional
forms similar to derivational (word-building) and relational (grammatical)
morphemes in the composition of separate words. Cf.:
The words were
obscure, but she understood the uneasiness that produced them.→ The words
were obscure, weren't they? How then could she understand the uneasiness that
produced them?→ Or perhaps the words were not too obscure, after all? Or,
conversely, she didn't understand the uneasiness that produced them?→ But
the words were obscure. How obscure they were! Still she did understand the uneasiness
that produced them. Etc.
This role of
functional words which are identified not by their morphemic composition, but
by their semantico-syntactic features in reference to the embedding
constructions, is exposed on a broad linguistic basis within the framework of
the theory of paradigmatic syntax (see further).
Pronouns considered
in the light of the syntactic principles receive a special systemic status that
characteristically stamps the general presentation of the structure of the
lexicon as a whole.
Pronouns are
traditionally recognised on the basis of indicatory (deictic) and
substitutional semantic functions.
The two types of
meanings form a unity, in which the deictic semantics is primary. As a matter
of fact, indication is the semantic foundation of substitution.
As for the
syntactic principle of the word stock division, while recognising their deictic
aspect, it lays a special stress on the substitutive features of pronouns.
Indeed, it is the substitutional function that immediately isolates all the
heterogeneous groups of pronouns into a special set of the lexicon.
The generalising
substitutional function of pronouns makes them into syntactic representatives
of all the notional classes of words, so that a pronominal positional part of
the sentence serves as a categorial projection of the corresponding notional
subclass identified as the filler set of the position in question. It should be
clearly understood that even personal pronouns of the first and second persons
play the cited representative role, which is unambiguously exposed by examples
with direct addresses and appositions. Cf.:
I, Little Foot, go
away making noises and tramplings. Are you happy, Lil?
Included into the
system of pronouns are pronominal adverbs and verb-substitutes, in due accord
with their substitutional functions. Besides, notional words of broad meaning
are identified as forming an intermediary layer between the pronouns and
notional words proper. Broad meaning words adjoin the pronouns by their
substitutional function. Cf.:
I wish at her age
she'd learn to sit quiet and not do things. Flora's suggestion is making sense.
I will therefore briefly set down the circumstances which led to my being
connected with the affair. Etc.
As a result of
these generalisations, the lexical paradigm of nomination receives a complete
substitutive representation. Cf.: one, it, they... -
do, make, act... -
such, similar, same... -
thus, so, there...
Symbolically the
correlation of the nominal and pronominal paradigmatic schemes is stated as
follows:
N - V
- A - D
- Npro -
Vpro - Apro
- Dpro.
As a result of the
undertaken analysis we have obtained a foundation for dividing the whole of the
lexicon on the upper level of classification into three unequal parts.
The first part of
the lexicon forming an open set includes
an indefinitely large number of notional words
which have a complete nominative function. In accord with the said function,
these words can be referred to as "names": nouns as substance names,
verbs as process names, adjectives as primary property names and adverbs as secondary
property names. The whole notional set is represented by the four-stage
derivational paradigm of nomination.
The second part of
the lexicon forming a closed set includes substitutes of names (pro-names).
Here belong pronouns, and also broad-meaning notional words which constitute
various marginal subsets.
The third part of
the lexicon also forming a closed set includes specifiers of names. These are
function-categorial words of various servo-status.
Substitutes of
names (pro-names) and specifiers of names, while standing with the names in
nominative correlation as elements of the lexicon, at the same time serve as
connecting links between the names within the lexicon and their actual uses in
the sentences of living speech.
V. NOUN: GENERAL
The noun as a part
of speech has the categorial meaning of "substance" or
"thingness". It follows from this that the noun is the main
nominative part of speech, effecting nomination of the fullest value within the
framework of the notional division of the lexicon.
The noun has the
power, by way of nomination, to isolate different properties of substances
(i.e. direct and oblique qualities, and also actions and states as processual
characteristics of substantive phenomena) and present them as corresponding
self-dependent substances. E.g.:
Her words were
unexpectedly bitter.- We
were struck by the unexpected bitterness of her words. At that time he was down
in his career, but we knew well that very soon he would be up again.-
His career had its ups and downs. The cable
arrived when John was preoccupied with the arrangements for the party.-
The arrival of the cable interrupted his
preoccupation with the arrangements for the party.
This natural and
practically unlimited substantivisation
force establishes the noun as the central nominative
lexemic unit of language.
The categorial
functional properties of the noun are determined by its semantic properties.
The most
characteristic substantive function of the noun is that of the subject in the
sentence, since the referent of the subject is the person or thing immediately
named. The function of the object in the sentence is also typical of the noun
as the substance word. Other syntactic functions, i.e. attributive, adverbial,
and even predicative, although performed by the noun with equal ease, are not
immediately characteristic of its substantive quality as such. It should be
noted that, while performing these non-substantive functions, the noun
essentially differs from the other parts of speech used in similar sentence
positions. This may be clearly shown by transformations shifting the noun from
various non-subject syntactic positions into subject syntactic positions of the
same general semantic value, which is impossible with other parts of speech.
E.g.:
Mary is a
flower-girl.→ The flower-girl (you are speaking of) is Mary. He lives in
Glasgow.→ Glasgow is his place of residence. This happened three years
ago.→ Three years have elapsed since it happened.
Apart from the
cited sentence-part functions, the noun is characterised by some special types
of combinability.
In particular,
typical of the noun is the prepositional combinability with another noun, a
verb, an adjective, an adverb. E.g.: an entrance to the house; to turn round
the corner; red in the face; far from its destination.
The casal
(possessive) combinability characterises the noun alongside of its
prepositional combinability with another noun. E.g.: the speech of the
President - the
President's speech; the cover of the book -
the book's cover.
English nouns can
also easily combine with one another by sheer contact, unmediated by any
special lexemic or morphemic means. In the contact group the noun in
preposition plays the role of a semantic qualifier to the noun in
post-position. E.g.: a cannon ball; a log cabin; a sports event; film
festivals.
The
lexico-grammatical status of such combinations has presented a big problem for
many scholars, who were uncertain as to the linguistic heading under which to
treat them:
either as one
separate word, or a word-group.* In the history of linguistics the controversy
about the lexico-grammatical status of the constructions in question has
received the half-facetious name "The cannon ball problem".
Taking into account
the results of the comprehensive analysis undertaken in this field by Soviet linguists,
we may define the combination as a specific word-group with intermediary
features. Crucial for this decision is the isolability test (separation shift
of the qualifying noun) which is performed for the contact noun combinations by
an easy, productive type of transformation. Cf.: a cannon ball→ a ball
for cannon; the court regulation→ the regulation of the court; progress
report → report about progress; the funds distribution → the
distribution of the funds.
The corresponding
compound nouns (formed from substantive stems), as a rule, cannot undergo the
isolability test with an equal ease. The transformations with the nounal
compounds are in fact reduced to sheer explanations of their etymological
motivation. The comparatively closer connection between the stems in compound
nouns is reflected by the spelling (contact or hyphenated presentation). E.g.:
fireplace→ place where fire is made; starlight → light coming from
stars; story-teller → teller (writer, composer) of stories; theatre-goer →
a person who goes to (frequents) theatres.
Contact noun
attributes forming a string of several words are very characteristic of
professional language. E.g.:
A number of Space
Shuttle trajectory optimisation problems were simulated in the development of
the algorithm, including three ascent problems and a re-entry problem (From a
scientific paper on spacecraft). The accuracy of offshore tanker unloading
operations is becoming more important as the cost of petroleum products increases
(From a scientific paper on control systems).
As a part of
speech, the noun is also characterised by a set of formal features determining
its specific status in the lexical paradigm of nomination. It has its
word-building distinctions, including typical suffixes, compound stem models,
conversion patterns. It discriminates the grammatical categories of gender,
number, case, article determination, which will be analysed below.
The cited formal
features taken together are relevant for the division of nouns into several
subclasses, which are identified by means of explicit classificational
criteria. The most general and rigorously delimited subclasses of nouns are
grouped into four oppositional pairs.
The first nounal
subclass opposition differentiates proper and common nouns. The foundation of
this division is "type of nomination". The second subclass opposition
differentiates animate and inanimate nouns on the basis of "form of existence".
The third subclass opposition differentiates human and non-human nouns on the
basis of "personal quality". The fourth subclass opposition
differentiates countable and uncountable nouns on the basis of
"quantitative structure".
Somewhat less explicitly
and rigorously realised is the division of English nouns into concrete and
abstract.
The order in which
the subclasses are presented is chosen by convention, not by categorially
relevant features: each subclass correlation is reflected on the whole of the
noun system; this means that the given set of eight subclasses cannot be
structured hierarchically in any linguistically consistent sense (some sort of
hierarchical relations can be observed only between animate -
inanimate and human -
non-human groupings). Consider the following
examples: There were three Marys in our company. The cattle have been driven
out into the pastures.
The noun Mary used
in the first of the above sentences is at one and the same time
"proper" (first subclass division), "animate" (second
subclass division), "human" (third subclass division),
"countable" (fourth subclass division). The noun cattle used in the
second sentence is at one and the same time "common" (first subclass
division), "animate" (second subclass division), "non-human"
(third subclass division), "uncountable" (fourth subclass division).
The subclass
differentiation of nouns constitutes a foundation for their selectional
syntagmatic combinability both among themselves and with other parts of speech.
In the selectional aspect of combinability, the subclass features form the
corresponding selectional bases.
In particular, the
inanimate selectional base of combinability can be pointed out between the noun
subject and the verb predicate in the following sentence: The sandstone was
crumbling. (Not: *The horse was crumbling.)
The animate
selectional base is revealed between the noun
subject and the verb in the following sentence:
The poor creature was laming. (Not: *The tree was laming.)
The human
selectional base underlies the connection between the nouns in the following
combination: John's love of music (not: *the cat's love of music).
The phenomenon of
subclass selection is intensely analysed as part of current linguistic research
work.
VI. NOUN: ENDER
There is a peculiarly
regular contradiction between the presentation of gender in English by
theoretical treatises and practical manuals. Whereas theoretical treatises
define the gender subcategorisation of English nouns as purely lexical or
"semantic", practical manuals of English grammar do invariably
include the description of the English gender in their subject matter of
immediate instruction.
In particular, a
whole ten pages of A. I. Smirnitsky's theoretical "Morphology of
English" are devoted to proving the non-existence of gender in English
either in the grammatical, or even in the strictly lexico-grammatical sense [Смирницкий,
(2), 139-148]. On the other hand, the
well-known practical "English grammar" by M. A. Ganshina and N.
M. Vasilevskaya, after denying the existence of
grammatical gender in English by way of an introduction to the topic, still
presents a pretty comprehensive description of the would-be non-existent gender
distinctions of the English noun as a part of speech [Ganshina, Vasilevskaya, 40
ff.].
That the gender
division of nouns in English is expressed not as variable forms of words, but
as nounal classification (which is not in the least different from the
expression of substantive gender in other languages, including Russian), admits
of no argument. However, the question remains, whether this classification has
any serious grammatical relevance. Closer observation of the corresponding
lingual data cannot but show that the English gender does have such a
relevance.
The category of
gender is expressed in English by the obligatory correlation of nouns with the
personal pronouns of the third person. These serve as specific gender
classifiers of
nouns, being potentially reflected on each entry of the noun in speech.
The category of
gender is strictly oppositional. It is formed by two oppositions related to
each other on a hierarchical basis.
One opposition
functions in the whole set of nouns, dividing them into person (human) nouns
and non-person (non-human) nouns. The other opposition functions in the subset
of person nouns only, dividing them into masculine nouns and feminine nouns.
Thus, the first, general opposition can be referred to as the upper opposition
in the category of gender, while the second, partial opposition can be referred
to as the lower opposition in this category.
As a result of the
double oppositional correlation, a specific system of three genders arises,
which is somewhat misleadingly represented by the traditional terminology: the
neuter (i.e. non-person) gender, the masculine (i.e. masculine person) gender,
the feminine (i.e. feminine person) gender.
The strong member
of the upper opposition is the human subclass of nouns, its sememic mark being
"person", or "personality". The weak member of the
opposition comprises both inanimate and animate non-person nouns. Here belong
such nouns as tree, mountain, love, etc.; cat, swallow, ant, etc.; society,
crowd, association, etc.; bull and cow, cock and hen, horse and mare, etc.
In cases of
oppositional reduction, non-person nouns and their substitute (it) are
naturally used in the position of neutralisation. E.g.:
Suddenly something
moved in the darkness ahead of us. Could it be a man, in this desolate place,
at this time of night? The object of her maternal affection was nowhere to be
found. It had disappeared, leaving the mother and nurse desperate.
The strong member
of the lower opposition is the feminine subclass of person nouns, its sememic
mark being "female sex". Here belong such nouns as woman, girl,
mother, bride, etc. The masculine subclass of person nouns comprising such
words as man, boy, father, bridegroom, etc. makes up the weak member of the
opposition.
The oppositional
structure of the category of gender can be shown schematically on the following
diagram (see Fig. I).
GENDER
Feminine Nouns Masculine
Nouns
Fig. 1
great many person
nouns in English are capable of expressing both feminine and masculine person
genders by way of the pronominal correlation in question. These are referred to
as nouns of the "common gender". Here belong such words as person,
parent, friend, cousin, doctor, president, etc. E.g.:
The President of
our Medical Society isn't going to be happy about the suggested way of cure. In
general she insists on quite another kind of treatment in cases like that.
The capability of
expressing both genders makes the gender distinctions in the nouns of the
common gender into a variable category. On the other hand, when there is no
special need to indicate the sex of the person referents of these nouns, they
are used neutrally as masculine, i.e. they correlate with the masculine third
person pronoun.
In the plural, all
the gender distinctions are neutralised in the immediate explicit expression,
though they are rendered obliquely through the correlation with the singular.
Alongside of the
demonstrated grammatical (or lexico-grammatical, for that matter) gender
distinctions, English nouns can show the sex of their referents lexically,
either by means of being combined with certain notional words used as sex
indicators, or else by suffixal derivation. Cf.: boy-friend, girl-friend;
man-producer, woman-producer; washer-man, washer-woman; landlord, landlady;
bull-calf, cow-calf; cock-sparrow, hen-sparrow; he-bear, she-bear; master,
mistress; actor, actress; executor, executrix; lion, lioness; sultan, sultana;
etc.
One might think
that this kind of the expression of sex runs contrary to the presented gender
system of nouns, since the sex distinctions inherent in the cited pairs of
words refer not only to human beings (persons), but also to all the other
animate beings. On closer observation, however, we see that this is not at all
so. In fact, the referents of such nouns as
jenny-ass, or pea-hen, or the like will in the
common use quite naturally be represented as it, the same as the referents of
the corresponding masculine nouns jack-ass, pea-cock, and the like. This kind
of representation is different in principle from the corresponding
representation of such nounal pairs as woman -
man, sister -
brother, etc.
On the other hand,
when the pronominal relation of the non-person animate nouns is turned,
respectively, into he and she, we can speak of a grammatical personifying
transposition, very typical of English. This kind of transposition affects not
only animate nouns, but also a wide range of inanimate nouns, being regulated
in every-day language by cultural-historical traditions. Compare the reference
of she with the names of countries, vehicles, weaker animals, etc.; the
reference of he with the names of stronger animals, the names of phenomena
suggesting crude strength and fierceness, etc.
§ 4. As
we see, the category of gender in English is inherently semantic, i.e.
meaningful in so far as it reflects the actual features of the named objects.
But the semantic nature of the category does not in the least make it into
"non-grammatical", which follows from the whole content of what has
been said in the present work.
In Russian, German,
and many other languages characterised by the gender division of nouns, the
gender has purely formal features that may even "run contrary" to
semantics. Suffice it to compare such Russian words as стакан
- он,
чашка-она,
блюдце
- оно,
as well as their German correspondences das Glas
- es, die Tasse -
sie, der Teller -
er, etc. But this phenomenon is rather an
exception than the rule in terms of grammatical categories in general.
Moreover, alongside
of the "formal" gender, there exists in Russian, German and other
"formal gender" languages meaningful gender, featuring, within the
respective idiomatic systems, the natural sex distinctions of the noun
referents.
In particular, the
Russian gender differs idiomatically from the English gender in so far as it
divides the nouns by the higher opposition not into "person -
non-person" ("human-
non human"), but into "animate
-inanimate", discriminating within the former (the animate nounal set)
between masculine, feminine, and a limited number of neuter nouns. Thus, the
Russian category of gender essentially divides the noun into the inanimate set
having no meaningful gender, and the animate set having a meaningful gender. In
distinction to this, the English category of gender is only meaningful, and as
such it is represented in the nounal system as a whole.
CHAPTER VII. NOUN:
NUMBER
The category of
number is expressed by the opposition of the plural form of the noun to the
singular form of the noun. The strong member of this binary opposition is the
plural, its productive formal mark being the suffix -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz ]
as presented in the forms dog -
dogs, clock -
clocks, box -
boxes. The productive formal mark correlates
with the absence of the number suffix in the singular form of the noun. The
semantic content of the unmarked form, as has been shown above, enables the
grammarians to speak of the zero-suffix of the singular in English.
The other,
non-productive ways of expressing the number opposition are vowel interchange
in several relict forms (man - men,
woman - women,
tooth - teeth,
etc.), the archaic suffix -(e)n supported by phonemic interchange in a couple
of other relict forms (ox - oxen,
child - children,
cow - kine,
brother - brethren),
the correlation of individual singular and plural suffixes in a limited number
of borrowed nouns (formula - formulae,
phenomenon - phenomena,
alumnus- alumni,
etc.). In some cases the plural form of the noun is homonymous with the
singular form (sheep, deer, fish, etc.).
The semantic nature
of the difference between singular and plural may present some difficulties of
interpretation.
On the surface of
semantic relations, the meaning of the singular will be understood as simply
"one", as opposed to the meaning of the plural as "many" in
the sense of "more than one". This is apparently obvious for such
correlations as book - books,
lake - lakes
and the like. However, alongside of these semantically unequivocal
correlations, there exist plurals and singulars that cannot be fully accounted
for by the above ready-made approach. This becomes clear when we take for
comparison such forms as tear (one drop falling from the eye) and tears
(treacles on the cheeks as tokens
of grief or joy), potato (one item of the vegetables) and potatoes (food),
paper (material) and papers (notes or documents), sky (the vault of heaven) and
skies (the same sky taken as a direct or figurative background), etc. As a
result of the comparison we conclude that the broader sememic mark of the
plural, or "plurality" in the grammatical sense, should be described
as the potentially dismembering reflection of the structure of the referent,
while the sememic mark of the singular will be understood as the
non-dismembering reflection of the structure of the referent, i.e. the
presentation of the referent in its indivisible entireness.
It is sometimes
stated that the plural form indiscriminately presents both multiplicity of
separate objects ("discrete" plural, e.g. three houses) and
multiplicity of units of measure for an indivisible object ("plural of
measure", e.g. three hours) [Ilyish, 36
ff.]. However, the difference here lies not in
the content of the plural as such, but in the quality of the objects
themselves. Actually, the singulars of the respective nouns differ from one
another exactly on the same lines as the plurals do {cf. one house -one
hour).
On the other hand,
there are semantic varieties of the plural forms that differ from one another
in their plural quality as such. Some distinctions of this kind were shown
above. Some further distinctions may be seen in a variety of other cases. Here
belong, for example, cases where the plural form expresses a definite set of
objects {eyes of the face, wheels of the vehicle, etc.), various types of the
referent {wines, tees, steels), intensity of the presentation of the idea
{years and years, thousands upon thousands), picturesqueness {sands, waters,
snows). The extreme point of this semantic scale is marked by the
lexicalisation of the plural form, i.e. by its serving as a means of rendering
not specificational, but purely notional difference in meaning. Cf. colours as
a "flag", attentions as "wooing", pains as "effort",
quarters as "abode", etc.
The scope of the
semantic differences of the plural forms might pose before the observer a
question whether the category of number is a variable grammatical category at
all.
The answer to the
question, though, doesn't leave space or any uncertainty: the category of
number is one of the regular variable categories in the grammatical system of
he English language. The variability of the category is simply given in its
form, i.e. in the forms of the bulk of English nouns which do distinguish it by
means of the described binary paradigm. As for the differences in meaning,
these arise from the interaction between the underlying oppositional sememic
marks of the category and the more concrete lexical differences in the
semantics of individual words.
The most general
quantitative characteristics of individual words constitute the
lexico-grammatical base for dividing the nounal vocabulary as a whole into
countable nouns and uncountable nouns. The constant categorial feature
"quantitative structure" (see Ch. V, §3)
is directly connected with the variable feature
"number", since uncountable nouns are treated grammatically as either
singular or plural. Namely, the singular uncountable nouns are modified by the
non-discrete quantifiers much or little, and they take the finite verb in the
singular, while the plural uncountable nouns take the finite verb in the
plural.
The two subclasses
of uncountable nouns are usually referred to, respectively, as singularia
tantum (only singular) and pluralia tantum (only plural). In terms of
oppositions we may say that in the formation of the two subclasses of
uncountable nouns the number opposition is "constantly"
(lexically) reduced either to the weak member
(singularia tantum) or to the strong member (pluralia tantum).
Since the grammatical
form of the uncountable nouns of the singularia tantum subclass is not excluded
from the category of number, it stands to reason to speak of it as the
"absolute" singular, as different from the "correlative" or
"common" singular of the countable nouns. The absolute singular
excludes the use of the modifying numeral one, as well as the indefinite
article.
The absolute
singular is characteristic of the names of abstract notions {peace, love, joy,
courage, friendship, etc.), the names of the branches of professional activity
{chemistry, architecture, mathematics, linguistics, etc.), the names of
mass-materials {water, snow, steel, hair, etc.), the names of collective
inanimate objects {foliage, fruit, furniture, machinery, etc.). Some of these
words can be used in the form of the common singular with the common plural
counterpart, but in this case they come to mean either different sorts of
materials, or separate concrete manifestations of the qualities denoted by
abstract nouns, or concrete objects exhibiting the respective qualities. Cf.:
Joy is absolutely
necessary for normal human life.- It was a joy to see her among us. Helmets for
motor-cycling are nowadays
made of plastics instead of steel.- Using
different modifications of the described method, super-strong steels are
produced for various purposes. Etc.
The lexicalising
effect of the correlative number forms (both singular and plural) in such cases
is evident, since the categorial component of the referential meaning in each
of them is changed from uncountability to countability. Thus, the oppositional
reduction is here nullified in a peculiarly lexicalising way, and the full
oppositional force of the category of number is rehabilitated.
Common number with
uncountable singular nouns can also be expressed by means of combining them
with words showing discreteness, such as bit, piece, item, sort. Cf.:
The last two items
of news were quite sensational. Now I'd like to add one more bit of
information. You might as well dispense with one or two pieces of furniture in
the hall.
This kind of
rendering the grammatical meaning of common number with uncountable nouns is,
in due situational conditions, so regular that it can be regarded as special
suppletivity in the categorial system of number (see Ch. III, §4).
On the other hand,
the absolute singular, by way of functional oppositional reduction, can be used
with countable nouns. In such cases the nouns are taken to express either the
corresponding abstract ideas, or else the meaning of some mass-material correlated
with its countable referent. Cf.:
Waltz is a lovely
dance. There was dead desert all around them. The refugees needed shelter. Have
we got chicken for the second course?
Under this heading
(namely, the first of the above two subpoints) comes also the generic use of
the singular. Cf.:
Man's immortality
lies in his deeds. Wild elephant in the Jungle can be very dangerous.
In the sphere of
the plural, likewise, we must recognise the common plural form as the regular
feature of countability, and the absolute plural form peculiar to the
uncountable subclass of pluralia tantum nouns. The absolute plural, as
different from the common plural, cannot directly combine with numerals, and
only occasionally does it combine with discrete quantifiers (many, few, etc.).
The absolute plural
is characteristic of the uncountable nouns
which denote objects consisting of two halves (trousers, scissors, tongs,
spectacles, etc.), the nouns expressing some sort of collective meaning, i.e.
rendering the idea of indefinite plurality, both concrete and abstract
(supplies, outskirts, clothes, parings; tidings, earnings, contents, politics;
police, cattle, poultry, etc.), the nouns denoting some diseases as well as
some abnormal states of the body and mind (measles, rickets, mumps, creeps,
hysterics, etc.). As is seen from the examples, from the point of view of
number as such, the absolute plural forms can be divided into set absolute
plural (objects of two halves) and non-set absolute plural (the rest).
The set plural can
also be distinguished among the common plural forms, namely, with nouns
denoting fixed sets of objects, such as eyes of the face, legs of the body,
legs of the table, wheels of the vehicle, funnels of the steamboat, windows of
the room, etc.
The necessity of
expressing definite numbers in cases of uncountable pluralia tantum nouns, as
well as in cases of countable nouns denoting objects in fixed sets, has brought
about different suppletive combinations specific to the plural form of the
noun, which exist alongside of the suppletive combinations specific to the
singular form of the noun shown above. Here belong collocations with such words
as pair, set, group, bunch and some others. Cf.: a pair of pincers; three pairs
of bathing trunks; a few groups of police; two sets of dice; several cases of
measles; etc.
The absolute
plural, by way of functional oppositional reduction, can be represented in
countable nouns having the form of the singular, in uncountable nouns having
the form of the plural, and also in countable nouns having the form of the
plural.
The first type of
reduction, consisting in the use of the absolute plural with countable nouns in
the singular form, concerns collective nouns, which are thereby changed into
"nouns of multitude". Cf.:
The family were
gathered round the table. The government are unanimous in disapproving the move
of the opposition.
This form of the
absolute plural may be called "multitude plural".
The second type of
the described oppositional reduction, consisting in the use of the absolute
plural with uncountable nouns in the plural form, concerns cases of stylistic
marking of
nouns. Thus, the oppositional reduction results in expressive transposition.
Cf.: the sands of the desert; the snows of the Arctic; the waters of the ocean;
the fruits of the toil; etc,
This variety of the
absolute plural may be called "descriptive uncountable plural".
The third type of
oppositional reduction concerns common countable nouns used in repetition
groups. The acquired implication is indefinitely large quantity intensely
presented. The nouns in repetition groups may themselves be used either in the
plural ("featured" form) or in the singular ("unfeatured"
form). Cf.:
There were trees
and trees all around us. I lit cigarette after cigarette.
This variety of the
absolute plural may be called "repetition plural". It can be
considered as a peculiar analytical form in the marginal sphere of the category
of number (see Ch. III, §4).
VIII. NOUN: CASE
Case is the
immanent morphological category of the noun manifested in the forms of noun
declension and showing the relations of the nounal referent to other objects
and phenomena. Thus, the case form of the noun, or contractedly its
"case" (in the narrow sense of the word), is a morphological-declensional
form.
This category is
expressed in English by the opposition of the form in -'s [-z, -s, -iz],
usually called the "possessive" case, or more traditionally, the
"genitive" case (to which term we will stick in the following
presentation*), to the unfeatured form of the noun, usually called the
"common" case. The apostrophised -s serves to distinguish in writing
the singular noun in the genitive case from the plural noun in the common case.
E.g.: the man's duty, the President's decision, Max's letter; the boy's ball,
the clerk's promotion, the Empress's jewels.
The genitive of the
bulk of plural nouns remains phonetically unexpressed: the few exceptions
concern only some of the irregular plurals. Thereby the apostrophe as the
graphic sign of the genitive acquires the force of a sort of grammatical
hieroglyph. Cf.: the carpenters' tools, the mates' skates, the actresses'
dresses.
Functionally, the
forms of the English nouns designated as "case forms" relate to one
another in an extremely peculiar way. The peculiarity is, that the common form
is absolutely indefinite from the semantic point of view, whereas the genitive
form in its productive uses is restricted to the functions which have a
parallel expression by prepositional constructions. Thus, the common form, as
appears from the presentation, is also capable of rendering the genitive
semantics (namely, in contact and prepositional collocation), which makes the
whole of the genitive case into a kind of subsidiary element in the grammatical
system of the English noun. This feature stamps the English noun declension as
something utterly different from every conceivable declension in principle. In
fact, the inflexional oblique case forms as normally and imperatively
expressing the immediate functional parts of the ordinary sentence in
"noun-declensional" languages do not exist in English at all. Suffice
it to compare a German sentence taken at random with its English rendering:
Erhebung der Anklage
gegen die Witwe Capet scheint wünschenswert aus Rucksicht auf die Stimmung
der Stadt Paris (L. Feuchtwanger). Eng.:
(The bringing of) the accusation against the Widow Capet appears desirable,
taking into consideration the mood of the City of Paris.
As we see, the five
entries of nounal oblique cases in the German utterance (rendered through
article inflexion), of which two are genitives, all correspond to one and the
same indiscriminate common case form of nouns in the English version of the
text. By way of further comparison, we may also observe the Russian translation
of the same sentence with its four genitive entries: Выдвижение
обвинения
против
вдовы
Капет
кажется
желательным,
если
учесть
настроение
города
Парижа.
Under the described
circumstances of fact, there is no wonder that in the course of linguistic
investigation the category of case in English has become one of the vexed
problems of theoretical discussion.
Four special views
advanced at various times by different scholars should be considered as
successive stages in the analysis of this problem.
The first view may
be called the "theory of positional cases". This theory is directly
connected with the old grammatical tradition, and its traces can be seen in
many contemporary text-books for school in the English-speaking countries.
Linguistic formulations of the theory, with various individual variations (the
number of cases recognised, the terms used, the reasoning cited), may be found
in the works of J. C. Nesfield, M. Deutschbein, M. Bryant and other scholars.
In accord with the
theory of positional cases, the unchangeable forms of the noun are
differentiated as different cases by virtue of the functional positions
occupied by the noun in the sentence. Thus, the English noun, on the analogy of
classical Latin grammar, would distinguish, besides the inflexional genitive
case, also the non-inflexional, i.e. purely positional cases: nominative,
vocative, dative, and accusative. The uninflexional cases of the noun are taken
to be supported by the parallel inflexional cases of the personal pronouns. The
would-be cases in question can be exemplified as follows.*
The nominative case
(subject to a verb): Rain falls. The vocative case (address): Are you coming,
my friend? The dative case (indirect object to a verb): I gave John a penny.
The accusative case (direct object, and also object to a preposition): The man
killed a rat. The earth is moistened by rain.
In the light of all
that has been stated in this book in connection with the general notions of
morphology, the fallacy of the positional case theory is quite obvious. The
cardinal blunder of this view is, that it substitutes the functional
characteristics of the part of the sentence for the morphological features of
the word class, since the case form, by definition, is the variable morphological
form of the noun. In reality, the case forms as such serve as means of
expressing the functions of the noun in the sentence, and not vice versa. Thus,
what the described view does do on the positive lines,
is that within the confused conceptions of form
and meaning, it still rightly illustrates the fact that the functional meanings
rendered by cases can be expressed in language by other grammatical means, in
particular, by word-order.
The second view may
be called the "theory of prepositional cases". Like the theory of
positional cases, it is also connected with the old school grammar teaching,
and was advanced as a logical supplement to the positional view of the case.
In accord with the
prepositional theory, combinations of nouns with prepositions in certain object
and attributive collocations should be understood as morphological case forms.
To these belong first of all the "dative" case (to+Noun, for+Noun)
and the "genitive" case (of+Noun). These prepositions, according to
G. Curme, are "inflexional prepositions", i.e. grammatical elements
equivalent to case-forms. The would-be prepositional cases are generally taken
(by the scholars who recognise them) as coexisting with positional cases,
together with the classical inflexional genitive completing the case system of
the English noun.
The prepositional
theory, though somewhat better grounded than the positional theory,
nevertheless can hardly pass a serious linguistic trial. As is well known from
noun-declensional languages, all their prepositions, and not only some of them,
do require definite cases of nouns (prepositional case-government); this fact,
together with a mere semantic observation of the role of prepositions in the
phrase, shows that any preposition by virtue of its functional nature stands in
essentially the same general grammatical relations to nouns. It should follow
from this that not only the of-, to-, and for-phrases, but also all the other
prepositional phrases in English must be regarded as "analytical
cases". As a result of such an approach illogical redundancy in
terminology would arise: each prepositional phrase would bear then another,
additional name of "prepositional case", the total number of the said
"cases" running into dozens upon dozens without any gain either to
theory or practice [Ilyish, 42].
The third view of
the English noun case recognises a limited inflexional system of two cases in
English, one of them featured and the other one unfeatured. This view may be
called the "limited case theory".
The limited case
theory is at present most broadly accepted among linguists both in this country
and abroad. It was formulated by such scholars as H. Sweet, O. Jespersen,
and has since been radically developed by the
Soviet scholars A. I. Smirnitsky, L. S. Barkhudarov and others.
The limited case
theory in its modern presentation is based on the explicit oppositional
approach to the recognition of grammatical categories. In the system of the
English case the functional mark is defined, which differentiates the two case
forms: the possessive or genitive form as the strong member of the categorial
opposition and the common, or "non-genitive" form as the weak member
of the categorial opposition. The opposition is shown as being effected in full
with animate nouns, though a restricted use with inanimate nouns is also taken
into account. The detailed functions of the genitive are specified with the
help of semantic transformational correlations [Бархударов,
(2), 89 и
сл.].
We have considered
the three theories which, if at basically different angles, proceed from the
assumption that the English noun does distinguish the grammatical case in its
functional structure. However, another view of the problem of the English noun
cases has been put forward which sharply counters the theories hitherto
observed. This view approaches the English noun as having completely lost the
category of case in the course of its historical development. All the nounal
cases, including the much spoken of genitive, are considered as extinct, and
the lingual unit that is named the "genitive case" by force of
tradition, would be in reality a combination of a noun with a postposition
(i.e. a relational postpositional word with preposition-like functions). This
view, advanced in an explicit form by G. N.
Vorontsova [Воронцова,
168 и
сл.],
may be called the "theory of the possessive
postposition" ("postpositional theory"). Cf.: [Ilyish, 44
ff.; Бархударов,
Штелинг,
42 и
сл.].
Of the various
reasons substantiating the postpositional theory the following two should be
considered as the main ones.
First, the
postpositional element -'s is but loosely connected with the noun, which finds
the clearest expression in its use not only with single nouns, but also with
whole word-groups of various status. Compare some examples cited by G. N.
Vorontsova in her work: somebody else's
daughter; another stage-struck girl's stage finish; the man who had hauled him
out to dinner's head.
Second, there is an
indisputable parallelism of functions between the possessive postpositional
constructions and the prepositional
constructions, resulting in the optional use of the former. This can be shown
by transformational reshuffles of the above examples: ...→
the daughter of somebody else; ...→
the stage finish of another stage-struck girl; .
..→ the head of the man who had hauled him
out to dinner.
One cannot but
acknowledge the rational character of the cited reasoning. Its strong point
consists in the fact that it is based on a careful observation of the lingual
data. For all that, however, the theory of the possessive postposition fails to
take into due account the consistent insight into the nature of the noun form
in -'s achieved by the limited case theory. The latter has demonstrated beyond
any doubt that the noun form in -'s is systemically, i.e. on strictly
structural-functional basis, contrasted against the unfeatured form of the
noun, which does make the whole correlation of the nounal forms into a
grammatical category of case-like order, however specific it might be.
As the basic
arguments for the recognition of the noun form in -'s in the capacity of
grammatical case, besides the oppositional nature of the general functional
correlation of the featured and unfeatured forms of the noun, we will name the
following two.
First, the broader
phrasal uses of the postpositional -'s like those shown on the above examples,
display a clearly expressed stylistic colouring; they are, as linguists put it,
stylistically marked, which fact proves their transpositional nature. In this
connection we may formulate the following regularity: the more self-dependent
the construction covered by the case-sign -'s, the stronger the stylistic mark
(colouring) of the resulting genitive phrase. This functional analysis is
corroborated by the statistical observation of the forms in question in the
living English texts. According to the data obtained by B. S. Khaimovich and B.
I. Rogovskaya, the -'s sign is attached to individual nouns in as many as 96
per cent of its total textual occurrences
[Khaimovich, Rogovskaya, 64]. Thus,
the immediate casal relations are realised by individual nouns, the phrasal, as
well as some non-nounal uses of the - 's
sign being on the whole of a secondary grammatical order.
Second, the -'s
sign from the point of view of its segmental status in language differs from
ordinary functional words. It is morpheme-like by its phonetical properties; it
is strictly postpositional unlike the prepositions; it is semantically by far a
more bound element than a preposition, which, among
other things, has hitherto prevented it from
being entered into dictionaries as a separate word.
As for the fact
that the "possessive postpositional construction" is correlated with a
parallel prepositional construction, it only shows the functional peculiarity
of the form, but cannot disprove its case-like nature, since cases of nouns in
general render much the same functional semantics as prepositional phrases
(reflecting a wide range of situational relations of noun referents).
The solution of the
problem, then, is to be sought on the ground of a critical synthesis of the
positive statements of the two theories: the limited case theory and the
possessive postposition theory.
A two case
declension of nouns should be recognised in English, with its common case as a
"direct" case, and its genitive case as the only oblique case. But,
unlike the case system in ordinary noun-declensional languages based on
inflexional word change, the case system in English is founded on a particle
expression. The particle nature of -'s is evident from the fact that it is
added in post-position both to individual nouns and to nounal word-groups of
various status, rendering the same essential semantics of appurtenance in the
broad sense of the term. Thus, within the expression of the genitive in
English, two subtypes are to be recognised: the first (principal) is the word
genitive; the second (of a minor order) is the phrase genitive. Both of them
are not inflexional, but particle case-forms.
The described
particle expression of case may to a certain extent be likened to the particle
expression of the subjunctive mood in Russian [Иртеньева,
40]. As is known, the Russian subjunctive
particle бы not
only can be distanced from the verb it refers to, but it can also relate to a
lexical unit of non-verb-like nature without losing its basic
subjunctive-functional quality. Cf.: Если бы не он.
Мне бы такая возможность. Как бы не так.
From the functional
point of view the English genitive case, on the whole, may be regarded as
subsidiary to the syntactic system of prepositional phrases. However, it still
displays some differential points in its functional meaning, which, though
neutralised in isolated use, are revealed in broader syntagmatic collocations
with prepositional phrases.
One of such
differential points may be defined as "animate appurtenance" against
"inanimate appurtenance" rendered by a prepositional phrase in
contrastive use. Cf.:
The people's voices
drowned in the roar of the started engines. The tiger's leap proved quicker
than the click of the rifle.
Another
differential point expressed in cases of textual co-occurrence of the units
compared consists in the subjective use of the genitive noun (subject of action)
against the objective use of the prepositional noun (object of action). Cf.: My
Lord's choice of the butler; the partisans' rescue of the prisoners; the
treaty's denunciation of mutual threats.
Furthermore, the
genitive is used in combination with the of-phrase on a complementary basis
expressing the functional semantics which may roughly be called
"appurtenance rank gradation": a difference in construction (i.e. the
use of the genitive against the use of the of-phrase) signals a difference in
correlated ranks of semantic domination. Cf.: the country's strain of wartime
(lower rank: the strain of wartime; higher rank: the country's strain); the
sight of Satispy's face (higher rank: the sight of the face; lower rank:
Satispy's face).
It is certainly these
and other differential points and complementary uses that sustain the particle
genitive as part of the systemic expression of nounal relations in spite of the
disintegration of the inflexional case in the course of historical development
of English.
§ 5. Within
the general functional semantics of appurtenance, the English genitive
expresses a wide range of relational meanings specified in the regular
interaction of the semantics of the subordinating and subordinated elements in
the genitive phrase. Summarising the results of extensive investigations in
this field, the following basic semantic types of the genitive can be pointed
out.
First, the form
which can be called the "genitive of possessor" (Lat. "genetivus
possessori"). Its constructional meaning will be defined as
"inorganic" possession, i.e. possessional relation (in the broad
sense) of the genitive referent to the object denoted by the head-noun. E.g.:
Christine's living-room; the assistant manager's desk; Dad's earnings; Kate and
Jerry's grandparents; the Steel Corporation's hired slaves.
The diagnostic test
for the genitive of possessor is its transformation into a construction that
explicitly expresses the
idea of possession (belonging) inherent in the form. Cf.: Christine's
living-room → the living-room belongs to Christine; the Steel
Corporation's hired slaves → the Steel Corporation possesses hired
slaves.*
Second, the form
which can be called the "genitive of integer" (Lat. "genetivus
integri"). Its constructional meaning will be defined as "organic
possession", i.e. a broad possessional relation of a whole to its part.
E.g.: Jane's busy hands; Patrick's voice; the patient's health; the hotel's
lobby.
Diagnostic test: ...→
the busy hands as part of Jane's person; ...→
the health as part of the patient's state; ...→
the lobby as a component part of the hotel, etc.
A subtype of the
integer genitive expresses a qualification received by the genitive referent
through the headword. E.g.: Mr. Dodson's vanity; the computer's reliability.
This subtype of the
genitive can be called the "genitive of received qualification" (Lat.
"genetivus qualificationis receptae").
Third, the
"genitive of agent" (Lat. "genetivus agentis"). The more
traditional name of this genitive is "subjective" (Lat.
"genetivus subjectivus"). The latter term seems inadequate because of
its unjustified narrow application: nearly all the genitive types stand in
subjective relation to the referents of the head-nouns. The general meaning of
the genitive of agent is explained in its name: this form renders an activity
or some broader processual relation with the referent of the genitive as its
subject. E.g.: the great man's arrival; Peter's insistence; the councillor's
attitude; Campbell Clark's gaze; the hotel's competitive position.
Diagnostic test: ...→
the great man arrives; ...→
Peter insists; ...→
the hotel occupies a competitive position, etc.
A subtype of the
agent genitive expresses the author, or, more broadly considered, the producer
of the referent of the head-noun. Hence, it receives the name of the
"genitive of author" (Lat. "genetivus auctori"). E.g.:
Beethoven's sonatas; John Galsworthy's "A Man of Property"; the
committee's progress report.
Diagnostic test: ...-»
Beethoven has composed (is the author of) the
sonatas; ...→ the
committee has compiled (is the compiler of) the progress report, etc.
Fourth, the
"genitive of patient" (Lat. "genetivus patientis").
This type of
genitive, in contrast to the above, expresses the recipient of the action or
process denoted by the head-noun. E.g.: the champion's sensational defeat;
Erick's final expulsion; the meeting's chairman; the St Gregory's proprietor;
the city's business leaders; the Titanic's tragedy.
Diagnostic test: ...→
the champion is defeated (i.e. his opponent
defeated him); ...→ Erick
is expelled; ...→ the
meeting is chaired by its chairman; ...→ the St Gregory is owned by its
proprietor, etc.
Fifth, the
"genitive of destination" (Lat. "genetivus destinationis").
This form denotes the destination, or function of the referent of the
head-noun. E.g.: women's footwear; children's verses; a fishers' tent.
Diagnostic test: ...→
footwear for women; ...→
a tent for fishers, etc.
Sixth, the
"genitive of dispensed qualification" (Lat. "genetivus
qualificationis dispensatae"). The meaning of this genitive type, as
different from the subtype "genitive of received qualification", is
some characteristic or qualification, not received, but given by the genitive
noun to the referent of the head-noun. E.g.: a girl's voice; a book-keeper's
statistics; Curtis O'Keefe's kind (of hotels -
M.B.).
Diagnostic test: ...→
a voice characteristic of a girl; ...→
statistics peculiar to a book-keeper's report; ...→
the kind (of hotels) characteristic of those
owned by Curtis O'Keefe.
Under the heading
of this general type comes a very important subtype of the genitive which
expresses a comparison. The comparison, as different from a general
qualification, is supposed to be of a vivid, descriptive nature. The subtype is
called the "genitive of comparison" (Lat. "genetivus
comparationis"). This term has been used to cover the whole class. E.g.:
the cock's self-confidence of the man; his perky sparrow's smile.
Diagnostic test: ...→
the self-confidence like that of a cock; ...→
the smile making the man resemble a perky
sparrow.
Seventh, the
"genitive of adverbial" (Lat. "genetivus adverbii"). The
form denotes adverbial factors relating to the referent of the head-noun,
mostly the time and place of the event. Strictly speaking, this genitive may be
considered as another subtype of the genitive of dispensed qualification. Due
to its adverbial meaning, this type of genitive can be used with
adverbialised substantives. E.g.: the evening's
newspaper; yesterday's encounter; Moscow's talks.
Diagnostic test: ...→
the newspaper issued in the evening; ...→
the encounter which took place yesterday; ...→the
talks that were held in Moscow.
Eighth, the
"genitive of quantity" (Lat. "genetivus quantitatis"). This
type of genitive denotes the measure or quantity relating to the referent of
the head-noun. For the most part, the quantitative meaning expressed concerns
units of distance measure, time measure, weight measure. E.g.: three miles'
distance; an hour's delay; two months' time; a hundred tons' load.
Diagnostic test: ...→
a distance the measure of which is three miles; ...→
a time lasting for two months; ...→
a load weighing a hundred tons.
The given survey of
the semantic types of the genitive is by no means exhaustive in any analytical
sense. The identified types are open both to subtype specifications, and
inter-type generalisations (for instance, on the principle of the
differentiation between subject-object relations), and the very set of primary
types may be expanded.
However, what does
emerge out of the survey, is the evidence of a wide functional range of the
English particle genitive, making it into a helpful and flexible, if subsidiary,
means of expressing relational semantics in the sphere of the noun.
§ 6. We
have considered theoretical aspects of the problem of case of the English noun,
and have also observed the relevant lingual data instrumental in substantiating
the suggested interpretations. As a result of the analysis, we have come to the
conclusion that the inflexional case of nouns in English has ceased to exist.
In its place a new, peculiar two case system has developed based on the
particle expression of the genitive falling into two segmental types: the
word-genitive and the phrase-genitive.
The undertaken
study of the case in the domain of the noun, as the next step, calls upon the
observer to re-formulate the accepted interpretation of the form-types of the
English personal pronouns.
The personal
pronouns are commonly interpreted as having a case system of their own,
differing in principle from the case system of the noun. The two cases
traditionally recognised here are the nominative case (I,
you, he, etc.) and the
objective case (me, you, him, etc.). To these
forms the two series of forms of the possessive pronouns are added -
respectively, the conjoint series (my, your,
his, etc.) and the absolute series (mine, yours, his, etc.). A question now
arises, if it is rational at all to recognise the type of case in the words of
substitutional nature which is absolutely incompatible with the type of case in
the correlated notional words? Attempts have been made in linguistics to
transfer the accepted view of pronominal cases to the unchangeable forms of the
nouns (by way of the logical procedure of back substitution), thereby
supporting the positional theory of case (M. Bryant). In the light of the
present study, however, it is clear that these attempts lack an adequate linguistic
foundation.
As a matter of
fact, the categories of the substitute have to reflect the categories of the
antecedent, not vice versa. As an example we may refer to the category of
gender (see Ch. VI): the English gender is expressed through the correlation of
nouns with their pronominal substitutes by no other means than the reflection
of the corresponding semantics of the antecedent in the substitute. But the
proclaimed correlation between the case forms of the noun and the would-be case
forms of the personal pronouns is of quite another nature: the nominative
"case" of the pronoun has no antecedent case in the noun; nor has the
objective "case" of the pronoun any antecedent case in the noun. On
the other hand, the only oblique case of the English noun, the genitive, does
have its substitutive reflection in the pronoun, though not in the case form,
but in the lexical form of possession (possessive pronouns). And this latter
relation of the antecedent to its substitute gives us a clue to the whole problem
of pronominal "case": the inevitable conclusion is that there is at
present no case in the English personal pronouns; the personal pronominal
system of cases has completely disintegrated, and in its place the four
individual word-types of pronouns have appeared: the nominative form, the
objective form, and the possessive form in its two versions, conjoint and
absolute.
An analysis of the
pronouns based on more formal considerations can only corroborate the suggested
approach proceeding from the principle of functional evaluation. In fact, what
is traditionally accepted as case-forms of the pronouns are not the regular
forms of productive morphological change implied by the very idea of case
declension, but individual forms
sustained by suppletivity and given to the speaker as a ready-made set. The set
is naturally completed by the possessive forms of pronouns, so that actually we
are faced by a lexical paradigmatic series of four subsets of personal
pronouns, to which the relative who is also added: I - me - my - mine, you -
you - your - yours,... who - whom - whose - whose. Whichever of the former case
correlations are still traceable in this system (as, for example, in the
sub-series he-him-his), they exist as mere relicts, i.e. as a petrified
evidence of the old productive system that has long ceased to function in the
morphology of English.
Thus, what should
finally be meant by the suggested terminological name "particle case"
in English, is that the former system of the English inflexional declension has
completely and irrevocably disintegrated, both in the sphere of nouns and their
substitute pronouns; in its place a new, limited case system has arisen based
on a particle oppositional feature and subsidiary to the prepositional
expression of the syntactic relations of the noun.
IX. NOUN: ARTICLE
DETERMINATION
Article is a
determining unit of specific nature accompanying the noun in communicative
collocation. Its special character is clearly seen against the background of
determining words of half-notional semantics. Whereas the function of the
determiners such as this, any, some is to explicitly interpret the referent of
the noun in relation to other objects or phenomena of a like kind, the semantic
purpose of the article is to specify the nounal referent, as it were,
altogether unostentatiously, to define it in the most general way, without any
explicitly expressed contrasts.becomes obvious when we take the simplest
examples ready at hand. Cf.:
Will you give me
this pen, Willy? (I.e. the pen that I am pointing out, not one of your choice.)
- Will you give me the pen, please? (I.e. simply the pen from the desk, you
understand which.) Any blade will do, I only want it for scratching out the
wrong word from the type-script. (I.e. any blade of the stock, however blunt it
may be.) - Have you
got something sharp? I need a penknife or a blade. (I.e. simply a blade, if not
a knife, without additional implications.) Some woman called in your absence,
she didn't give her name. (I.e. a woman strange to me.)-
A woman called while you were out, she left a
message. (I.e. simply a woman, without a further connotation.)
Another peculiarity
of the article, as different from the determiners in question, is that, in the
absence of a determiner, the use of the article with the noun is quite
obligatory, in so far as the cases of non-use of the article are subject to no
less definite rules than the use of it.
Taking into
consideration these peculiar features of the article, the linguist is called
upon to make a sound statement about its segmental status in the system of
morphology. Namely, his task is to decide whether the article is a purely
auxiliary element of a special grammatical form of the noun which functions as
a component of a definite morphological category, or it is a separate word,
i.e. a lexical unit in the determiner word set, if of a more abstract meaning
than other determiners.
The problem is a
vexed one; it has inspired intensive research activity in the field, as well as
animated discussion with various pros and cons affirmed, refuted and
re-affirmed.* In the course of these investigations, however, many positive
facts about articles have been established, which at present enables an
observer, proceeding from the systemic principle in its paradigmatic
interpretation, to expose the status of the article with an attempt at demonstrative
conviction.
To arrive at a
definite decision, we propose to consider the properties of the English
articles in four successive stages, beginning with their semantic evaluation as
such, then adding to the obtained data a situational estimation of their uses,
thereafter analysing their categorial features in the light of the oppositional
theory, and finally concluding the investigation by a paradigmatic
generalisation.
A mere semantic
observation of the articles in English, i.e. the definite article the and the
indefinite article a/an, at once discloses not two, but three meaningful
characterisations of the nounal referent
achieved by their correlative functioning, namely: one rendered by the definite
article, one rendered by the indefinite article, and one rendered by the
absence (or non-use) of the article. Let us examine them separately.
The definite
article expresses the identification or individualisation of the referent of
the noun: the use of this article shows that the object denoted is taken in its
concrete, individual quality. This meaning can be brought to explicit
exposition by a substitution test. The test consists in replacing the article
used in a construction by a demonstrative word, e.g. a demonstrative
determiner, without causing a principal change in the general implication of
the construction. Of course, such an "equivalent" substitution should
be understood in fact as nothing else but analogy: the difference in meaning
between a determiner and an article admits of no argument, and we pointed it
out in the above passages. Still, the replacements of words as a special
diagnostic procedure, which is applied with the necessary reservations and
according to a planned scheme of research, is quite permissible. In our case it
undoubtedly shows a direct relationship in the meanings of the determiner and
the article, the relationship in which the determiner is semantically the more
explicit element of the two. Cf.:
But look at the
apple-tree!→ But look at this apple-tree! The town lay still in the
Indian summer sun.-» That
town lay still in the Indian summer sun. The water is horribly hot.→ This
water is horribly hot. It's the girls who are to blame.-» It's those girls who
are to blame.
The justification
of the applied substitution, as well as its explanatory character, may be
proved by a counter-test, namely, by the change of the definite article into
the indefinite article, or by omitting the article altogether. The replacement
either produces a radical, i.e. "non-equivalent" shift in the meaning
of the construction, or else results in a grammatically unacceptable
construction. Cf.: ...→ Look
at an apple-tree!→ *Look at apple-tree! ...→
*A water is horribly hot.→ *Water is
horribly hot.
The indefinite
article, as different from the definite article, is commonly interpreted as
referring the object denoted by the noun to a certain class of similar objects;
in other words, the indefinite article expresses a classifying generalisation
of the nounal referent, or takes it in a relatively
general sense. To prove its relatively
generalising functional meaning, we may use the diagnostic insertions of
specifying-classifying phrases into the construction in question; we may also
employ the transformation of implicit comparative constructions with the indefinite
article into the corresponding explicit comparative constructions. Cf.:
We passed a
water-mill. →We passed a certain water-mill. It is a very young country,
isn't it? → It
is a very young kind of country, isn't it? What an arrangement! →What
sort of arrangement! This child is a positive nightmare. →
This child is positively like a nightmare.
The procedure of a
classifying contrast employed in practical text-books exposes the generalising
nature of the indefinite article most clearly in many cases of its use. E.g.:
A door opened in
the wall. → A
door (not a window) opened in the wall. We saw a flower under the bush.→
We saw a flower (not a strawberry) under the
bush.
As for the various
uses of nouns without an article, from the semantic point of view they all
should be divided into two types. In the first place, there are uses where the
articles are deliberately omitted out of stylistic considerations. We see such
uses, for instance, in telegraphic speech, in titles and headlines, in various
notices. E.g.:
Telegram received
room reserved for week end. (The text of a telegram.) Conference adjourned
until further notice. (The text of an announcement.) Big red bus rushes food to
strikers. (The title of a newspaper article.)
The purposeful
elliptical omission of the article in cases like that is quite obvious, and the
omitted articles may easily be restored in the constructions in the simplest
"back-directed" refilling procedures. Cf.:
...→ The
telegram is received, a room is reserved for the week-end. ...→
The conference is adjourned until further
notice. ...→ A
big red bus rushes food to the strikers.
Alongside of free
elliptical constructions, there are cases of the semantically unspecified
non-use of the article in various combinations of fixed type, such as
prepositional phrases (on fire, at hand, in debt, etc.), fixed verbal
collocations (take place, make use, cast anchor, etc.), descriptive
coordinative groups and repetition groups (man and wife, dog and gun, day by
day, etc.), and the like. These cases of
traditionally fixed absence of the article are
quite similar to the cases of traditionally fixed uses of both indefinite and
definite articles (cf.: in a hurry, at a loss, have a look, give a start, etc.;
in the main, out of the question, on the look-out, etc.).
Outside the
elliptical constructions and fixed uses, however, we know a really semantic
absence of the article with the noun. It is this semantic absence of the
article that stands in immediate meaningful correlation with the definite and
indefinite articles as such.
As is widely
acknowledged, the meaningful non-uses of the article are not homogeneous;
nevertheless, they admit of a very explicit classification founded on the countability
characteristics of the noun. Why countability characteristics? For the two
reasons. The first reason is inherent in the nature of the noun itself: the
abstract generalisation reflected through the meaningful non-use of the article
is connected with the suppression of the idea of the number in the noun. The
second reason is inherent in the nature of the article: the indefinite article
which plays the crucial role in the semantic correlation in question reveals
the meaning of oneness within its semantic base, having originated from the
indefinite pronoun one, and that is why the abstract use of the noun naturally
goes with the absence of the article.
The essential
points of the said classification are three in number.
First. The
meaningful absence of the article before the countable noun in the singular
signifies that the noun is taken in an abstract sense, expressing the most
general idea of the object denoted. This meaning, which may be called the
meaning of "absolute generalisation", can be demonstrated by
inserting in the tested construction a chosen generalising modifier (such as in
general, in the abstract, in the broadest sense). Cf.:
Law (in general)
begins with the beginning of human society. Steam-engine (in general)
introduced for locomotion a couple of centuries ago has now become obsolete.
Second. The absence
of the article before the uncountable noun corresponds to the two kinds of
generalisation: both relative and absolute. To decide which of the two meanings
is realised in any particular case, the described tests should be carried out
alternately. Cf.:
John laughed with
great bitterness (that sort of bitterness: relative generalisation). The
subject of health (in general:
absolute
generalisation) was carefully avoided by everybody. Coffee (a kind of beverage
served at the table: relative generalisation) or tea, please? Coffee (in
general: absolute generalisation) stimulates the function of the heart.
Third. The absence
of the article before the countable noun in the plural, likewise, corresponds
to both kinds of generalisation, and the exposition of the meaning in each case
can be achieved by the same semantic tests. Cf.:
Stars, planets and
comets (these kinds of objects: relative generalisation) are different
celestial bodies (not terrestrial bodies: relative generalisation). Wars (in
general: absolute generalisation) should be eliminated as means of deciding
international disputes.
To distinguish the
demonstrated semantic functions of the non-uses of the article by definition,
we may say that the absence of the article with uncountable nouns, as well as
with countable nouns in the plural, renders the meaning of
"uncharacterised generalisation", as different from the meaning of
"absolute generalisation", achieved by the absence of the article
with countable nouns in the singular.
So much for the
semantic evaluation of the articles as the first stage of our study.
Passing to the
situational estimation of the article uses, we must point out that the basic
principle of their differentiation here is not a direct consideration of their
meanings, but disclosing the informational characteristics that the article
conveys to its noun in concrete contextual conditions. Examined from this
angle, the definite article serves as an indicator of the type of nounal
information which is presented as the "facts already known", i.e. as
the starting point of the communication. In contrast to this, the indefinite article
or the meaningful absence of the article introduces the central communicative
nounal part of the sentence, i.e. the part rendering the immediate informative
data to be conveyed from the speaker to the listener. In the situational study
of syntax (see Ch. XXII) the starting point of the communication is called its
"theme", while the central informative part is called its
"rheme".
In accord with the
said situational functions, the typical syntactic position of the noun modified
by the definite article is
the "thematic" subject, while the typical syntactic position of the
noun modified by the indefinite article or by the meaningful absence of the
article is the "rhematic" predicative. Cf.:
The day (subject)
was drawing to a close, the busy noises of the city (subject) were dying down.
How to handle the situation was a big question (predicative). The sky was pure
gold (predicative) above the setting sun.
It should be noted
that in many other cases of syntactic use, i.e. non-subjective or
non-predicative, the articles reflect the same situational functions. This can
be probed by reducing the constructions in question on re-arrangement lines to
the logically "canonised" link-type constructions. Cf.:
If you would care
to verify the incident (object), pray do so. →
If you would care the incident (subject) to be
verified, pray have it verified. I am going to make a rather strange request
(object) to you. → What
I am going to make is a rather strange request (predicative) to you. You are
talking nonsense (object), lad. → What you are talking, lad, is nonsense
(predicative).
Another essential
contextual-situational characteristic of the articles is their immediate
connection with the two types of attributes to the noun. The first type is a
"limiting" attribute, which requires the definite article before the
noun; the second type is a "descriptive" attribute, which requires
the indefinite article or the meaningful absence of the article before the
noun. Cf.:
The events
chronicled in this narrative took place some four years ago. (A limiting
attribute) She was a person of strong will and iron self-control. (A
descriptive attribute) He listened to her story with grave and kindly
attention. (A descriptive attribute)
The role of
descriptive attributes in the situational aspect of articles is particularly
worthy of note in the constructions of syntactic "convergencies",
i.e. chained attributive-repetitional phrases modifying the same referent from
different angles. Cf.: My longing for a house, a fine and beautiful house, such
a house I could never hope to have, flowered into life again.
We have now come to
the third stage of the undertaken analysis of the English articles, namely, to
their consideration in the light of the oppositional theory. The oppositional
examination of any grammatically relevant set of lingual objects is of especial
importance from the point of view of the systemic conception of language, since
oppositions constitute the basis of the structure of grammatical paradigms.
Bearing in mind the
facts established at the two previous stages of observation, it is easy to see
that oppositionally, the article determination of the noun should be divided
into two binary correlations connected with each other hierarchically.
The opposition of
the higher level operates in the whole system of articles. It contrasts the
definite article with the noun against the two other forms of article
determination of the noun, i.e. the indefinite article and the meaningful
absence of the article. In this opposition the definite article should be
interpreted as the strong member by virtue of its identifying and
individualising function, while the other forms of article determination should
be interpreted as the weak member, i.e. the member that leaves the feature in
question ("identification") unmarked.
The opposition of
the lower level operates within the article subsystem that forms the weak
member of the upper opposition. This opposition contrasts the two types of
generalisation, i.e. the relative generalisation distinguishing its strong
member (the indefinite article plus the meaningful absence of the article as
its analogue with uncountable nouns and nouns in the plural) and the absolute,
or "abstract" generalisation distinguishing the weak member of the
opposition (the meaningful absence of the article).
The described
oppositional system can be shown on the following diagram (see Fig. 2).
It is the
oppositional description of the English articles that involves the
interpretation of the article non-use as the zero form of the article, since
the opposition of the positive exponent of the feature to the negative exponent
of the feature (i.e. its absence) realises an important part of the integral
article determination semantics. As for the heterogeneity of functions
displayed by the absence of the article, it by no means can be taken as a
ground for denying the relevance or expediency of introducing the notion of
zero in the article system. As a matter of fact, each of the two essential
meanings
Relative
Generalisation Absolute Generalisation
("Classification") ("Abstraction")
Fig. 2
of this
dialectically complex form is clearly revealed in its special oppositional
correlation and, consequently, corresponds to the really existing lingual facts
irrespective of the name given to the form by the observer.
The best way of
demonstrating the actual oppositional value of the articles on the immediate
textual material is to contrast them in syntactically equivalent conditions in
pairs. Cf. the examples given below.
Identical nounal
positions for the pair "the definite article -
the indefinite article": The train hooted
(that train). - A
train hooted (some train).
Correlative nounal
positions for the pair "the definite article -
the absence of the article": I'm afraid the
oxygen is out (our supply of oxygen). - Oxygen
is necessary for life (oxygen in general, life in general).
Correlative nounal
positions for the pair "the indefinite article -
the absence of the article": Be careful,
there is a puddle under your feet (a kind of puddle).-
Be careful, there is mud on the ground (as
different from clean space).
Finally,
correlative nounal positions for the easily neutralised pair "the zero
article of relative generalisation - the
zero article of absolute generalisation": New information should be
gathered on this subject (some information). -
Scientific information should be gathered
systematically in all fields of human knowledge (information in general).
On the basis of the
oppositional definition of the article it becomes possible to explicate the
semantic function of the article determination of nouns for cases where the
inherent value of the article is contrasted against the contrary semantic value
of the noun or the nounal collocation.
In particular, the
indefinite article may occasionally be used with a nounal collocation of
normally individualising meaning, e.g.:
Rodney Harrington
laughed out loud as he caught a last glimpse of Allison Mackenzie and Norman
Page in his rear-vision mirror (Gr. Metalious). After all, you've got a best
side and a worst side of yourself and it's no good showing the worst side and
harping on it (A. Christie).
Conversely, the
definite article may occasionally be used with a nounal collocation of normally
descriptive meaning, e.g.: Ethel still went in the evenings to bathe in the
silent pool (S. Maugham).
The indefinite
article may occasionally be used with a unique referent noun, e.g.: Ted Latimer
from beyond her murmured: "The sun here isn't a real sun" (A.
Christie).
The zero article
may occasionally be used with an ordinary concrete noun the semantic nature of
which stands, as it were, in sharp contradiction to the idea of uncountable
generalisation, e.g.:
The glasses had a
habit of slipping down her button nose which did not have enough bridge to hold
them up (S. M. Disney). He went up a well-kept drive to a modern house with a
square roof and a good deal of window (A. Christie).
In all these and
similar cases, by virtue of being correlated with semantic elements of contrary
nature, the inherent categorial meanings of the articles appear, as it were, in
their original, pure quality. Having no environmental support, the articles
become intensely self-dependent in the expression of their categorial
semantics, and, against the alien contextual background, traces of
transposition can be seen in their use.
Having established
the functional value of articles in oppositional estimation, we can now, in
broader systemic contraposition, probe the correlation of the meanings of
articles with the meanings of functional determiners. As a result of this
observation, within the system of the determiners two separate subsets can be
defined, one of which is centred around the definite article with its
individualising semantics (this - these,
that - those,
my, our, your, his, her, its, their), and the other one around the indefinite
article with its generalising semantics (another, some, any,
But unhappily the wife wasn't listening. -But
unhappily his wife wasn't listening. The whispering voices caught the attention
of the guards. -Those
whispering voices caught their attention. What could a woman do in a situation
like that? - What
could any woman do in that sort of situation? At least I saw interest in her
eyes. -At
least I saw some interest in her eyes. Not a word had been pronounced about the
terms of the document.- No
word had been pronounced about those terms.
The demonstration
of the organic connection between the articles and semi-notional determiners,
in its turn, makes it possible to disclose the true function of the grammatical
use of articles with proper nouns. E.g.:
"This,"
said Froelich, "is the James Walker who wrote 'The Last of the Old
Lords'" (M. Bradbury). Cf.: This is the same James Walker. I came out to
Iraq with a Mrs. Kelsey (A. Christie). Cf.: The woman was a certain Mrs.
Kelsey. It was like seeing a Vesuvius at the height of its eruption. Cf.: The
sight looked to us like another Vesuvius. "I prophesy a wet August,"
said Old Moore Abinger (M. Dickens). Cf.: Next August will be a wet month,
unlike some other Augusts in retrospect.
In the exemplified
grammatical uses transpositional features are revealed similar to those the
article acquires when used with a noun characterised by a contrary semantic
base. On the other hand, the analysis of these cases clearly stamps the
traditional proper name combinations with embedded articles, both of the onomastic
set {Alexander the Great, etc.) and the toponymic set {The Hague, etc.) as
lexicalised collocations that only come into contact with the periphery of
grammar.
The essential
grammatical features of the articles exposed in the above considerations and
tests leave no room for misinterpretation at the final, generalising stage of
analysis.
The data obtained
show that the English noun, besides the variable categories of number and case,
distinguishes also the category of determination expressed by the article
paradigm of three grammatical forms: the definite, the indefinite, the zero.
The paradigm is generalised for the whole system of the common nouns, being
transpositionally outstretched also into the system of proper nouns. Various
cases of asymmetry in the realisation of this paradigm (such as the article
determination of certain nouns of the types singularia tantum and pluralia
tantum), similar to, and in connection with the expression of the category of
number, are balanced by suppletive collocations. Cf.: 0
progress -
a kind of progress, some progress - the
progress; ø
news - an
item of news - the
news, etc.
The semi-notional
determiners used with nouns in the absence of articles, expose the essential
article meanings as in-built in their semantic structure.
Thus, the status of
the combination of the article with the noun should be defined as basically
analytical, the article construction as such being localised by its segmental
properties between the free syntactic combination of words (the upper bordering
level) and the combination of a grammatical affix with a notional stem in the
morphological composition of an indivisible word (the lower bordering level).
The article itself is a special type of grammatical auxiliary.
X. VERB: GENERAL
Grammatically the
verb is the most complex part of speech. This is due to the central role it
performs in the expression of the predicative functions of the sentence, i.e.
the functions establishing the connection between the situation (situational
event) named in the utterance and reality. The complexity of the verb is
inherent not only in the intricate structure of its grammatical categories, but
also in its various subclass divisions, as well as in its falling into two
sets of forms profoundly different from each
other: the finite set and the non-finite set.'
The complicated
character of the grammatical and lexico-grammatical structure of the verb has
given rise to much dispute and controversy. However, the application of the
principles of systemic linguistic analysis to the study of this interesting
sphere of language helps overcome many essential-difficulties in its
theoretical description, and also a number of terminological disagreements
among the scholars. This refers in particular to the fundamental relations
between the categories of tense and aspect, which have aroused of late very
heated disputes.
The general
categorial meaning of the verb is process presented dynamically, i.e.
developing in time. This general processual meaning is embedded in the
semantics of all the verbs, including those that denote states, forms of
existence, types of attitude, evaluations, etc., rather than actions. Cf.:
Edgar's room led
out of the wall without a door. She had herself a liking for richness and
excess. It was all over the morning papers. That's what I'm afraid of. I do
love you, really I do.
And this holds true
not only about the finite verb, but also about the non-finite verb. The
processual semantic character of the verbal lexeme even in the non-finite form
is proved by the fact that in all its forms it is modified by the adverb and,
with the transitive verb, it takes a direct object. Cf.:
Mr. Brown received
the visitor instantly, which was unusual. -
Mr. Brown's receiving the visitor instantly was
unusual. - It
was unusual for Mr. Brown to receive the visitor instantly. But: An instant
reception of the visitor was unusual for Mr. Brown.
The processual
categorial meaning of the notional verb determines its characteristic combination
with a noun expressing both the doer of the action (its subject) and, in cases
of the objective verb, the recipient of the action (its object); it also
determines its combination with an adverb as the modifier of the action.
In the sentence the
finite verb invariably performs the function of the verb-predicate, expressing
the processual categorial
features of predication, i.e. time, aspect, voice, and mood.
The non-finite verb
performs different functions according to its intermediary nature (those of the
syntactic subject, object, adverbial modifier, attribute), but its
non-processual functions are always actualised in close combination with its
processual semantic features. This is especially evident in demonstrative
correlations of the "sentence - phrase"
type. Cf.:
His rejecting the
proposal surprised us.- That
he had rejected the proposal surprised us. Taking this into consideration, her
attitude can be understood. - If
one takes this into consideration, her attitude can be understood.
In other words, the
non-finite forms of the verb in self-dependent use (i.e. if they are used not
as parts of the analytical verb-forms) perform a potentially predicative
function, constituting secondary predicative centres in the sentence. In each
case of such use they refer to some subject which is expressed either
explicitly or implicitly. Cf.:
Roddy cared enough
about his mother to want to make amends for Arabella.→ Roddy wanted to
make amends...→ Roddy
will make amends... Changing gear, the taxi turned the sharp corner. →
The taxi changed gear and turned the corner.
Acting as mate is often more difficult than acting as captain. →
One acts as mate; one acts as captain.
From the point of
view of their outward structure, verbs are characterised by specific forms of
word-building, as well as by the formal features expressing the corresponding
grammatical categories.
The verb stems may
be simple, sound-replacive, stress-replacive, expanded, composite, and phrasal.
The original simple
verb stems are not numerous. Cf. such verbs as go, take, read, etc. But
conversion (zero-suffixation) as means of derivation, especially conversion of
the "noun - verb"
type, greatly enlarges the simple stem set of verbs, since it is one of the
most productive ways of forming verb lexemes in modern English. Cf.: a cloud -
to cloud, a house -
to house; a man -
to man; a park -
to park, etc.
The sound-replacive
type of derivation and the stress-replacive type of derivation are
unproductive. Cf.: food - to
feed, blood - to
bleed; 'import - to
im'port, 'transport - to
trans'port.
The typical
suffixes expanding the stem of the verb are: -ate (cultivate), -en (broaden),
-ifу
(clarify), -ise(-ize) (normalise). The
verb-deriving prefixes of the inter-class type are: be- (belittle, befriend,
bemoan) and en-/em- (engulf, embed). Some other characteristic verbal prefixes
are: re- (remake), under- (undergo), over- (overestimate), sub- (submerge),
mis-(misunderstand), un-
(undo), etc.
The composite
(compound) verb stems correspond to the composite non-verb stems from which
they are etymologically derived. Here belong the compounds of the conversion
type (blackmail n. - blackmail
v.) and of the reduction type (proof-reader n.-proof-read
v.).
The phrasal verb
stems occupy an intermediary position between analytical forms of the verb and
syntactic word combinations. Among such stems two specific constructions should
be mentioned. The first is a combination of the head-verb have, give, take, and
occasionally some others with a noun; the combination has as its equivalent an
ordinary verb. Cf.: to have a smoke - to
smoke; to give a smile - to
smile; to take a stroll - to
stroll.
The second is a
combination of a head-verb with a verbal postposition that has a
specificational value. Cf.: stand up, go on, give in, be off, get along, etc.
The grammatical
categories which find formal expression in the outward structure of the verb
and which will be analysed further are, first, the category of finitude
dividing the verb into finite and non-finite forms (the corresponding
contracted names are "finites" and "verbids"*; this
category has a lexico-grammatical force); second, the categories of person,
number, tense, aspect, voice, and mood, whose complete set is revealed in every
word-form of the notional finite verb.
Each of the
identified categories constitutes a whole system of its own presenting its
manifold problems to the scholar. However, the comparative analysis of the
categorial properties of all the forms of the verb, including the
properties of
verbids, shows the unquestionable unity of the class, in spite of some
inter-class features of verbids.
Among the various
forms of the verb the infinitive occupies a unique position. Its status is that
of the principal representative of the verb-lexeme as a whole. This head-form
status of the infinitive is determined by the two factors. The first factor
consists in the verbal-nominative nature of the infinitive, i.e. in its
function of giving the most general dynamic name to the process which is
denoted by all the other forms of the verb-lexeme in a more specific way,
conditioned by their respective semantico-grammatical specialisations. The second
factor determining the representative status of the infinitive consists in the
infinitive serving as the actual derivative base for all the other regular
forms of the verb.
The class of verbs
falls into a number of subclasses distinguished by different semantic and
lexico-grammatical features.
On the upper level
of division two unequal sets are identified: the set of verbs of full
nominative value (notional verbs), and the set of verbs of partial nominative
value (semi-notional and functional verbs). The first set is derivationally
open, it includes the bulk of the verbal lexicon. The second set is
derivationally closed, it includes limited subsets of verbs characterised by
individual relational properties.
Semi-notional and
functional verbs serve as markers of predication in the proper sense, since
they show the connection between the nominative content of the sentence and
reality in a strictly specialised way. These "predicators" include
auxiliary verbs, modal verbs, semi-notional verbid introducer verbs, and
link-verbs.
Auxiliary verbs
constitute grammatical elements of the categorial forms of the verb. These are
the verbs be, have, do, shall, will, should, would, may, might.
Modal verbs are
used with the infinitive as predicative markers expressing relational meanings
of the subject attitude type, i.e. ability, obligation, permission,
advisability, etc. By way of extension of meaning, they also express relational
probability, serving as probability predicators. These two types of functional
semantics can be tested by means of correlating pure modal verb collocations
with the corresponding two sets of stative collocations of equivalent
functions:
on the one hand,
the groups be obliged, be permitted, etc.; on the other hand, the groups be
likely, be probable, etc. Cf.:
Tom may stay for
the teleview if he will. → Tom
is permitted to stay. The storm may come any minute, you had better leave the
deck. → The
storm is likely to come any minute.
The modal verbs
can, may, must, shall, will, ought, need, used (to), dare are defective in
forms, and are suppletively supplemented by stative groups similar to those
shown above (cf. Ch. III, § 4). The
supplementation is effected both for the lacking finite forms and the lacking
non-finite forms. Cf.:
The boys can prepare
the play-ground themselves. - The
boys will be able to prepare the play-ground themselves. -
The boys' being able to prepare the play-ground
themselves.
The verbs be and
have in the modal meanings "be planned", "be obliged" and
the like are considered by many modern grammarians as modal verbs and by right
are included in the general modal verb list.
Semi-notional
verbid introducer verbs are distributed among the verbal sets of discriminatory
relational semantics (seem, happen, turn out, etc.), of subject-action
relational semantics (try, fail, manage, etc.), of phasal semantics (begin,
continue, stop, etc.). The predicator verbs should be strictly distinguished
from their grammatical homonyms in the subclasses of notional verbs. As a
matter of fact, there is a fundamental grammatical difference between the
verbal constituents in such sentences as, say, "They began to fight"
and "They began the fight". Whereas the verb in the first sentence is
a semi-notional predicator, the verb in the second sentence is a notional
transitive verb normally related to its direct object. The phasal predicator
begin (the first sentence) is grammatically inseparable from the infinitive of
the notional verb fight, the two lexemes making one verbal-part unit in the
sentence. The transitive verb begin (the second sentence), on the contrary, is
self-dependent in the lexico-grammatical sense, it forms the predicate of the
sentence by itself and as such can be used in the passive voice, the whole
construction of the sentence in this case being presented as the regular
passive counterpart of its active version. Cf.:
They began the
fight. → The
fight was begun (by them). They began to fight. →(*)*
To fight was begun (by them).
Link-verbs
introduce the nominal part of the predicate (the predicative) which is commonly
expressed by a noun, an adjective, or a phrase of a similar
semantic-grammatical character. It should be noted that link-verbs, although
they are named so, are not devoid of meaningful content. Performing their
function of connecting ("linking") the subject and the predicative of
the sentence, they express the actual semantics of this connection, i.e. expose
the relational aspect of the characteristics ascribed by the predicative to the
subject.
The linking
predicator function in the purest form is effected by the verb be; therefore be
as a link-verb can be referred to as the "pure link-verb". It is
clear from the above that even this pure link-verb has its own relational
semantics, which can be identified as "linking predicative
ascription". All the link-verbs other than the pure link be express some
specification of this general predicative-linking semantics, so that they
should be referred to as "specifying" link-verbs. The common
specifying link-verbs fall into two main groups: those that express perceptions
and those that express nonperceptional, or "factual" link-verb
connection. The main perceptional link-verbs are seem, appear, look, feel,
taste; the main factual link-verbs are become, get, grow, remain, keep.
As is to be seen
from the comparison of the specifying link-verbs with the verbid introducer
predicators described above, the respective functions of these two verbal
subsets are cognate, though not altogether identical. The difference lies in
the fact that the specifying link-verbs combine the pure linking function with
the predicator function. Furthermore, separate functions of the two types of
predicators are evident from the fact that specifying link-verbs, the same as
the pure link, can be used in the text in combination with verbid introducer
predicators. E.g.:
The letter seemed
to have remained unnoticed. I began to feel better. You shouldn't try to look
cleverer than you are.
Cf. the use of
verbid introducer predicators with the pure link-verb:
The news has proved
to be true. The girl's look ceased to be friendly. The address shown to us
seemed to be just the one we needed.
Besides the
link-verbs proper hitherto presented, there are some notional verbs in language
that have the power to perform the function of link-verbs without losing their
lexical nominative value. In other words, they perform two functions
simultaneously, combining the role of a full notional verb with that of a
link-verb. Cf.:
Fred lay awake all
through the night. Robbie ran in out of breath. The moon rose red.
Notional link-verb
function is mostly performed by intransitive verbs of motion and position. Due
to the double syntactic character of the notional link-verb, the whole predicate
formed by it is referred to as a "double predicate" (see Ch. XXIX).
Notional verbs
undergo the three main grammatically relevant categorisations. The first is
based on the relation of the subject of the verb to the process denoted by the
verb. The second is based on the aspective characteristics of the process
denoted by the verb, i.e. on the inner properties of the process as reflected
in the verbal meaning. The third is based on the combining power of the verb in
relation to other notional words in the utterance.
On the basis of the
subject-process relation, all the notional verbs can be divided into actional
and statal.
Actional verbs
express the action performed by the subject, i.e. they present the subject as
an active doer (in the broadest sense of the word). To this subclass belong
such verbs as do, act, perform, make, go, read, learn, discover, etc. Statal
verbs, unlike their subclass counterparts, denote the state of their subject.
That is, they either give the subject the characteristic of the inactive
recipient of some outward activity, or else express the mode of its existence.
To this subclass belong such verbs as be, live, survive, worry, suffer,
rejoice, stand, see, know, etc.
Alongside of the
two verbal sets, a third one could be distinguished
which is made up of verbs expressing neither actions, nor states, but
"processes". As representatives of the "purely processual"
subclass one might point out the verbs thaw, ripen, deteriorate, consider,
neglect, support, display, and the like. On closer observation, however, it
becomes clear that the units of this medial subclass are subject to the same
division into actional and statal sets as were established at the primary stage
of classification. For instance, the "purely processual" verb thaw
referring to an inactive substance should be defined, more precisely, as
"processual-statal", whereas the "processual" verb consider
relating to an active doer should be looked upon, more precisely, as
"processual-actional". This can be shown by transformational tests:
The snow is
thawing. → The
snow is in the state of thawing. The designer is considering another
possibility. → The
action of the designer is that he is considering another possibility.
Thus, the primary
binary division of the verbs upon the basis of the subject-process relation is
sustained.
Similar criteria
apply to some more specific subsets of verbs permitting the binary
actional-statal distribution. Among these of a special significance are the
verbal sets of mental processes and sensual processes. Within the first of them
we recognise the correlation between the verbs of mental perception and mental
activity. E.g.: know - think;
understand - construe;
notice - note;
admire - assess;
forget - reject;
etc.
Within the second
set we recognise the correlation between the verbs of physical perception as
such and physical perceptional activity. E.g.: see -
look; hear -
listen; feel (inactive) -
feel (active), touch; taste (inactive) -
taste (active); smell (inactive) -smell
(active); etc.
The initial member
of each correlation pair given above presents a case of a statal verb, while
the succeeding member, respectively, of an actional verb. Cf. the corresponding
transformational tests:
The explorers knew
only one answer to the dilemma.→ The mental state of the explorers was
such that they knew only one answer to the dilemma. I am thinking about the
future of the village. → My
mental activity consists in thinking about the future of the village. Etc.
The grammatical relevance
of the classification in question, apart from its reflecting the syntactically
generalised relation of the subject of the verb to the process denoted by it,
is disclosed in the difference between the two subclasses in their aspectual
behaviour. While the actional verbs take the form of the continuous aspect
quite freely, i.e. according to the general rules of its use, the statal verbs,
in the same contextual conditions, are mainly used in the indefinite form. -The
continuous with the statal verbs, which can be characterised as a more or less
occasional occurrence, will normally express some sort of intensity or emphasis
(see further).
Aspective verbal
semantics exposes the inner character of the process denoted by the verb. It
represents the process as durative (continual), iterative (repeated), terminate
(concluded), interminate (not concluded), instantaneous (momentary), ingressive
(starting), supercompleted (developed to the extent of superfluity),
undercompleted (not developed to its full extent), and the like.
Some of these
aspectual meanings are inherent in the basic semantics of certain subsets of
English verbs. Compare, for instance, verbs of ingression (begin, start,
resume, set out, get down), verbs of instantaneity (burst, click, knock, bang,
jump, drop), verbs of termination (terminate, finish, end, conclude, close,
solve, resolve, sum up, stop), verbs of duration (continue, prolong, last,
linger, live, exist). The aspectual meanings of supercompletion,
undercompletion, repetition, and the like can be rendered by means of lexical
derivation, in particular, prefixation (oversimplify, outdo, underestimate,
reconsider). Such aspectual meanings as ingression, duration, termination, and
iteration are regularly expressed by aspective verbal collocations, in
particular, by combinations of aspective predicators with verbids (begin,
start, continue, finish, used to, would, etc., plus the corresponding verbid
component).
In terms of the
most general subclass division related to the grammatical structure of
language, two aspective subclasses of verbs should be recognised in English.
These will comprise numerous minor aspective groups of the types shown above as
their microcomponent sets.
The basis of this
division is constituted by the relation of the verbal semantics to the idea of
a processual limit, i. e. some border point beyond which the process expressed
by the verb or implied in its semantics is discontinued or
simply does not exist. For instance, the verb
arrive expresses an action which evidently can only develop up to the point of
arriving; on reaching this limit, the action ceases. The verb start denotes a
transition from some preliminary state to some kind of subsequent activity,
thereby implying a border point between the two. As different from these cases,
the verb move expresses a process that in itself is alien to any idea of a
limit, either terminal or initial.
The verbs of the
first order, presenting a process as potentially limited, can be called
"limitive". In the published courses of English grammar where they
are mentioned, these verbs are called "terminative",* but the latter
term seems inadequate. As a matter of fact, the word suggests the idea of a
completed action, i.e. of a limit attained, not only the implication of a
potential limit existing as such. To the subclass of limitive belong such verbs
as arrive, come, leave, find, start, stop, conclude, aim, drop, catch, etc.
Here also belong phrasal verbs with limitive postpositions, e.g. stand up, sit
down, get out, be off, etc.
The verbs of the
second order presenting a process as not limited by any border point, should be
called, correspondingly, "unlimitive" (in the existing grammar books
they are called either "non-terminative", or else "durative",
or "cursive"). To this subclass belong such verbs as move, continue,
live, sleep, work, behave, hope, stand, etc.
Alongside of the
two aspective subclasses of verbs, some authors recognise also a third
subclass, namely, verbs of double aspective nature (of "double", or
"mixed" lexical character). These, according to the said authors, are
capable of expressing either a "terminative" or
"non-terminative" ("durative") meaning depending on the
context.
However, applying
the principle of oppositions, these cases can be interpreted as natural and
easy reductions (mostly neutralisations) of the lexical aspective opposition.
Cf.:
Mary and Robert
walked through the park pausing at variegated flower-beds. (Unlimitive use,
basic function) In the scorching heat, the party walked the whole way to the
ravine bareheaded. (Limitive use, neutralisation) He turned
the corner and found himself among a busy crowd
of people. (Limitive use, basic function) It took not only endless scientific
effort, but also an enormous courage to prove that the earth turns round the
sun. (Unlimitive use, neutralisation)
Observing the given
examples, we must admit that the demarcation line between the two aspective
verbal subclasses is not rigidly fixed, the actual differentiation between them
being in fact rather loose. Still, the opposition between limitive and
unlimitive verbal sets does exist in English, however indefinitely defined it
may be. Moreover, the described subclass division has an unquestionable
grammatical relevance, which is expressed, among other things, in its peculiar
correlation with the categorial aspective forms of the verbs (indefinite,
continuous, perfect); this correlation is to be treated further (see Ch. XV).
From the given
description of the aspective subclass division of English verbs, it is evident
that the English lexical aspect differs radically from the Russian aspect. In
terms of semantic properties, the English lexical aspect expresses a
potentially limited or unlimited process, whereas the Russian aspect expresses
the actual conclusion (the perfective, or terminative aspect) or non-conclusion
(the imperfective, or non-terminative aspect) of the process in question. In
terms of systemic properties, the two English lexical aspect varieties, unlike
their Russian absolutely rigid counterparts, are but loosely distinguished and
easily reducible.
In accord with
these characteristics, both the English limitive verbs and unlimitive verbs may
correspond alternately either to the Russian perfective verbs or imperfective
verbs, depending on the contextual uses.
For instance, the
limitive verb arrive expressing an instantaneous action that took place in the
past will be translated by its perfective Russian equivalent:
The exploratory
party arrived at the foot of the mountain. Russ.:
Экспедиция прибыла к подножию горы.
But if the same
verb expresses a habitual, interminately repeated action, the imperfective
Russian equivalent is to be chosen for its translation:
In those years
trains seldom arrived on time. Russ.: В те годы поезда
редко приходили вовремя.
Cf. the two
possible versions of the Russian translation of the following sentence:
The liner takes off
tomorrow at ten. Russ.: Самолет
вылетит
завтра
в
десять
(the flight in question is looked upon as an
individual occurrence). Самолет
вылетает
завтра
в
десять
(the flight is considered as part of the traffic
schedule, or some other kind of general plan).
Conversely, the
English unlimitive verb gaze when expressing a continual action will be
translated into Russian by its imperfective equivalent:
The children gazed
at the animals holding their breaths. Russ.: Дети глядели на
животных, затаив дыхание.
But when the same
verb renders the idea of an aspectually limited, e. g. started action, its
perfective Russian equivalent should be used in the translation:
The boy turned his
head and gazed at the horseman with wide-open eyes. Russ.:
Мальчик повернул голову и уставился на всадника широко открытыми глазами.
Naturally, the
unlimitive English verbs in strictly unlimtive contextual use correspond, by
definition, only to the imperfective verbs in Russian.
The inner qualities
of any signemic lingual unit are manifested not only in its immediate
informative significance in an utterance, but also in its combinability with
other units, in particular with units of the same segmental order. These
syntagmatic properties are of especial importance for verbs, which is due to
the unique role performed by the verb in the sentence. As a matter of fact, the
finite verb, being the centre of predication, organises all the other sentence
constituents. Thus, the organisational function of the verb, immediately
exposed in its syntagmatic combinability, is inseparable from (and dependent
on) its semantic value. The morphological relevance of the combining power of
the verb is seen from the fact that directly dependent on this power are the
categorial voice distinctions.
The combining power
of words in relation to other words in syntactically subordinate positions (the
positions of "adjuncts" - see
Ch. XX) is called their syntactic "valency". The valency of a word is
said to be "realised" when the word in question is actually combined
in an utterance with its corresponding valency partner, i. e. its valency
adjunct. If, on
the other hand, the word is used without its valency adjunct, the valency
conditioning the position of this adjunct (or "directed" to it) is
said to be "not realised".
The syntactic
valency falls into two cardinal types: obligatory and optional.
The obligatory
valency is such as must necessarily be realised for the sake of the grammatical
completion of the syntactic construction. For instance, the subject and the
direct object are obligatory parts of the sentence, and, from the point of view
of sentence structure, they are obligatory valency partners of the verb.
Consequently, we say that the subjective and the direct objective valencies of
the verb are obligatory. E.g.: We saw a house in the distance.
This sentence
presents a case of a complete English syntactic construction. If we eliminate
either its subject or object, the remaining part of the construction will be
structurally incomplete, i.e. it will be structurally "gaping". Cf.: *
We saw in the distance. *
Saw a house in the distance.
The optional
valency, as different from the obligatory valency, is such as is not necessarily
realised in grammatically complete constructions: this type of valency may or
may not be realised depending on the concrete information to be conveyed by the
utterance. Most of the adverbial modifiers are optional parts of the sentence,
so in terms of valency we say that the adverbial valency of the verb is mostly
optional. For instance, the adverbial part in the above sentence may be freely
eliminated without causing the remainder of the sentence to be structurally
incomplete: We saw a house (in the distance).
Link-verbs,
although their classical representatives are only half-notional, should also be
included into the general valency characterisation of verbs. This is due to
their syntactically essential position in the sentence. The predicative valency
of the link-verbs proper is obligatory. Cf.:
The reporters
seemed pleased with the results of the press conference. That young scapegrace
made a good husband, after all.
The obligatory
adjuncts of the verb, with the exception of the subject (whose connection with
the verb cannot be likened to the other valency partners), may be called its
"complements"; the optional adjuncts of the verb, its
"supplements". The distinction between the two valency types of
adjuncts is highly essential, since not all the objects or
predicatives are obligatory, while, conversely,
not all the adverbial modifiers are optional. Thus, we may have both objective
complements and objective supplements; both predicative complements and
predicative supplements; both adverbial supplements and adverbial complements.
Namely, the object
of addressee, i. e. a person or thing for whom or which the action is
performed, may sometimes be optional, as in the following example: We did it
for you.
The predicative to
a notional link-verb is mostly optional, as in the example: The night came dark
and stormy.
Mr. Torrence was
staying in the Astoria Hotel. The described events took place at the beginning
of the century. The patient is doing fine.
Thus, according as
they have or have not the power to take complements, the notional verbs should
be classed as "complementive" or "uncomplementive", with
further subcategorisations on the semantico-syntagmatic principles.
In connection with
this upper division, the notions of verbal transitivity and objectivity should
be considered.
Verbal
transitivity, as one of the specific qualities of the general
"completivity", is the ability of the verb to take a direct object,
i.e. an object which is immediately affected by the denoted process. The direct
object is joined to the verb "directly", without a preposition.
Verbal objectivity is the ability of the verb to take any object, be it direct,
or oblique (prepositional), or that of addressee. Transitive verbs are opposed
to intransitive verbs; objective verbs are opposed to non-objective verbs (the
latter are commonly called "subjective" verbs, but the term
contradicts the underlying syntactic notion, since all the English finite verbs
refer to their textual subjects).
As is known, the
general division of verbs into transitive and intransitive is morphologically
more relevant for Russian than English, because the verbal passive form is
confined in Russian to transitive verbs only. The general division of verbs
into objective and non-objective, being of relatively minor significance for
the morphology of Russian, is highly relevant for English morphology, since in
English all the three fundamental types of objects can be made into the
subjects of the corresponding passive constructions.
On the other hand,
the term "transitive" is freely used
in English grammatical treatises in relation to
all the objective verbs, not only to those of them that take a direct object.
This use is due to the close association of the notion of transitivity not only
with the type of verbal object as such, but also with the ability of the verb
to be used in the passive voice. We do not propose to call for the
terminological corrective in this domain; rather, we wish to draw the attention
of the reader to the accepted linguistic usage in order to avoid unfortunate
misunderstandings based on the differences in terminology.
Uncomplementive
verbs fall into two unequal subclasses of "personal" and
"impersonal" verbs.
The personal
uncomplementive verbs, i. e. uncomplementive verbs normally referring to the
real subject of the denoted process (which subject may be either an actual
human being, or a non-human being, or else an inanimate substance or an
abstract notion), form a large set of lexemes of various semantic properties.
Here are some of them: work, start, pause, hesitate, act, function,
materialise, laugh, cough, grow, scatter, etc.
The subclass of
impersonal verbs is small and strictly limited. Here belong verbs mostly
expressing natural phenomena of the self-processual type, i. e. natural
processes going on without a reference to a real subject. Cf.: rain, snow, freeze,
drizzle, thaw, etc.
Complementive
verbs, as follows from the above, are divided into the predicative, objective
and adverbial sets.
The predicative
complementive verbs, i.e. link-verbs, have been discussed as part of the
predicator verbs. The main link-verb subsets are, first, the pure link be;
second, the specifying links become, grow, seem, appear, look, taste, etc.;
third, the notional links.
The objective
complementive verbs are divided into several important subclasses, depending on
the kinds of complements they combine with. On the upper level of division they
fall into monocomplementive verbs (taking one object-complement) and
bicomplementive verbs (taking two complements).
The
monocomplementive objective verbs fall into five main subclasses. The first
subclass is the possession objective verb have forming different semantic
varieties of constructions. This verb is normally not passivised. The second
subclass includes direct objective verbs, e. g. take, grasp, forget, enjoy,
like. The third subclass is formed by the prepositional
objective verbs e.g. look at, point to, send
for, approve of, think about. The fourth subclass includes non-passivised
direct objective verbs, e.g. cost, weigh, fail, become, suit. The fifth
subclass includes non-passivised prepositional objective verbs, e. g. belong
to, relate to, merge with, confer with, abound in.
The bicomplementive
objective verbs fall into five main subclasses. The first subclass is formed by
addressee-direct objective verbs, i.e. verbs taking a direct object and an
addressee object, e.g. a) give, bring, pay, hand, show (the addressee object
with these verbs may be both non-prepositional and prepositional); b) explain,
introduce, mention, say, devote (the addressee object with these verbs is only prepositional).
The second subclass includes double direct objective verbs, i.e. verbs taking
two direct objects, e.g. teach, ask, excuse, forgive, envy, fine. The third
subclass includes double prepositional objective verbs, i.e. verbs taking two
prepositional objects, e.g. argue, consult, cooperate, agree. The fourth
subclass is formed by addressee prepositional objective verbs, i.e. verbs
taking a prepositional object and an addressee object, e.g. remind of, tell
about, apologise for, write of, pay for. The fifth subclass includes adverbial
objective verbs, i.e. verbs taking an object and an adverbial modifier (of
place or of time), e.g. put, place, lay, bring, send, keep.
Adverbial
complementive verbs include two main subclasses. The first is formed by verbs
taking an adverbial complement of place or of time, e.g. be, live, stay, go,
ride, arrive. The second is formed by verbs taking an adverbial complement of
manner, e.g. act, do, keep, behave, get on.
Observing the
syntagmatic subclasses of verbs, we see that the same verb lexeme, or
lexic-phonemic unit (phonetical word), can enter more than one of the outlined
classification sets. This phenomenon of the "subclass migration" of
verbs is not confined to cognate lexemic subsets of the larger subclasses, but,
as is widely known, affects the principal distinctions between the English
complementive and uncomplementive verbs, between the English objective and
non-objective verbs. Suffice it to give a couple of examples taken at random:
Who runs faster,
John or Nick?-(run - uncomplementive).
The man ran after the bus. (run - adverbial
complementive, non-objective). I ran my eyes over the uneven lines. (run -
adverbial objective, transitive). And is the
fellow still
running the show? (run - monocomplementive, transitive).
The railings felt
cold. (feel - link-verb, predicative complementive). We felt fine after the
swim. (feel - adverbial complementive, non-objective). You shouldn't feel your
own pulse like that. (feel - monocomplementive, transitive).
The problem arises,
how to interpret these different subclass entries - as cases of grammatical or
lexico-grammatical homonymy, or some kind of functional variation, or merely
variation in usage. The problem is vexed, since each of the interpretations has
its strong points.
To reach a
convincing decision, one should take into consideration the actual differences
between various cases of the "subclass migration" in question.
Namely, one must carefully analyse the comparative characteristics of the
corresponding subclasses as such, as well as the regularity factor for an
individual lexeme subclass occurrence.
In the domain of
notional subclasses proper, with regular inter-class occurrences of the
analysed lexemes, probably the most plausible solution will be to interpret the
"migration forms" as cases of specific syntactic variation, i.e. to
consider the different subclass entries of migrating units as syntactic
variants of the same lexemes [Почепцов,
(2), 87 и
сл.].
In the light of this interpretation, the very
formula of "lexemic subclass migration" will be vindicated and
substantiated.
On the other hand,
for more cardinally differing lexemic sets, as, for instance, functional versus
notional, the syntactic variation principle is hardly acceptable. This kind of
differentiation should be analysed as lexico-grammatical homonymy, since it
underlies the expression of categorially different grammatical functions.
XI. NON-FINITE
VERBS (VERBIDS)
Verbids are the
forms of the verb intermediary in many of their lexico-grammatical features
between the verb and the non-processual parts of speech. The mixed features of
these forms are revealed in the principal spheres of the part-of-speech
characterisation, i.e. in their meaning, structural marking, combinability, and
syntactic functions. The processual meaning is exposed by
them in a substantive or adjectival-adverbial
interpretation: they render processes as peculiar kinds of substances and
properties. They are formed by special morphemic elements which do not express
either grammatical time or mood (the most specific finite verb categories).
They can be combined with verbs like non-processual lexemes (performing
non-verbal functions in the sentence), and they can be combined with
non-processual lexemes like verbs (performing verbal functions in the sentence)
.
From these
characteristics, one might call in question the very justification of including
the verbids in the system of the verb. As a matter of fact, one can ask oneself
whether it wouldn't stand to reason to consider the verbids as a special
lexemic class, a separate part of speech, rather than an inherent component of
the class of verbs.
On closer
consideration, however, we can't but see that such an approach would be utterly
ungrounded. The verbids do betray intermediary features. Still, their
fundamental grammatical meaning is processual (though modified in accord with
the nature of the inter-class reference of each verbid). Their essential syntactic
functions, directed by this relational semantics, unquestionably reveal the
property which may be called, in a manner of explanation,
"verbality", and the statement of which is corroborated by the
peculiar combinability character of verbid collocations, namely, by the ability
of verbids to take adjuncts expressing the immediate recipients, attendants,
and addressees of the process inherently conveyed by each verbid denotation.
One might likewise
ask oneself, granted the verbids are part of the system of the verb, whether
they do not constitute within this system
a special subsystem of purely lexemic nature,
i.e. form some sort of a specific verbal subclass. This counter-approach,
though, would evidently be devoid of any substantiality, since a subclass of a
lexemic class, by definition, should share the essential categorial structure,
as well as primary syntactic functions with other subclasses, and in case of
verbids the situation is altogether different. In fact, it is every verb stem
(except a few defective verbs) that by means of morphemic change takes both
finite and non-finite forms, the functions of the two sets being strictly
differentiated: while the finite forms serve in the sentence only one syntactic
function, namely, that of the finite predicate, the non-finite forms serve
various syntactic functions other than that of the finite predicate.
The strict,
unintersecting division of functions (the functions themselves being of a
fundamental nature in terms of the grammatical structure of language as a
whole) clearly shows that the opposition between the finite and non-finite
forms of the verb creates a special grammatical category. The differential
feature of the opposition is constituted by the expression of verbal time and
mood: while the time-mood grammatical signification characterises the finite
verb in a way that it underlies its finite predicative function, the verbid has
no immediate means of expressing time-mood categorial semantics and therefore
presents the weak member of the opposition. The category expressed by this
opposition can be called the category of "finitude" [Strang, 143; Бархударов,
(2), 106]. The syntactic content of the category
of finitude is the expression of predication (more precisely, the expression'
of verbal predication).
As is known, the
verbids, unable to express the predicative meanings of time and mood, still do
express the so-called "secondary" or "potential"
predication, forming syntactic complexes directly related to certain types of
subordinate clauses. Cf.:
Have you ever had
anything caught in your head? Have you ever had anything that was caught in
your head? - He said it half under his breath for the others not to hear it. -
He said it half under his breath, so that the others couldn't hear it.
The verbid complexes
anything caught in your head, or for the others not to hear it, or the like,
while expressing secondary predication, are not self-dependent in a predicative
sense. They normally exist only as part of sentences built up by genuine,
primary predicative constructions that have a finite verb as their core. And it
is through the reference to the finite verb-predicate that these complexes set
up the situations denoted by them in the corresponding time and mood
perspective.
In other words, we
may say that the opposition of the finite verbs and the verbids is based on the
expression of the functions of full predication and semi-predication. While the
finite verbs express predication in its genuine and complete form, the function
of the verbids is to express semi-predication, building up semi-predicative
complexes within different sentence constructions,
The English verbids
include four forms distinctly differing
from one another
within the general verbid system: the infinitive, the gerund, the present
participle, and the past participle. In compliance with this difference, the
verbid semi-predicative complexes are distinguished by the corresponding
differential properties both in form and in syntactic-contextual function.
§ 2. The infinitive
is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of the verb
with those of the noun, serving as the verbal name of a process. By virtue of
its general process-naming function, the infinitive should be considered as the
head-form of the whole paradigm of the verb. In this quality it can be likened
to the nominative case of the noun in languages having a normally developed
noun declension, as, for instance, Russian. It is not by chance that A. A.
Shakhmatov called the infinitive the "verbal nominative". With the
English infinitive, its role of the verbal paradigmatic head-form is supported
by the fact that, as has been stated before, it represents the actual
derivation base for all the forms of regular verbs.
The infinitive is
used in three fundamentally different types of functions: first, as a notional,
self-positional syntactic part of the sentence; second, as the notional
constituent of a complex verbal predicate built up around a predicator verb;
third, as the notional constituent of a finite conjugation form of the verb.
The first use is grammatically "free", the second is grammatically
"half-free", the third is grammatically "bound".
The dual
verbal-nominal meaning of the infinitive is expressed in full measure in its
free, independent use. It is in this use that the infinitive denotes the
corresponding process in an abstract, substance-like presentation. This can
easily be tested by question-transformations. Cf.:
Do you really mean
to go away and leave me here alone? → What do you really mean? It made
her proud sometimes to toy with the idea. → What made her proud
sometimes?
The combinability
of the infinitive also reflects its dual semantic nature, in accord with which
we distinguish between its verb-type and noun-type connections. The verb-type
combinability of the infinitive is displayed in its combining, first, with
nouns expressing the object of the action; second, with nouns expressing the
subject of the action; third, with modifying adverbs; fourth, with predicator
verbs of semi-functional
nature forming a verbal predicate; fifth, with auxiliary finite verbs
(word-morphemes) in the analytical forms of the verb. The noun-type
combinability of the infinitive is displayed in its combining, first, with
finite notional verbs as the object of the action; second, with finite notional
verbs as the subject of the action.
The self-positional
infinitive, in due syntactic arrangements, performs the functions of all types
of notional sentence-parts, i. e. the subject, the object, the predicative, the
attribute, the adverbial modifier. Cf.:
To meet the head of
the administration and not to speak to him about your predicament was unwise,
to say the least of it. (Infinitive subject position) The chief arranged to
receive the foreign delegation in the afternoon. (Infinitive object position)
The parents' wish had always been to see their eldest son the continuator of
their joint scientific work. (Infinitive predicative position) Here again we
are faced with a plot to overthrow the legitimately elected government of the
republic. (Infinitive attributive position) Helen was far too worried to listen
to the remonstrances. (Infinitive adverbial position)
If the infinitive
in free use has its own subject, different from that of the governing
construction, it is introduced by the preposition-particle for. The whole
infinitive construction of this type is traditionally called the "for-to
infinitive phrase". Cf.: For that shy-looking young man to have stated his
purpose so boldly - incredible!
The prepositional
introduction of the inner subject in the English infinitive phrase is analogous
to the prepositional-casal introduction of the same in the Russian infinitive
phrase (i.e. either with the help of the genitive-governing preposition для,
or with the help of the dative case of the
noun). Cf.: Для нас
очень
важно
понять
природу
подобных
соответствий.
With some
transitive verbs (of physical perceptions, mental activity, declaration,
compulsion, permission, etc.) the infinitive is used in the semi-predicative
constructions of the complex object and complex subject, the latter being the
passive counterparts of the former. Cf.:
We have never heard
Charlie play his violin. → Charlie
has never been heard to plan his violin. The members of the committee expected
him to speak against the suggested resolution. →
He was expected by the members of the committee
to speak against the suggested resolution.
Due to the
intersecting character of joining with the governing predicative construction,
the subject of the infinitive in such complexes, naturally, has no introductory
preposition-particle.
The English
infinitive exists in two presentation forms. One of them, characteristic of the
free uses of the infinitive, is distinguished by the pre-positional marker to.
This form is called traditionally the "to-infinitive", or in more
recent linguistic works, the "marked infinitive". The other form,
characteristic of the bound uses of the infinitive, does not employ the marker
to, thereby presenting the infinitive in the shape of the pure verb stem, which
in modern interpretation is understood as the zero-suffixed form. This form is
called traditionally the "bare infinitive", or in more recent
linguistic works, respectively, the "unmarked infinitive".
The infinitive
marker to is a word-morpheme, i.e. a special formal particle analogous, mutatis
mutandis, to other auxiliary elements in the English grammatical structure. Its
only function is to build up and identify the infinitive form as such. As is
the case with the other analytical markers, the particle to can be used in an
isolated position to represent the whole corresponding construction
syntagmatically zeroed in the text. Cf.: You are welcome to acquaint yourself
with any of the documents if you want to.
Like other
analytical markers, it can also be separated from its notional, i.e. infinitive
part by a word or a phrase, usually of adverbial nature, forming the so-called
"split infinitive". Cf.: My task is not to accuse or acquit; my task
it to thoroughly investigate, to clearly define, and to consistently
systematise the facts.
Thus, the marked
infinitive presents just another case of an analytical grammatical form. The
use or non-use of the infinitive marker depends on the verbal environment of
the infinitive. Namely, the unmarked infinitive is used, besides the various
analytical forms, with modal verbs (except the modals ought and used), with
verbs of physical perceptions, with the verbs let, bid, make, help (with the
latter - optionally),
with the verb know in the sense of "experience", with a few verbal
phrases of modal nature (had better, would rather, would have, etc.), with the
relative-inducive why. All these uses are detailed in practical grammar books.
The infinitive is a
categorially changeable form. It distinguishes the three grammatical categories
sharing them with the finite verb, namely, the aspective category of
development (continuous in opposition), the aspective category of retrospective
coordination (perfect in opposition), the category of voice (passive in
opposition). Consequently, the categorial paradigm of the infinitive of the
objective verb includes eight forms: the indefinite active, the continuous
active, the perfect active, the perfect continuous active; the indefinite
passive, the continuous passive, the perfect passive, the perfect continuous
passive. E.g.: to take - to
be taking
- to
have taken - to
have been taking; to be taken -to
be being taken - to
have been taken - to
have been being taken.
The infinitive
paradigm of the non-objective verb, correspondingly, includes four forms. E.g.:
to go -to be going
- to
have gone - to
have been going.
The continuous and
perfect continuous passive can only be used occasionally, with a strong
stylistic colouring. But they underlie the corresponding finite verb forms. It
is the indefinite infinitive that constitues the head-form of the verbal
paradigm.
The gerund is the
non-finite form of the verb which, like the infinitive, combines the properties
of the verb with those of the noun. Similar to the infinitive, the gerund
serves as the verbal name of a process, but its substantive quality is more
strongly pronounced than that of the infinitive. Namely, as different from the
infinitive, and similar to the noun, the gerund can be modified by a noun in
the possessive case or its pronominal equivalents (expressing the subject of
the verbal process), and it can be used with prepositions.
Since the gerund,
like the infinitive, is an abstract name of the process denoted by the verbal
lexeme, a question might arise, why the infinitive, and not the gerund is taken
as the head-form of the verbal lexeme as a whole, its accepted representative
in the lexicon.
As a matter of
fact, the gerund cannot perform the function of the paradigmatic verbal
head-form for a number of reasons. In the first place, it is more detached from
the finite verb than the infinitive semantically, tending to be a far more
substantival unit categorially. Then, as different from the infinitive, it does
not join in the conjugation of the finite verb. Unlike the infinitive, it is a
suffixal form, which makes
it less generalised than the infinitive in terms of the formal properties of
the verbal lexeme (although it is more abstract in the purely semantic sense).
Finally, it is less definite than the infinitive from the lexico-grammatical
point of view, being subject to easy neutralisations in its opposition with the
verbal noun in -ing, as well as with the present participle. Hence, the gerund
is no rival of the infinitive in the paradigmatic head-form function.
The general
combinability of the gerund, like that of the infinitive, is dual, sharing some
features with the verb, and some features with the noun. The verb-type
combinability of the gerund is displayed in its combining, first, with nouns
expressing the object of the action; second, with modifying adverbs; third,
with certain semi-functional predicator verbs, but other than modal. Of the
noun-type is the combinability of the gerund, first, with finite notional verbs
as the object of the action; second, with finite notional verbs as the
prepositional adjunct of various functions; third, with finite notional verbs
as the subject of the action; fourth, with nouns as the prepositional adjunct
of various functions.
The gerund, in the
corresponding positional patterns, performs the functions of all the types of
notional sentence-parts, i.e. the subject, the object, the predicative, the
attribute, the adverbial modifier. Cf.:
Repeating your
accusations over and over again doesn't make them more convincing. (Gerund
subject position) No wonder he delayed breaking the news to Uncle Jim. (Gerund
direct object position) She could not give her mind to pressing wild flowers in
Pauline's botany book. (Gerund addressee object position) Joe felt annoyed at
being shied by his roommates. (Gerund prepositional object position) You know
what luck is? Luck is believing you're lucky. (Gerund predicative position)
Fancy the pleasant prospect of listening to all the gossip they've in store for
you! (Gerund attributive position) He could not push against the furniture
without bringing the whole lot down. (Gerund adverbial of manner position)
One of the specific
gerund patterns is its combination with the noun in the possessive case or its
possessive pronominal equivalent expressing the subject of the action. This
gerundial construction is used in cases when the subject of the gerundial
process differs from the subject of the governing
sentence-situation, i.e. when the gerundial
sentence-part has its own, separate subject. E.g.:
Powell's being rude
like that was disgusting. How can she know about the Morions' being connected
with this unaccountable affair? Will he ever excuse our having interfered?
The possessive with
the gerund displays one of the distinctive categorial properties of the gerund
as such, establishing it in the English lexemic system as the form of the verb
with nounal characteristics. As a matter of fact, from the point of view of the
inner semantic relations, this combination is of a verbal type, while from the
point of view of the formal categorial features, this combination is of a
nounal type. It can be clearly demonstrated by the appropriate transformations,
i.e. verb-related and noun-related re-constructions. Cf.: I can't stand his
criticising artistic works that are beyond his competence. (T-verbal →He
is criticising artistic works. T-nounal→ His criticism of artistic
works.)
Besides combining
with the possessive noun-subject, the verbal ing-form con also combine with the
noun-subject in the common case or its objective pronominal equivalent. E.g.: I
read in yesterday's paper about the hostages having been released.
This gerundial use
as presenting very peculiar features of categorial mediality will be discussed
after the treatment of the participle.
The formal sign of
the gerund is wholly homonymous with that of the present participle: it is the
suffix -ing added to its grammatically (categorially) leading element.
Like the
infinitive, the gerund is a categorially changeable (variable, demutative)
form; it distinguishes the two grammatical categories, sharing them with the
finite verb and the present participle, namely, the aspective category of
retrospective coordination (perfect in opposition), and the category of voice
(passive in opposition). Consequently, the categorial paradigm of the gerund of
the objective verb includes four forms: the simple active, the perfect active;
the simple passive, the perfect passive. E.g.: taking -
having taken -
being taken -
having been taken.
The gerundial
paradigm of the non-objective verb, correspondingly, includes two forms. E.g.:
going - having
gone. The perfect forms of the gerund are used, as a rule, only in semantically
strong positions, laying special emphasis on the meaningful categorial content
of the form.
The present
participle is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of
the verb with those of the adjective and adverb, serving as the
qualifying-processual name. In its outer form the present participle is wholly
homonymous with the gerund, ending in the suffix -ing and distinguishing the
same grammatical categories of retrospective coordination and voice.
Like all the
verbids, the present participle has no categorial time distinctions, and the
attribute "present" in its conventional name is not immediately
explanatory; it is used in this book from force of tradition. Still, both terms
"present participle" and "past participle" are not
altogether devoid of elucidative signification, if not in the categorial sense,
then in the derivational-etymological sense, and are none the worse in their
quality than their doublet-substitutes "participle I" and "participle
II".
The present
participle has its own place in the general paradigm of the verb, different
from that of the past participle, being distinguished by the corresponding set
of characterisation features.
Since it possesses
some traits both of adjective and adverb, the present participle is not only
dual, but triple by its lexico-grammatical properties, which is displayed in
its combinability, as well as in its syntactic functions.
The verb-type
combinability of the present participle is revealed, first, in its being
combined, in various uses, with nouns expressing the object of the action;
second, with nouns expressing the subject of the action (in semi-predicative
complexes); third, with modifying adverbs; fourth, with auxiliary finite verbs
(word-morphemes) in the analytical forms of the verb. The adjective-type
combinability of the present participle is revealed in its association with the
modified nouns, as well as with some modifying adverbs, such as adverbs of
degree. The adverb-type combinability of the present participle is revealed in
its association with the modified verbs.
The self-positional
present participle, in the proper syntactic arrangements, performs the
functions of the predicative (occasional use, and not with the pure link be),
the attribute, the adverbial modifier of various types. Cf.:
The questions
became more and more irritating. (Present participle predicative position) She
had thrust the crucifix on to the surviving baby. (Present participle
attributive front-position)
Norman stood on the pavement like a man watching his loved one go aboard an
ocean liner. (Present participle attributive back-position) He was no longer
the cocky, pugnacious boy, always squaring up for a fight. (Present participle
attributive back-position, detached) She went up the steps, swinging her hips
and tossing her fur with bravado. (Present participle manner adverbial
back-position) And having read in the papers about truth drugs, of course
Gladys would believe it absolutely. (Present participle cause adverbial
front-position)
The present
participle, similar to the infinitive, can build up semi-predicative complexes
of objective and subjective types. The two groups of complexes, i.e.
infinitival and present participial, may exist in parallel (e.g. when used with
some verbs of physical perceptions), the difference between them lying in the
aspective presentation of the process. Cf.:
Nobody noticed the
scouts approach the enemy trench. -
Nobody noticed the scouts approaching the enemy
trench with slow, cautious, expertly calculated movements. Suddenly a telephone
was heard to buzz, breaking the spell. -
The telephone was heard vainly buzzing in the study.
A peculiar use of
the present participle is seen in the absolute participial constructions of
various types, forming complexes of detached semi-predication. Cf.:
The messenger
waiting in the hall, we had only a couple of minutes to make a decision. The
dean sat at his desk, with an electric fire glowing warmly behind the fender at
the opposite wall.
These complexes of
descriptive and narrative stylistic nature seem to be gaining ground in
present-day English.
The past participle
is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of the verb
with those of the adjective, serving as the qualifying-processual name. The
past participle is a single form, having no paradigm of its own. By way of the
paradigmatic correlation with the present participle, it conveys implicitly the
categorial meaning of the perfect and the passive. As different from the present
participle, it has no distinct combinability features or syntactic function
features specially characteristic of the adverb. Thus, the main self-positional
functions of the past participle
in the sentence are those of the attribute and the predicative. Cf.:
Moyra's softened
look gave him a new hope. (Past participle attributive front-position) The
cleverly chosen timing of the attack determined the outcome of the battle.
(Past participle attributive front-position) It is a face devastated by
passion. (Past participle attributive back-position) His was a victory gained
against all rules and predictions. (Past participle attributive back-position)
Looked upon in this light, the wording of the will didn't appear so odious.
(Past participle attributive detached position) The light is bright and
inconveniently placed for reading. (Past participle predicative position)
The past participle
is included in the structural formation of the present participle (perfect,
passive), which, together with the other differential properties, vindicates
the treatment of this form as a separate verbid.
In the attributive
use, the past participial meanings of the perfect and the passive are expressed
in dynamic correlation with the aspective lexico-grammatical character of the
verb. As a result of this correlation, the attributive past participle of
limitive verbs in a neutral context expresses priority, while the past
participle of unlimitive verbs expresses simultaneity. E.g.:
A tree broken by
the storm blocked the narrow passage between the cliffs and the water.
(Priority in the passive; the implication is "a tree that had been broken
by the storm") I saw that the picture admired by the general public hardly
had a fair chance with the judges. (Simultaneity in the passive; the implication
is "the picture which was being admired by the public")
Like the present
participle, the past participle is capable of making up semi-predicative
constructions of complex object, complex subject, as well as of absolute
complex.
The past
participial complex object is specifically characteristic with verbs of wish
and oblique causality (have, get). Cf.:
I want the document
prepared for signing by 4 p.m.
Will you have my coat brushed up, please?
Compare the use of
the past; participial complex object and
the complex subject as its passive transform with a perception verb:
We could hear a
shot or two fired from a field mortar. →
Л
shot or two could be heard fired from a field
mortar.
The complex subject
of this type, whose participle is included in the double predicate of the
sentence, is used but occasionally. A more common type of the participial
complex subject can be seen with notional links of motion and position. Cf.: We
sank down and for a while lay there stretched out and exhausted.
The absolute past
participial complex as a rule expresses priority in the correlation of two
events. Cf.: The preliminary talks completed, it became possible to concentrate
on the central point of the agenda.
The past
participles of non-objective verbs are rarely used in independent sentence-part
positions; they are mostly included in phraseological or cliche combinations
like faded photographs, fallen leaves, a retired officer, a withered flower,
dream come true, etc. In these and similar cases the idea of pure quality
rather than that of processual quality is expressed, the modifying participles
showing the features of adjectivisation.
As is known, the
past participle is traditionally interpreted as being capable of
adverbial-related use (like the present participle), notably in detached
syntactical positions, after the introductory subordinative conjunctions. Cf.:
Called up by the
conservative minority, the convention failed to pass a satisfactory resolution.
Though welcomed heartily by his host, Frederick felt at once that something was
wrong.
Approached from the
paradigmatic point of view in the constructional sense, this interpretation is
to be re-considered. As a matter of fact, past participial constructions of the
type in question display clear cases of syntactic compression. The true
categorial nature of the participial forms employed by them is exposed by the
corresponding transformational correlations ("back transformations")
as being not of adverbial, but of definitely adjectival relation. Cf.:
...→ The
convention, which was called up by the conservative minority, failed to pass a
satisfactory resolution. ...→ Though
he was welcomed heartily by his host, Frederick felt at once that something was
wrong.
Cf. a more radical
diagnostic transformational change of the latter construction: ...→
Frederick, who was welcomed heartily by his
host, nevertheless felt at once that something was wrong.
As is seen from the
analysis, the adjectival relation of the past participle in the quoted examples
is proved by the near-predicative function of the participle in the derived
transforms, be it even within the composition of the finite passive verb form.
The adverbial uses of the present participle react to similar tests in a
different way. Cf.: Passing on to the library, he found Mabel entertaining her
guests. → As
he passed on to the library, he found Mabel entertaining her guests.
The adverbial force
of the present participle in constructions like that is shown simply as
resulting from the absence of obligatory mediation of be between the participle
and its subject (in the derivationally underlying units).
As an additional
proof of our point, we may take an adjectival construction for a similar
diagnostic testing. Cf.: Though red in the face, the boy kept denying his
guilt. → Though
he was red in the face, the boy kept denying his guilt.
As we see, the word
red, being used in the diagnostic concessive clause of complete composition,
does not change its adjectival quality for an adverbial quality. Being red in
the face would again present another categorial case. Being, as a present
participial form, is in the observed syntactic conditions neither solely
adjectival-related, nor solely adverbial-related; it is by nature
adjectival-adverbial, the whole composite unity in question automatically
belonging to the same categorial class, i.e. the class of present participial
constructions of different subtypes.
The consideration
of the English verbids in their mutual comparison, supported and supplemented
by comparing them with their non-verbal counterparts, puts forward some points
of structure and function worthy of special notice.
In this connection,
the infinitive-gerund correlation should first be brought under observation.
Both forms are
substance-processual, and the natural question that one has to ask about them
is, whether the two do not repeat each other by their informative destination
and employment. This question was partly answered in the
paragraph devoted to the general outline of the
gerund. Observations of the actual uses of the gerund and the infinitive in
texts do show the clear-cut semantic difference between the forms, which
consists in the gerund being, on the one hand, of a more substantive nature
than the infinitive, i.e. of a nature nearer to the thingness-signification
type; on the other hand, of a more abstract nature in the logical sense proper.
Hence, the forms do not repeat, but complement each other, being both of them
inalienable components of the English verbal system.
The difference
between the forms in question may be demonstrated by the following examples:
Seeing and talking
to people made him tired. (As characteristic of a period of his life; as a
general feature of his
disposition) It
made him tired to see and talk to so many
people. (All at a
time, on that particular occasion); Spending an afternoon in the company of
that gentle soul was always a wonderful pleasure. (Repeated action, general
characteristic) spend an afternoon on the grass -
lovely! (A
response utterance
of enthusiastic agreement); Who doesn't
like singing? (In a
general reference) Who doesn't like
to sing? (In
reference to the subject)
Comparing examples
like these, we easily notice the more dynamic, more actional character of the
infinitive as well as of the whole collocations built up around it, and the
less dynamic character of the corresponding gerundial collocations.
Furthermore, beyond the boundaries of the verb, but within the boundaries of
the same inter-class paradigmatic derivation (see above, Ch. IV, §
8), we find the cognate verbal noun
which is devoid of processual dynamics altogether, though it denotes, from a
different angle, the same referential process, situation, event. Cf.:
For them to have
arrived so early! Such a surprise!-- Their
having arrived so early was indeed a great surprise. Their early arrival
was a great surprise, really.
The triple
correlation, being of an indisputably systemic nature and covering a vast
proportion of the lexicon, enables us to interpret it in terms of a special
lexico-grammatical category of processual representation. The three stages of
this category represent the referential processual entity of the lexemic
series, respectively, as dynamic (the infinitive and its phrase), semi-dynamic
(the gerund and its phrase), and static
(the verbal noun and its phrase). The category of processual representation
underlies the predicative differences between various situation-naming
constructions in the sphere of syntactic nominalisation (see further, Ch. XXV).
Another category
specifically identified within the framework of substantival verbids and
relevant for syntactic analysis is the category of modal representation. This
category, pointed out by L. S. Barkhudarov [Бархударов,
(2), 151-152], marks the infinitive in contrast to
the gerund, and it is revealed in the infinitive having a modal force, in
particular, in its attributive uses, but also elsewhere. Cf.:
This is a kind of
peace to be desired by all. (A kind of peace that should be desired) Is there
any hope for us to meet this great violinist in our town? (A hope that we may
meet this violinist) It was arranged for the mountaineers to have a rest in
tents before climbing the peak. (It was arranged so that they could have a rest
in tents)
When speaking about
the functional difference between lingual forms, we must bear in mind that this
difference might become subject to neutralisation in various systemic or
contextual conditions. But however vast the corresponding field of
neutralisation might be, the rational basis of correlations of the forms in
question still lies in their difference, not in neutralising equivalence.
Indeed, the difference is linguistically so valuable that one well-established
occurrence of a differential correlation of meaningful forms outweighs by its
significance dozens of their textual neutralisations. Why so? For the simple
reason that language is a means of forming and exchanging ideas -
that is, ideas differing from one another, not
coinciding with one another. And this simple truth should thoroughly be taken
into consideration when tackling certain cases of infinitive-gerund equivalence
in syntactic constructions - as,
for instance, the freely alternating gerunds and infinitives with some phasal
predicators (begin, start, continue, cease, etc.). The functional equivalence
of the infinitive and the gerund in the composition of the phasal predicate by
no means can be held as testifying to their functional equivalence in other
spheres of expression.
As for the
preferable or exclusive use of the gerund with a set of transitive verbs (e.g.
avoid, delay, deny, forgive, mind, postpone) and especially
prepositional-complementive verbs and word-groups (e.g. accuse of, agree to,
depend on, prevent from, think of, succeed in, thank for; be aware of,
be busy in, be indignant at, be sure of), we
clearly see here the tendency of mutual differentiation and complementation of
the substantive verbid forms based on the demonstrated category of processual
representation. In fact, it is the gerund, not the infinitive, that denotes the
processual referent of the lexeme not in a dynamic, but in a half-dynamic
representation, which is more appropriate to be associated with a
substantive-related part of the sentence.
Within the
gerund-participle correlation, the central point of our analysis will be the
very lexico-grammatical identification of the two verbid forms in -ing in their
reference to each other. Do they constitute two different verbids, or do they
present one and the same form with a somewhat broader range of functions than
either of the two taken separately?
The ground for
raising this problem is quite substantial, since the outer structure of the two
elements of the verbal system is absolutely identical: they are outwardly the
same when viewed in isolation. It is not by chance that in the American
linguistic tradition which can be traced back to the school of Descriptive
Linguistics the two forms are recognised as one integral V-ing.
In treating the
ing-forms as constituting one integral verbid entity, opposed, on the one hand,
to the infinitive (V-to), on the other hand, to the past participle (V-en),
appeal is naturally made to the alternating use of the possessive and the
common-objective nounal element in the role of the subject of the ing-form
(mostly observed in various object positions of the sentence). Cf.:
I felt annoyed at
his failing to see my point at once. «→ I
felt annoyed at him failing to see my point at once. He was not, however,
averse to Elaine Fortescue's entertaining the hypothesis.<→He was not,
however, averse to Elaine Fortescue entertaining the hypothesis.
This use presents a
case known in linguistics as "half-gerund". So, in terms of the
general ing-form problem, we have to choose between the two possible
interpretations of the half-gerund: either as an actually intermediary form
with double features, whose linguistic semi-status is truly reflected in its
conventional name, or as an element of a non-existent categorial specification,
i.e. just another variant of the same indiscriminate V-ing.
In this connection,
the reasoning of those who support the idea of the integral V-ing form can
roughly be presented thus: if the two uses of V-ing are functionally identical,
and if the "half-gerund" V-ing occurs with approximately the same
frequency as the "full-gerund" V-ing, both forms presenting an
ordinary feature of an ordinary English text, then there is no point in
discriminating the "participle" V-ing and the "gerund"
V-ing.
In compliance with
the general principle of approach to any set of elements forming a categorial
or functional continuum, let us first consider the correlation between the
polar elements of the continuum, i.e. the correlation between the pure present
participle and the pure gerund, setting aside the half-gerund for a further
discussion.
The comparative
evaluations of the actually different uses of the ing-forms can't fail to show
their distinct categorial differentiation: one range of uses is definitely
noun-related, definitely of process-substance signification; the other range of
uses is definitely adjective-adverb related, definitely of process-quality
signification. This differentiation can easily be illustrated by specialised
gerund-testing and participle-testing, as well as by careful textual
observations of the forms.
The gerund-testing,
partly employed while giving a general outline of the gerund, includes the
noun-substitution procedure backed by the question-procedure. Cf.:
My chance of
getting, or achieving, anything that I long for will always be gravely reduced
by the interminable existence of that block. →
My chance of what? →
My chance of success.
He insisted on
giving us some coconuts. → What
did he insist on? → He
insisted on our acceptance of the gift.
All his relatives
somehow disapproved of his writing poetry. → What did all his relatives
disapprove of?→ His
relatives disapproved of his poetical work.
The other no less
convincing evidence of the nounal featuring of the form in question is its
natural occurrence in coordinative connections with the noun. Cf.:
I didn't stop to
think of an answer; it came immediately off my tongue without any pause or
planning. Your husband isn't ill, no. What he does need is relaxation and
simply cheering a bit, if you know what I mean. He carried out rigorously all
the precepts concerning food, bathing,
meditation and so on of the orthodox Hindu.
The
participle-testing, for its part, includes the adjective-adverb substitution
procedure backed by the corresponding question-procedure, as well as some other
analogies. Cf.:
He was in a
terrifying condition. → In
what kind of condition was he?→He was in an awful condition. (Adjective
substitution procedure) Pursuing this; course of free association, I suddenly
remembered a dinner date I once had with a distinguished colleague → When
did I suddenly remember a dinner date? → Then I suddenly remembered a
dinner date. (Adverb-substitution procedure) She sits up gasping and staring
wild-eyed about her. → How does she sit up? → She sits up so.
(Adverb-substitution procedure)
The participle also
enters into easy coordinative and parallel associations with qualitative and
stative adjectives. Cf.:
That was a false,
but convincing show of affection. The ears are large, protruding, with the
heavy lobes of the sensualist. On the great bed are two figures, a sleeping
woman, and a young man awake.
Very important in
this respect will be analogies between the present participle qualitative
function and the past participle qualitative function, since the separate
categorial standing of the past participle remains unchallenged. Cf.: an
unmailed letter - a
coming letter; the fallen monarchy - the
falling monarchy; thinned hair - thinning
hair.
Of especial
significance for the differential verbid identification purposes are the two
different types of conversion the compared forms are subject to, namely, the
nounal conversion of the gerund and, correspondingly, the adjectival conversion
of the participle.
Compare the
gerund-noun conversional pairs: your airing the room to take an airing
before going to bed; his breeding his son to the profession - a person
of unimpeachable
breeding; their
calling him a liar - the youth's choice of
a calling in life.
Compare the
participle-adjective conversional pairs: animals living in the jungle living
languages; a man never
daring an open
argument - a daring inventor; a car passing
by a passing
passion.
Having recourse to
the evidence of the analogy type, as a counter-thesis against the attempted
demonstration, one might point out cases of categorial ambiguity, where the
category of the qualifying element remains open to either interpretation, such
as the "typing instructor", the "boiling kettle", or the
like. However, cases like these present a trivial homonymy which, being
resolved, can itself be taken as evidence in favour of, not against, the two
ing-forms differing from each other on the categorial lines. Cf.:
the typing
instructor → the instructor of typing; the instructor who is typing; the
boiling kettle → the
kettle for boiling; the kettle that is boiling
At this point, the
analysis of the cases presenting the clear-cut gerund versus present participle
difference can be considered as fulfilled. The two ing-forms in question are
shown as possessing categorially differential properties establishing them as
two different verbids in the system of the English verb.
And this casts a
light on the categorial nature of the half-gerund, since it is essentially
based on the positional verbid neutralisation. As a matter of fact, let us
examine the following examples:
You may count on my
doing all that is necessary on such occasions. may count on me doing all that
is necessary on such occasions.
The possessive
subject of the ing-form in the first of the two sentences is clearly disclosed
as a structural adjunct of a nounal collocation. But the objective subject of
the ing-form in the second sentence, by virtue of its morphological
constitution, cannot be associated with a noun: this would contradict the
established regularities of the categorial compatibility. The casal-type
government (direct, or representative-pronominal) in the collocation being lost
(or, more precisely, being non-existent), the ing-form of the collocation can
only be understood as a participle. This interpretation is strongly supported
by comparing half-gerund constructions with clear-cut participial constructions
governed by perception verbs:
To think of him
turning sides! To see him turning
sides! I don't like
Mrs. Thomson complaining of her loneliness. - I can't listen to Mrs.
Thomson complaining of her loneliness.
Did you ever hear of a girl playing a trombone? -Did
you ever hear a girl playing a trombone?
On the other hand,
the position of the participle in the collocation is syntactically peculiar,
since semantic accent in such constructions is made on the fact or event
described, i.e. on the situational content of it, with the processual substance
as its core. This can be demonstrated by question-tests:
(The first
half-gerund construction in the above series) →
To think of what in connection with him? (The
second half-gerund construction) → What
don't you like about Mrs. Thomson? (The third half-gerund construction) →
Which accomplishment of a girl presents a
surprise for the speaker?
Hence, the verbid
under examination is rather to be interpreted as a transferred participle, or a
gerundial participle, the latter term seeming to relevantly disclose the
essence of the nature of this form; though the existing name
"half-gerund" is as good as any other, provided the true character of
the denoted element of the system is understood.
Our final remark in
connection with the undertaken observation will be addressed to linguists who,
while recognising the categorial difference between the gerund and the present
participle, will be inclined to analyse the half-gerund (the gerundial
participle) on exactly the same basis as the full gerund, refusing to draw a
demarcation line between the latter two forms and simply ascribing the
occurrence of the common case subject in this construction to the limited use
of the possessive case in modern English in general. As regards this interpretation,
we should like to say that an appeal to the limited sphere of the English noun
possessive in an attempt to prove the wholly gerundial character of the
intermediary construction in question can hardly be considered of any serious
consequence. True, a vast proportion of English nouns do not admit of the
possessive case form, or, if they do, their possessive in the construction
would create contextual ambiguity, or else some sort of stylistic ineptitude.
Cf.:
The headlines bore
a flaring announcement of the strike being called off by the Amalgamated Union.
(No normal possessive with the noun strike); I can't fancy their daughter
entering a University college. (Ambiguity in the oral possessive: daughter's -
daughters'); They were surprised at the head
of the family rejecting the services of the old
servant. (Evading the undesirable shift of the possessive particle -'s from the
head-noun to its adjunct); The notion of this woman who had had the world at
her feet paying a man half a dollar to dance with her filled me with shame.
(Semantic and stylistic incongruity of the clause possessive with the
statement)
However, these
facts are but facts in themselves, since they only present instances when a
complete gerundial construction for this or that reason either cannot exist at
all, or else should be avoided on diverse reasons of usage. So, the quoted
instances of gerundial participle phrases are not more demonstrative of the
thesis in question than, say, the attributive uses of nouns in the common form
(e.g. the inquisitor judgement, the Shakespeare Fund, a Thompson way of
refusing, etc.) would be demonstrative of the possessive case
"tendency" to coincide with the bare stem of the noun: the absence of
the possessive nounal form as such can't be taken to testify that the
"possessive case" may exist without its feature sign.
XII. FINITE VERB:
INTRODUCTION
The finite forms of
the verb express the processual relations of substances and phenomena making up
the situation reflected in the sentence. These forms are associated with one
another in an extremely complex and intricate system. The peculiar aspect of
the complexity of this system lies in the fact that, as we have stated before,
the finite verb is directly connected with the structure of the sentence as a whole.
Indeed, the finite verb, through the working of its categories, is immediately
related to such sentence-constitutive factors as morphological forms of
predication, communication purposes, subjective modality, subject-object
relation, gradation of probabilities, and quite a few other factors of no
lesser importance..
As has been
mentioned elsewhere, the complicated character of the system in question has
given rise to a lot of controversies about the structural formation of the
finite verb categories, as well as the bases of their functional semantics. It
would be not an exaggeration to say that each fundamental
type of grammatical expression capable of being
approached in terms of generalised categories in the domain of the finite verb
has created a subject for a scholarly dispute. For instance, taking as an
example the sphere of the categorial person and number of the verb, we are
faced with the argument among grammarians about the existence or non-existence
of the verbal-pronominal forms of these categories. In connection with the
study of the verbal expression of time and aspect, the great controversy is
going on as to the temporal or aspective nature of the verbal forms of the
indefinite, continuous, perfect, and perfect-continuous series. Grammatical
expression of the future tense in English is stated by some scholars as a
matter-of-fact truth, while other linguists are eagerly negating any
possibility of its existence as an element of grammar. The verbal voice invites
its investigators to exchange mutually opposing views regarding both the
content and the number of its forms. The problem of the subjunctive mood may
justly be called one of the most vexed in the theory of grammar: the exposition
of its structural properties, its inner divisions, as well as its correlation
with the indicative mood vary literally from one linguistic author to another.
On the face of it,
one might get an impression that the morphological study of the English finite
verb has amounted to interminable aimless exchange of arguments, ceaseless
advances of opposing "points of view", the actual aim of which has
nothing to do with the practical application of linguistic theory to life.
However, the fallacy of such an impression should be brought to light
immediately and uncompromisingly.
As a matter of
fact, it is the verb system that, of all the spheres of morphology, has come
under the most intensive and fruitful analysis undertaken by contemporary
linguistics. In the course of these studies the oppositional nature of the
categorial structure of the verb was disclosed and explicitly formulated; the
paradigmatic system of the expression of verbal functional semantics was
described competently, though in varying technical terms, and the correlation
of form and meaning in the composition of functionally relevant parts of this
system was demonstrated explicitly on the copious material gathered.
Theoretical
discussions have not ceased, nor subsided. On the contrary, they continue and
develop, though on an ever more solid scientific foundation; and the cumulative
descriptions of the English verb provide now an
integral picture of its nature which the grammatical theory has never possessed
before. Indeed, it is due to this advanced types of study that the structural
and semantic patterning of verbal constructions successfully applied to
teaching practices on all the stages of tuition has achieved so wide a scope.
The following
presentation of the categorial system of the English verb is based on
oppositional criteria worked out in the course of grammatical studies of
language by Soviet and foreign scholars. We do not propose to develop a
description in which the many points of discussion would receive an exposition
in terms of anything like detailed analysis. Our aim will rather be only to demonstrate
some general principles of approach - such
principles as would stimulate the student's desire to see into the inner
meaningful workings of any grammatical construction which are more often than
not hidden under the outer connections of its textual elements; such principles
as would develop the student's ability to rely on his own resources when coming
across concrete dubious cases of grammatical structure and use; such principles
as, finally, would provide the student with a competence enabling him to bring
his personal efforts of grammatical understanding to relevant correlation with
the recognised theories, steering open-eyed among the differences of expert
opinion.
The categorial
spheres to be considered in this book are known from every topical description
of English grammar. They include the systems of expressing verbal person,
number, time, aspect, voice, and mood. But the identification and the
distribution of the actual grammatical categories of the verb recognised in our
survey will not necessarily coincide with the given enumeration, which will be
exposed and defended with the presentation of each particular category that is
to come under study.
CHAPTER XIII. VERB:
PERSON AND NUMBER
categories of
person and number are closely connected with each other. Their immediate
connection is conditioned by the two factors: first, by their situational
semantics, referring the process denoted by the verb to the
subject of the
situation, i.e. to its central substance (which exists in inseparable unity of
"quality" reflected in the personal denotation, and
"quantity" reflected in the numerical denotation); second, by their
direct and immediate relation to the syntactic unit expressing the subject as
the functional part of the sentence.
Both categories are
different in principle from the other categories of the finite verb, in so far
as they do not convey any inherently "verbal" semantics, any
constituents of meaning realised and confined strictly within the boundaries of
the verbal lexeme. The nature of both of them is purely "reflective"
(see Ch. III, §5).
Indeed, the process
itself, by its inner quality and logical status, cannot be
"person-setting" in any consistent sense, the same as it cannot be either
"singular" or "plural"; and this stands in contrast with
the other properties of the process, such as its development in time, its being
momentary or repeated, its being completed or incompleted, etc. Thus, both the
personal and numerical semantics, though categorially expressed by the verb,
cannot be characterised as process-relational, similar to the other aspects of
the verbal categorial semantics. These aspects of semantics are to be
understood only as substance-relational, reflected in the verb from the
interpretation and grammatical featuring of the subject.
§ 2. Approached
from the strictly morphemic angle, the analysis of the verbal person and number
leads the grammarian to the statement of the following converging and diverging
features of their forms.
The expression of
the category of person is essentially confined to the singular form of the verb
in the present tense of the indicative mood and, besides, is very singularly
presented in the future tense. As for the past tense, the person is alien to
it, except for a trace of personal distinction in the archaic conjugation.
In the present
tense the expression of the category of person is divided into three peculiar
subsystems.
The first subsystem
includes the modal verbs that have no personal inflexions: can, may, must,
shall, will, ought, need, dare. So, in the formal sense, the category of person
is wholly neutralised with these verbs, or, in plainer words, it is left
unexpressed.
The second
subsystem is made up by the unique verbal
lexeme be. The expression of person by this
lexeme is the direct opposite to its expression by modal verbs: if the latter
do not convey the indication of person in any morphemic sense at all, the verb
be has three different suppletive personal forms, namely: am for the first
person singular, is for the third person singular, and are as a feature marking
the finite form negatively: neither the first, nor the third person singular.
It can't be taken for the specific positive mark of the second person for the
simple reason that it coincides with the plural all-person (equal to
none-person) marking.
The third subsystem
presents just the regular, normal expression of person with the remaining
multitude of the English verbs, with each morphemic variety of them. From the
formal point of view, this subsystem occupies the medial position between the
first two: if the verb be is at least two-personal, the normal personal type of
the verb conjugation is one-personal. Indeed, the personal mark is confined
here to the third person singular -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz], the other two persons
(the first and the second) remaining unmarked, e.g. comes -
come, blows -
blow, slops -
stop, chooses -
choose.
As is known,
alongside of this universal system of three sets of personal verb forms, modern
English possesses another system of person-conjugation characterising elevated
modes of speech (solemn addresses, sermons, poetry, etc.) and stamped with a
flavour of archaism. The archaic person-conjugation has one extra feature in
comparison with the common conjugation, namely, a special inflexion for the
second person singular. The three described subsystems of the personal verb
forms receive the following featuring:
The modal
person-conjugation is distinguished by one morphemic mark, namely, the second person:
canst, may(e)st, wilt, shalt, shouldst, wouldst, ought(e)st, need(e)st, durst.
The personal
be-conjugation is complete in three explicitly marked forms, having a separate
suppletive presentation for each separate person: am, art, is.
The archaic person-conjugation
of the rest of the verbs, though richer than the common system of person forms,
still occupies the medial position between the modal and be-conjugation. Two of
the three of its forms, the third and second persons, are positively marked, while
the first person remains unmarked, e.g. comes -
comest-come,
blows - blowest
- blow, stops -
stoppest -stop,
chooses - choosest
- choose.
As regards the
future tense, the person finds here quite
another mode of expression. The features
distinguishing it from the present-tense person conjugation are, first, that it
marks not the third, but the first person in distinction to the remaining two;
and second, that it includes in its sphere also the plural. The very principle
of the person featuring is again very peculiar in the future tense as compared
with the present tense, consisting not in morphemic inflexion, nor even in the
simple choice of person-identifying auxiliaries, but in the oppositional use of
shall - will
specifically marking the first person (expressing, respectively, voluntary and
non-voluntary future), which is contrasted against the oppositional use of will
- shall specifically
marking the second and third persons together (expressing, respectively, mere
future and modal future). These distinctions, which will be described at more
length further on, are characteristic only of British English.
A trace of person
distinction is presented in the past tense with the archaic form of the second
person singular. The form is used but very occasionally, still it goes with the
pronoun thou, being obligatory with it. Here is an example of its
individualising occurrence taken from E. Hemingway: Thyself and thy horses.
Until thou hadst horses thou wert with us. Now thou art another capitalist
more.
Thus, the
peculiarity of the archaic past tense person-conjugation is that its only
marked form is not the third person as in the present tense, nor the first
person as in the British future tense, but the second person. This is what
might be called "little whims of grammar"!
Passing on to the
expression of grammatical number by the English finite verb, we are faced with
the interesting fact that, from the formally morphemic point of view, it is
hardly featured at all.
As a matter of
fact, the more or less distinct morphemic featuring of the category of number
can be seen only with the archaic forms of the unique be, both in the present
tense and in the past tense. But even with this verb the featuring cannot be
called quite explicit, since the opposition of the category consists in the
unmarked plural form for all the persons being contrasted against the marked
singular form for each separate person, each singular person thereby being
distinguished by its own, specific form. It means that the expressions of
person and number by the archaic conjugation of be in terms of the lexeme as a
whole are formally not strictly separated
from each other, each singular mark conveying at once a double grammatical
sense, both of person and number. Cf.: am -
are; art -
are; was (the first and the third persons, i.e.
non-second person) -
were; wast (second person) - were.
In the common
conjugation of be, the blending of the person and number forms is more
profound, since the suppletive are, the same as its past tense counterpart
were, not being confined to the plural sphere, penetrate the singular sphere,
namely, the expression of the second person (which actually becomes
non-expression because of the formal coincidence).
As for the rest of
the verbs, the blending of the morphemic expression of the two categories is
complete, for the only explicit morphemic opposition in the integral categorial
sphere of person and number is reduced with these verbs to the third person
singular (present tense, indicative mood) being contrasted against the unmarked
finite form of the verb.
The treatment of
the analysed categories on a formal basis, though fairly consistent in the
technical sense, is, however, lacking an explicit functional appraisal. To fill
the gap, we must take into due account not only the meaningful aspect of the
described verbal forms in terms of their reference to the person-number forms
of the subject, but also the functional content of the subject-substantival
categories of person and number themselves.
The semantic core
of the substantival (or pronominal, for that matter) category of person is
understood nowadays in terms of deictic, or indicative signification.
The deictic
function of lingual units, which has come under careful linguistic
investigation of late, consists not in their expressing self-dependent and
self-sufficient elements of meaning, but in pointing out entities of reality in
their spatial and temporal relation to the participants of speech
communication. In this light, the semantic content of the first person is the
indication of the person who is speaking, but such an indication as is effected
by no other individual than himself. This self-indicative role is performed
lexically by the personal pronoun I. The
semantic content of the second person is the indication of the individual who
is listening to the first person speaking -
but again such an indication as viewed and
effected by the speaker. This listener-indicative function is performed by the
personal pronoun you. Now, the
semantic content of the third person is quite different from that of either the
first or second person. Whereas the latter two express the immediate
participants of the communication, the third person indicates all the other
entities of reality, i.e. beings, things, and phenomena not immediately
included in the communicative situation, though also as viewed by the speaker,
at the moment of speech. This latter kind of indication may be effected in the
two alternative ways. The first is a direct one, by using words of a full
meaning function, either proper, or common, with the corresponding
specifications achieved with the help of indicators-determiners (articles and
pronominal words of diverse linguistic standings). The second is an oblique one,
by using the personal pronouns he, she, or it, depending on the gender
properties of the referents. It is the second way, i.e. the personal pronominal
indication of the third person referent, that immediately answers the essence
of the grammatical category of person as such, i.e. the three-stage location of
the referent in relation to the speaker: first, the speaker himself; second,
his listener; third, the non-participant of the communication, be it a human
non-participant or otherwise.
As we see, the
category of person taken as a whole is, as it were, inherently linguistic, the
significative purpose of it being confined to indications centering around the
production of speech.
Let us now appraise
the category of number represented in the forms of personal pronouns, i.e. the
lexemic units of language specially destined to serve the speaker-listener
lingual relation.
One does not have
to make great exploratory efforts in order to realise that the grammatical
number of the personal pronouns is extremely peculiar, in no wise resembling
the number of ordinary substantive words. As a matter of fact, the number of a
substantive normally expresses either the singularity or plurality of its
referent ("one - more
than one", or, in oppositional appraisal, "plural -
non-plural"), the quality of the referents,
as a rule, not being re-interpreted with the change of the number (the many
exceptions to this rule lie beyond the purpose of our present discussion). For
instance, when speaking about a few powder-compacts, I have in mind just
several pieces of them of absolutely the same nature. Or when referring to a
team of eleven football-players, I mean exactly so many members of this
sporting group. With the personal pronouns, though, it is "different,
and the cardinal feature of the difference is
the heterogeneity of the plural personal pronominal meaning.
Indeed, the first
person plural does not indicate the plurality of the "ego", it can't
mean several I's. What it denotes in fact, is the speaker plus some other
person or persons belonging, from the point of view of the utterance content,
to the same background. The second person plural is essentially different from
the first person plural in so far as it does not necessarily express, but is
only capable of expressing similar semantics. Thus, it denotes either more than
one listener (and this is the ordinary, general meaning of the plural as such,
not represented in the first person); or, similar to the first person, one
actual listener plus some other person or persons belonging to the same
background in the speaker's situational estimation; or, again specifically
different from the first person, more than one actual listener plus some other
person or persons of the corresponding interpretation. Turning to the third
person plural, one might feel inclined to think that it would wholly coincide
with the plural of an ordinary substantive name. On closer observation,
however, we note a fundamental difference here also. Indeed, the plural of the
third person is not the substantive plural proper, but the deictic, indicative,
pronominal plural; it is expressed through the intermediary reference to the
direct name of the denoted entity, and so may either be related to the singular
he-pronoun, or the she-рrоnоun,
or the it-pronoun, or to any possible
combination of them according to the nature of the plural object of denotation.
The only inference
that can be made from the given description is that in the personal pronouns
the expression of the plural is very much blended with the expression of the
person, and what is taken to be three persons in the singular and plural,
essentially presents a set of six different forms of blended person-number
nature, each distinguished by its own individuality. Therefore, in the strictly
categorial light, we have here a system not of three, but of six persons.
Returning now to
the analysed personal and numerical forms of the finite verb, the first
conclusion to be drawn on the ground of the undertaken analysis is, that their
intermixed character, determined on the formal basis, answers in general the
mixed character of the expression of person and number by the pronominal
subject name of the predicative construction. The second conclusion to be
drawn, however, is that the described formal person-number system of
the finite verb is extremely and very singularly
deficient. In fact, what in this connection the regular verb-form does express
morphemically, is only the oppositional identification of the third person
singular (to leave alone the particular British English mode of expressing the
person in the future).
A question
naturally arises: What is the actual relevance of this deficient system in
terms of the English language? Can one point out any functional, rational
significance of it, if taken by itself?
The answer to this
question can evidently be only in the negative: in no wise. There cannot be any
functional relevance in such a system, if taken by itself. But in language it
does not exist by itself.
As soon as we take
into consideration the functional side of the analysed forms, we discover at
once that these forms exist in unity with the personal-numerical forms of the
subject. This unity is of such a nature that the universal and true indicator
of person and number of the subject of the verb will be the subject itself,
however trivial this statement may sound. Essentially, though, there is not a
trace of triviality in the formula, bearing in mind, on the one hand, the
substantive character of the expressed categorial meanings, and on the other,
the analytical basis of the English grammatical structure. The combination of
the English finite verb with the subject is obligatory not only in the general
syntactic sense, but also in the categorial sense of expressing the
subject-person of the process.
An objection to
this thesis can be made on the ground that in the text the actual occurrence of
the subject with the finite verb is not always observed. Moreover, the absence
of the subject in constructions of living colloquial English is, in general,
not an unusual feature. Observing textual materials, we may come across cases
of subject-wanting predicative units used not only singly, as part of curt
question-response exchange, but also in a continual chain of speech. Here is an
example of a chain of this type taken from E. Hemingway:
"No one shot
from cars," said Wilson coldly. "I mean chase them from cars."
"Wouldn't
ordinarily," Wilson said. "Seemed sporting enough to me though while
we were doing it. Taking more chance
driving that way across the plain full of holes and one thing and another than
hunting on foot. Buffalo could have charged us each time we shot if he liked.
Gave him every chance. Wouldn't mention it to any one though. It's illegal if
that's what you mean."
However, examples
like this cannot be taken for a disproof of the obligatory connection between
the verb and its subject, because the corresponding subject-nouns, possibly
together with some other accompanying words, are zeroed on certain
syntactico-stylistical principles (brevity of expression in familiar style,
concentration on the main informative parts of the communication, individual
speech habits, etc.). Thus, the distinct zero-representation of the subject
does give expression to the verbal person-number category even in conditions of
an outwardly gaping void in place of the subject in this or that concrete
syntactic construction used in the text. Due to the said zero-representation,
we can easily reconstruct the implied person indications in the cited passage:
"I wouldn't ordinarily"; "It seemed sporting enough";
"It was taking more chance driving that way"; "We gave him every
chance"; "I wouldn't mention it to any one".
Quite naturally,
the non-use of the subject in an actual utterance may occasionally lead to a
referential misunderstanding or lack of understanding, and such situations are
reflected in literary works by writers -
observers of human speech as well as of human
nature. A vivid illustration of this type of speech informative deficiency can
be seen in one of K. Mansfield's stories:
"Fried or
boiled?" asked the bold voice.
Fried or boiled?
Josephine and Constantia were quite bewildered for the moment. They could
hardly take it in.
"Fried or
boiled what, Kate?" asked Josephine, trying to begin to concentrate.
Kate gave a loud
sniff. "Fish."
"Well, why
didn't you say so immediately?" Josephine reproached her gently. "How
could you expect us to understand, Kate? There are a great many things in this
world, you know, which are fried or boiled."
The referential gap
in Kate's utterance gave cause to her bewildered listener for a just reproach.
But such lack of positive information in an utterance is not to be confused
with the non-expression of a grammatical category. In this
connection, the textual zeroing of the
subject-pronoun may be likened to the textual zeroing of different constituents
of classical analytical verb-forms, such as the continuous, the perfect, and
others: no zeroing can deprive these forms of their grammatical, categorial
status.
Now, it would be
too strong to state that the combination of the subject-pronoun with the finite
verb in English has become an analytical person-number form in the full sense
of this notion. The English subject-pronoun, unlike the French conjoint
subject-pronoun (e.g. Je vous remercie -
"I
thank you"; but: mon mari et moi -
"my husband and I"),
still retains its self-positional syntactic
character, and the personal pronominal words, without a change of their
nominative form, are used in various notional functions in sentences, building
up different positional sentence-parts both in the role of head-word and in the
role of adjunct-word. What we do see in this combination is, probably, a very
specific semi-analytical expression of a reflective grammatical category
through an obligatory syntagmatic relation of the two lexemes: the
lexeme-reflector of the category and the lexeme-originator of the category.
This mode of grammatical expression can be called "junctional". Its
opposite, i.e. the expression of the categorial content by means of a normal
morphemic or word-morphemic procedure, can be, by way of contrast, tentatively
called "native". Thus, from the point of view of the expression of a
category either through the actual morphemic composition of a word, or through
its being obligatorily referred to another word in a syntagmatic string, the
corresponding grammatical forms will be classed into native and junctional.
About the person-numerical forms of the finite verb in question we shall say
that in the ordinary case of the third person singular present indicative, the
person and number of the verb are expressed natively, while in most of the
other paradigmatic locations they are expressed junctionally, through the
obligatory reference of the verb-form to its subject.
This truth, not
incapable of inviting an objection on the part of the learned, noteworthily has
been exposed from time immemorial in practical grammar books, where the actual
conjugation of the verb is commonly given in the form of pronoun-verb
combinations: I read, you read, he reads, we read, you read, they read.
In point of fact,
the English finite verb presented without its person-subject is grammatically
almost meaningless. The presence
of the two you's in practical tables of examples like the one above, in our
opinion, is also justified by the inner structure of language. Indeed, since
you is part of the person-number system, and not only of the person system, it
should be but natural to take it in the two different, though mutually
complementing interpretations - one
for each of the two series of pronouns in question, i.e. the singular series
and the plural series. In the light of this approach, the archaic form thou
plus the verb should be understood as a specific variant of the second person
singular with its respective stylistic connotations.
The exposition of
the verbal categories of person and number presented here helps conveniently
explain some special cases of the subject-verb categorial relations. The bulk
of these cases have been treated by traditional grammar in terms of
"agreement in sense", or "notional concord". We refer to
the grammatical agreement of the verb not with the categorial form of the
subject expressed morphemically, but with the actual personal-numerical
interpretation of the denoted referent.
Here belong, in the
first place, combinations of the finite verb with collective nouns. According
as they are meant by the speaker either to reflect the plural composition of
the subject, or, on the contrary, to render its integral, single-unit quality,
the verb is used either in the plural, or in the singular. E.g.:
The government were
definitely against the bill introduced
by the opposing
liberal party. The newly appointed
government has
gathered for its first session.
In the second
place, we see here predicative constructions whose subject is made imperatively
plural by a numeral attribute. Still, the corresponding verb-form is used to
treat it both ways: either as an ordinary plural which fulfils its function in
immediate keeping with its factual plural referent, or as an integrating name,
whose plural grammatical form and constituent composition give only a measure
to the subject-matter of denotation. Cf.:
Three years have
elapsed since we saw him last.
Three years is a
long time to wait.'
In the third place,
under the considered heading come constructions whose subject is expressed by a
coordinative group
of nouns, the verb being given an option of treating it either as a plural or
as a singular. E.g.:
My heart and soul
belongs to this small nation in its desperate struggle for survival. My
emotional self and rational self have been at variance about the attitude
adopted by Jane.
The same rule of
"agreement in sense" is operative in relative clauses, where the
finite verb directly reflects the categories of the nounal antecedent of the
clause-introductory relative pronoun-subject. Cf.:
I who am
practically unacquainted with the formal theory
of games can hardly suggest an alternative
solution.- Your words
show the courage and the truth that I have always felt was in your heart.
On the face of it,
the cited examples might seem to testify to the analysed verbal categories
being altogether self-sufficient, capable, as it were, even of
"bossing" the subject as to its referential content. However, the
inner regularities underlying the outer arrangement of grammatical connections
are necessarily of a contrary nature: it is the subject that induces the verb,
through its inflexion, however scanty it may be, to help express the substantival
meaning not represented in the immediate substantival form. That this is so and
not otherwise, can be seen on examples where the subject seeks the needed
formal assistance from other quarters than the verbal, in particular, having
recourse to determiners. Cf.: A full thirty miles was covered in less than half
an hour; the car could be safely relied on.
Thus, the role of
the verb in such and like cases comes at most to that of a grammatical
intermediary.
From the functional
point of view, the direct opposite to the shown categorial connections is
represented by instances of dialectal and colloquial person-number
neutralisation. Cf.:
"Ah! It's pity
you never was trained to use your reason, miss" (B. Shaw). "He's been
in his room all day," the landlady said downstairs. "I guess he don't
feel well" (E. Hemingway). "What are they going to do to me?"
Johnny said. - "Nothing,"
I said. "They ain't going to do nothing to you" (W. Saroyan).
Such and similar
oppositional neutralisations of the surviving
verbal person-number indicators, on their part, clearly emphasise the
significance of the junctional aspect of the two inter-connected categories
reflected in the verbal lexeme from the substantival subject.
CHAPTER XIV. VERB:
TENSE
The immediate
expression of grammatical time, or "tense" (Lat. tempus), is one of
the typical functions of the finite verb. It is typical because the meaning of
process, inherently embedded in the verbal lexeme, finds its complete
realisation only if presented in certain time conditions. That is why the
expression or non-expression of grammatical time, together with the expression
or non-expression of grammatical mood in person-form presentation, constitutes
the basis of the verbal category of finitude, i.e. the basis of the division of
all the forms of the verb into finite and non-finite.
When speaking of
the expression of time by the verb, it is necessary to strictly distinguish
between the general notion of time, the lexical denotation of time, and the grammatical
time proper, or grammatical temporality.
The
dialectical-materialist notion of time exposes it as the universal form of the
continual consecutive change of phenomena. Time, as well as space are the basic
forms of the existence of matter, they both are inalienable properties of
reality and as such are absolutely independent of human perception. On the
other hand, like other objective factors of the universe, time is reflected by
man through his perceptions and intellect, and finds its expression in his
language.
It is but natural
that time as the universal form of consecutive change of things should be
appraised by the individual in reference to the moment of his immediate
perception of the outward reality. This moment of immediate perception, or
"present moment", which is continually shifting in time, and the
linguistic content of which is the "moment of speech", serves as the
demarcation line between the past and the future. All the lexical expressions
of time, according as they refer or do not refer the denoted points or periods
of time, directly or obliquely, to this moment, are divided into
"present-oriented", or "absolutive" expressions of time,
and "non-present-oriented", "non-absolutive" expressions of
time.
The absolutive time
denotation, in compliance with the experience gained by man in the course of
his cognitive activity, distributes the intellective perception of time among
three spheres: the sphere of the present, with the present moment included
within its framework; the sphere of the past, which precedes the sphere of the
present by way of retrospect; the sphere of the future, which follows the
sphere of the present by way of prospect.
Thus, words and
phrases like now, last week, in our century, in the past, in the years to come,
very soon, yesterday, in a couple of days, giving a temporal characteristic to
an event from the point of view of its orientation in reference to the present
moment, are absolutive names of time.
The non-absolutive
time denotation does not characterise an event in terms of orientation towards
the present. This kind of denotation may be either "relative" or
"factual".
The relative
expression of time correlates two or more events showing some of them either as
preceding the others, or following the others, or happening at one and the same
time with them. Here belong such words and phrases as after that, before that,
at one and the same time with, some time later, at an interval of a day or two,
at different times, etc.
The factual
expression of time either directly states the astronomical time of an event, or
else conveys this meaning in terms of historical landmarks. Under this heading
should be listed such words and phrases as in the year 1066,
during the time of the First World War, at the
epoch of Napoleon, at the early period of civilisation, etc.
In the context of
real speech the above types of time naming are used in combination with one
another, so that the denoted event receives many-sided and very exact
characterisation regarding its temporal status.
Of all the temporal
meanings conveyed by such detailing lexical denotation of time, the finite verb
generalises in its categorial forms only the most abstract significations,
taking them as dynamic characteristics of the reflected process. The
fundamental divisions both of absolutive time and of non-absolutive relative
time find in the verb a specific presentation, idiomatically different from one
language to another. The form of this presentation is dependent, the same as
with the expression of other grammatical meanings, on the concrete semantic
features chosen by a language as a basis
for the functional differentiation within the
verb lexeme. And it is the verbal expression of abstract, grammatical time that
forms the necessary background for the adverbial contextual time denotation in
an utterance; without the verbal background serving as a universal temporal
"polariser" and "leader", this marking of time would be
utterly inadequate. Indeed, what informative content should the following passage
convey with all its lexical indications of time {in the morning, in the
afternoon, as usual, never, ever), if it were deprived of the general
indications of time achieved through the forms of the verb -
the unit of the lexicon which the German
grammarians very significantly call "Zeitwort" -
the "time-word":
My own birthday
passed without ceremony. I worked as usual in the morning and in the afternoon
went for a walk in the solitary woods behind my house. I have never been able
to discover what it is that gives these woods their mysterious attractiveness.
They are like no woods I have ever known (S. Maugham).
In Modern English,
the grammatical expression of verbal time, i.e. tense, is effected in two
correlated stages. At the first stage, the process receives an absolutive time
characteristic by means of opposing the past tense to the present tense. The
marked member of this opposition is the past form. At the second stage, the
process receives a non-absolutive relative time characteristic by means of
opposing the forms of the future tense to the forms of no future marking. Since
the two stages of the verbal time denotation are expressed separately, by their
own oppositional forms, and, besides, have essentially different orientation
characteristics (the first stage being absolutive, the second stage, relative),
it stands to reason to recognise in the system of the English verb not one, but
two temporal categories. Both of them answer the question: "What is the
timing of the process?" But the first category, having the past tense as
its strong member, expresses a direct retrospective evaluation of the time of
the process, fixing the process either in the past or not in the past; the
second category, whose strong member is the future tense, gives the timing of
the process a prospective evaluation, fixing it either in the future (i.e. in
the prospective posterior), or not in the future. As a result of the combined
working of the two categories, the time of the event reflected in the utterance
finds its adequate location in the temporal
context, showing all the distinctive properties of the lingual presentation of
time mentioned above.
In accord with the
oppositional marking of the two temporal categories under analysis, we shall
call the first of them the category of "primary time", and the
second, the category of "prospective time", or, contractedly,
"prospect".
The category of
primary time, as has just been stated, provides for the absolutive expression
of the time of the process denoted by the verb, i.e. such an expression of it as
gives its evaluation, in the long run, in reference to the moment of speech.
The formal sign of the opposition constituting this category is, with regular
verbs, the dental suffix -(e)d [-d, -t, -id], and with irregular verbs,
phonemic interchanges of more or less individual specifications. The suffix
marks the verbal form of the past time (the past tense), leaving the opposite
form unmarked. Thus, the opposition is to be rendered by the formula "the
past tense - the
present tense", the latter member representing the non-past tense,
according to the accepted oppositional interpretation.
The specific
feature of the category of primary time is, that it divides all the tense forms
of the English verb into two temporal planes: the plane of the present and the plane
of the past, which affects also the future forms. Very important in this
respect is the structural nature of the expression of the category: the
category of primary time is the only verbal category of immanent order which is
expressed by inflexional forms. These inflexional forms of the past and present
coexist in the same verb-entry of speech with the other, analytical modes of
various categorial expression, including the future. Hence, the English verb
acquires the two futures: on the one hand, the future of the present, i.e. as
prospected from the present; on the other hand, the future of the past, i.e. as
prospected from the past. The following example will be illustrative of the
whole four-member correlation:
Jill returns from
her driving class at five o'clock.
At five Jill
returned from her driving class. I know that
Jill will return
from her driving class at five o'clock.
I knew that at five
Jill would return from her driving class.
An additional
reason for identifying the verbal past-present time system as a separate
grammatical category is provided by the fact that this system is specifically
marked by the do-forms of the indefinite aspect with their various,
but inherently correlated functions. These
forms, found in the interrogative constructions (Does he believe the whole
story?), in the negative constructions (He doesn't believe the story), in the
elliptical response constructions and elsewhere, are confined only to the
category of primary time, i.e. the verbal past and present, not coming into
contact with the expression of the future.
The fact that the
present tense is the unmarked member of the opposition explains a very wide
range of its meanings exceeding by far the indication of the "moment of
speech" chosen for the identification of primary temporality. Indeed, the
present time may be understood as literally the moment of speaking, the
zero-point of all subjective estimation of time made by the speaker. The
meaning of the present with this connotation will be conveyed by such phrases as
at this very moment, or this instant, or exactly now, or some other phrase like
that. But an utterance like "now while I am speaking" breaks the
notion of the zero time proper, since the speaking process is not a momentary,
but a durative event. Furthermore, the present will still be the present if we
relate it to such vast periods of time as this month, this year, in our epoch,
in the present millennium, etc. The denoted stretch of time may be prolonged by
a collocation like that beyond any definite limit. Still furthermore, in
utterances of general truths as, for instance, "Two plus two makes
four", or "The sun is a star", or "Handsome is that
handsome does", the idea of time as such is almost suppressed, the
implication of constancy, unchangeability of the truth at all times being made
prominent. The present tense as the verbal form of generalised meaning covers
all these denotations, showing the present time in relation to the process as
inclusive of the moment of speech, incorporating this moment within its
definite or indefinite stretch and opposed to the past time.
Thus, if we say,
"Two plus two makes four", the linguistic implication of it is
"always, and so at the moment of speech". If we say, "I never
take his advice", we mean linguistically "at no time in terms of the
current state of my attitude towards him, and so at the present moment".
If we say, "In our millennium social formations change quicker than in the
previous periods of man's history", the linguistic temporal content of it
is "in our millennium, that is, in the millennium including the moment of
speech". This meaning is the invariant of the present, developed from its
categorical opposition to the past, and it penetrates the uses of the finite
verb in all its forms, including the perfect, the future, the continuous.
Indeed, if the
Radio carries the news, "The two suspected terrorists have been taken into
custody by the police", the implication of the moment of speech refers to
the direct influence or after-effects of the event announced. Similarly, the
statement "You will be informed about the decision later in the day"
describes the event, which, although it has not yet happened, is prospected
into the future from the present, i.e. the prospection itself incorporates the
moment of speech. As for the present continuous, its relevance for the present
moment is self-evident.
Thus, the analysed
meaning of the verbal present arises as a result of its immediate contrast with
the past form which shows the exclusion of the action from the plane of the
present and so the action itself as capable of being perceived only in temporal
retrospect. Again, this latter meaning of the disconnection from the present
penetrates all the verbal forms of the past, including the perfect, the future,
the continuous. Due to the marked character of the past verbal form, the said quality
of its meaning does not require special demonstration.
Worthy of note,
however, are utterances where the meaning of the past tense stands in contrast
with the meaning of some adverbial phrase referring the event to the present
moment. Cf.: Today again I spoke to Mr. Jones on the matter, and again he
failed to see the urgency of it.
The seeming
linguistic paradox of such cases consists exactly in the fact that their
two-type indications of time, one verbal-grammatical, and one
adverbial-lexical, approach the same event from two opposite angles. But there
is nothing irrational here. As a matter of fact, the utterances present
instances of two-plane temporal evaluation of the event described: the
verb-form shows the process as past and gone, i.e. physically disconnected from
the present; as for the adverbial modifier, it presents the past event as a
particular happening, belonging to a more general time situation which is
stretched out up to the present moment inclusive, and possibly past the present
moment into the future.
A case directly
opposite to the one shown above is seen in the transpositional use of the
present tense of the verb with the past adverbials, either included in the
utterance as such, or else expressed in its contextual environment. E.g.:
Then he turned the
corner, and what do you think happens next? He faces nobody else than Mr.
Greggs accompanied by his private secretary!
The stylistic
purpose of this transposition, known under the name of the "historic
present" (Lat. praesens historicum) is to create a vivid picture of the
event reflected in the utterance. This is achieved in strict accord with the
functional meaning of the verbal present, sharply contrasted against the
general background of the past plane of the utterance content.
The combinations of
the verbs shall and will with the infinitive have of late become subject of
renewed discussion. The controversial point about them is, whether these
combinations really constitute, together with the forms of the past and
present, the categorial expression of verbal tense, or are just modal phrases,
whose expression of the future time does not differ in essence from the general
future orientation of other combinations of modal verbs with the infinitive.
The view that shall and will retain their modal meanings in all their uses was
defended by such a recognised authority on English grammar of the older
generation of the twentieth century linguists as O. Jespersen. In our times,
quite a few scholars, among them the successors of Descriptive Linguistics,
consider these verbs as part of the general set of modal verbs, "modal
auxiliaries", expressing the meanings of capability, probability,
permission, obligation, and the like.
A well-grounded
objection against the inclusion of the construction shall/will +
Infinitive in the tense system of the verb on
the same basis as the forms of the present and past has been advanced by L. S.
Barkhudarov [Бархударов,
(2), 126 и сл.].
His objection consists in the demonstration of
the double marking of this would-be tense form by one and the same category:
the combinations in question can express at once both the future time and the
past time (the form "future-in-the-past"), which hardly makes any
sense in terms of a grammatical category. Indeed, the principle of the
identification of any grammatical category demands that the forms of the
category in normal use should be mutually exclusive. The category is
constituted by the opposition of its forms, not by their co-position!
However,
reconsidering the status of the construction shall/will +
Infinitive in the light of oppositional
approach, we
see that, far from comparing with the past-present verbal forms as the third
member-form of the category of primary time, it marks its own grammatical
category, namely, that of prospective time (prospect). The meaningful contrast
underlying the category of prospective time is between an after-action and a
non-after-action. The after-action, or the "future", having its
shall/will-feature, constitutes the marked member of the opposition.
The category of
prospect is also temporal, in so far as it is immediately connected with the
expression of processual time, like the category of primary time. But the semantic
basis of the category of prospect is different in principle from that of the
category of primary time: while the primary time is absolutive, i. e.
present-oriented, the prospective time is purely relative; it means that the
future form of the verb only shows that the denoted process is prospected as an
after-action relative to some other action or state or event, the timing of
which marks the zero-level for it. The two times are presented, as it were, in
prospective coordination: one is shown as prospected for the future, the future
being relative to the primary time, either present or past. As a result, the
expression of the future receives the two mutually complementary
manifestations: one manifestation for the present time-plane of the verb, the other
manifestation for the past time-plane of the verb. In other words, the process
of the verb is characterised by the category of prospect irrespective of its
primary time characteristic, or rather, as an addition to this characteristic,
and this is quite similar to all the other categories capable of entering the
sphere of verbal time, e.g. the category of development (continuous in
opposition), the category of retrospective coordination (perfect in
opposition), the category of voice (passive in opposition): the respective
forms of all these categories also have the past and present versions, to
which, in due course, are added the future and non-future versions. Consider
the following examples:
(1) I
was making a road and all the coolies struck. (2)
None of us doubted in the least that Aunt Emma
would soon be marvelling again at Eustace's challenging success. (3)
The next thing she wrote she sent to a magazine,
and for many weeks worried about what would happen to it. (4)
She did not protest, for she had given up the
struggle. (5) Felix
knew that they would have settled the dispute by the time he could be ready to
have his say. (6) He
was being watched, shadowed, chased
by that despicable gang of hirelings. (7) But
would little Jonny be *being looked after properly? The nurse was so young and
inexperienced!
The oppositional
content of the exemplified cases of finite verb-forms will, in the chosen order
of sequence, be presented as follows: the past non-future continuous
non-perfect non-passive (1); the
past future continuous non-perfect non-passive (2)
the past future non-continuous non-perfect
non-passive (3); the
past non-future non-continuous perfect non-passive (4);
the past future non-continuous perfect
non-passive (5); the
past non-future continuous non-perfect passive (6);
the past future continuous non-perfect passive (7)
- the latter form not in practical use.
As we have already
stated before, the future tenses reject the do-forms of the indefinite aspect,
which are confined to the expression of the present and past verbal times only.
This fact serves as a supplementary ground for the identification of the
expression of prospect as a separate grammatical category.
Of course, it would
be an ill turn to grammar if one tried to introduce the above circumstantial
terminology with all its pedantic strings of "non's" into the
elementary teaching of language. The stringed categorial "non"-terms
are apparently too redundant to be recommended for ordinary use even at an
advanced level of linguistic training. What is achieved by this kind of
terminology, however, is a comprehensive indication of the categorial status of
verb-forms under analysis in a compact, terse presentation. Thus, whenever a
presentation like that is called for, the terms will be quite in their place.
In analysing the
English future tenses, the modal factor, naturally, should be thoroughly taken
into consideration. A certain modal colouring of the meaning of the English
future cannot be denied, especially in the verbal form of the first person. But
then, as is widely known, the expression of the future in other languages is
not disconnected from modal semantics either; and this is conditioned by the
mere fact that the future action, as different from the present or past action,
cannot be looked upon as a genuine feature of reality. Indeed, it is only
foreseen, or anticipated, or planned, or desired, or otherwise prospected for
the time to come. In this quality, the Russian future tense does not differ in
principle from
the verbal future of other languages, including English, Suffice it to give a
couple of examples chosen at random:
Я буду рассказывать тебе
интересные истории. Расскажу о страшных кометах, о битве воздушных кораблей, о
гибели прекрасной страны по ту сторону гор. Тебе не будет скучно любить меня
(А. Толстой). Немедленно на берег. Найдешь генерала Иолшина, скажешь: путь
свободен. Пусть строит дорогу для артиллерии (Б. Васильев).
The future forms of
the verbs in the first of the above Russian examples clearly express promise
(i. e. a future action conveyed as a promise); those in the second example
render a command.
Moreover, in the
system of the Russian tenses there is a specialised modal form of analytical
future expressing intention (the combination of the verb стать
with the imperfective infinitive). E.
g.: Что же вы теперь
хотите делать? - Тебя это не касается, что я стану делать. Я
план
обдумываю.
(А.
Толстой).
Within the
framework of the universal meaningful features of the verbal future, the future
of the English verb is highly specific in so far as its auxiliaries in their
very immediate etymology are words of obligation and volition, and the survival
of the respective connotations in them is backed by the inherent quality of the
future as such. Still, on the whole, the English categorial future differs
distinctly from the modal constructions with the same predicator verbs.
§ 6. In
the clear-cut modal uses of the verbs shall and will the idea of the future
either is not expressed at all, or else is only rendered by way of textual connotation,
the central semantic accent being laid on the expression of obligation,
necessity, inevitability, promise, intention, desire. These meanings may be
easily seen both on the examples of ready phraseological citation, and genuine
everyday conversation exchanges. Cf.:
He who does not
work neither shall he eat (phraseological citation). "I want a nice hot
curry, do you hear?" - "All
right, Mr. Crackenthorpe, you shall have it" (everyday speech). None are
so deaf as those who will not hear (phraseological citation). Nobody's allowed
to touch a thing - I
won't have a woman near the place (everyday speech).
The modal nature of
the shall/will + Infinitive
combinations in the cited examples can be shown by means of equivalent
substitutions:
... → He
who does not work must not eat, either. ...
→ All right, Mr. Crackenthorpe, I
promise to have it cooked. ... → None
are so deaf as those who do not want to hear. ...
→ I intend not to allow a woman to
come near the place.
Accounting for the
modal meanings of the combinations under analysis, traditional grammar gives
the following rules: shall + Infinitive with the first person, will +
Infinitive with the second and third persons express pure future; the reverse
combinations express modal meanings, the most typical of which are intention or
desire for I will
and promise or command on the part of the speaker for you shall, he shall. Both
rules apply to refined British English. In American English will is described
as expressing pure future with all the persons, shall as expressing modality.
However, the cited
description, though distinguished by elegant simplicity, cannot be taken as
fully agreeing with the existing lingual practice. The main feature of this
description contradicted by practice is the British use of will with the first
person without distinctly pronounced modal connotations (making due allowance
for the general connection of the future tense with modality, of which we have
spoken before). Cf.:
I will call for you
and your young man at seven o'clock (J. Galsworthy). When we wake I will take
him up and carry him back (R. Kipling). I will let you know on Wednesday what
expenses have been necessary (A. Christie). If you wait there on Thursday
evening between seven and eight I will come if I can (H. С
Merriman).
That the
combinations of will with the infinitive in the above examples do express the
future time, admits of no dispute. Furthermore, these combinations, seemingly,
are charged with modal connotations in no higher degree than the corresponding
combinations of shall with the infinitive. Cf.:
Haven't time; I
shall miss my train (A. Bennett). I shall be happy to carry it to the House of
Lords, if necessary (J. Galsworthy).
You never know what may happen. I shan't have a minute's peace (M. Dickens).
Granted our
semantic intuitions about the exemplified
uses are true, the question then arises: what is
the real difference, if any, between the two British first person expressions
of the future, one with shall, the other one with will? Or are they actually
just semantic doublets, i.e. units of complete synonymy, bound by the
paradigmatic relation of free alternation?
A solution to this
problem is to be found on the basis of syntactic distributional and
transformational analysis backed by a consideration of the original meanings of
both auxiliaries.
Observing
combinations with will in stylistically neutral collocations, as the first step
of our study we note the adverbials of time used with this construction. The
environmental expressions, as well as implications, of future time do testify
that from this point of view there is no difference between will and shall,
both of them equally conveying the idea of the future action expressed by the
adjoining infinitive.
As our next step of
inferences, noting the types of the infinitive-environmental semantics of will
in contrast to the contextual background of shall, we state that the first
person will-future expresses an action which is to be performed by the speaker
for choice, of his own accord. But this meaning of free option does not at all
imply that the speaker actually wishes to perform the action, or else that he
is determined to perform it, possibly in defiance of some contrary force. The
exposition of the action shows it as being not bound by any extraneous
circumstances or by any special influence except the speaker's option; this is
its exhaustive characteristic. In keeping with this, the form of the
will-future in question may be tentatively called the "voluntary
future".
On the other hand,
comparing the environmental characteristics of shall with the corresponding
environmental background of will, it is easy to see that, as different from
will, the first person shall expresses a future process that will be realised
without the will of the speaker, irrespective of his choice. In accord with the
exposed meaning, the shall-form of the first person future should be referred
to as the "non-voluntary", i.e. as the weak member of the
corresponding opposition.
Further
observations of the relevant textual data show that some verbs constituting a
typical environment of the non-voluntary
shall-future (i.e. verbs inherently alien to the expression of voluntary
actions) occur also with the voluntary will, but in a different meaning,
namely, in the meaning of an active action the performance of which is freely
chosen by the speaker. Cf.: Your
arrival cannot have been announced to his Majesty. I will see about it (B.
Shaw).
In the given
example the verb see has the active meaning of ensuring something, of
intentionally arranging matters connected with something, etc.
Likewise, a number
of verbs of the voluntary will-environmental features (i.e. verbs presupposing
the actor's free will in performing the action) combine also with the
non-voluntary shall, but in the meaning of an action that will take place
irrespective of the will of the speaker. Cf.: I'm very sorry, madam, but I'm
going to faint. I shall go off, madam, if I don't have something (K.
Mansfield).
Thus, the would-be
same verbs are in fact either homonyms, or else lexico-semantic variants of the
corresponding lexemes of the maximally differing characteristics.
At the final stage
of our study the disclosed characteristics of the two first-person futures are
checked on the lines of transformational analysis. The method will consist not
in free structural manipulations with the analysed constructions, but in the
textual search for the respective changes of the auxiliaries depending on the
changes in the infinitival environments.
Applying these
procedures to the texts, we note that when the construction of the voluntary
will-future is expanded (complicated) by a syntactic part re-modelling the
whole collocation into one expressing an involuntary action, the auxiliary will
is automatically replaced by shall. In particular, it happens when the expanding
elements convey the meaning of supposition or Uncertainty. Cf.:
Give me a goddess's
work to do; and I will do it (B. Shaw). →
I don't know what I shall do with Barbara (B.
Shaw). Oh, very well, very well: I will write another prescription (B. Shaw). →
I shall perhaps write to your mother (K.
Mansfield).
Thus, we conclude
that within'the system of the English future tense a peculiar minor category is
expressed which affects only the forms of the first person. The category is
constituted by the opposition of the forms will +
Infinitive and shall + Infinitive expressing,
respectively, the voluntary future and the non-voluntary future. Accordingly,
this category may tentatively be called the "category of futurity
option".
The future in the
second and third persons, formed by the indiscriminate auxiliary will, does not
express this category, which is dependent on the semantics of the persons:
normally it would be irrelevant to indicate in an obligatory way the aspect of
futurity option otherwise than with the first person, i.e. the person of self.
This category is
neutralised in the contracted form -'ll, which is of necessity indifferent to
the expression of futurity option. As is known, the traditional analysis of the
contracted future states that -'ll stands for will, not for shall. However,
this view is not supported by textual data. Indeed, bearing in mind the results
of our study, it is easy to demonstrate that the contracted forms of the future
may be traced both to will and to shall. Cf.:
I'll marry you then,
Archie, if you really want it (M. Dickens). →
I will marry you. I'll have to think about it
(M. Dickens). → I
shall have to think about it.
From the evidence
afforded by the historical studies of the language we know that the English
contracted form of the future -'ll has actually originated from the auxiliary
will. So, in Modern English an interesting process of redistribution of the
future forms has taken place, based apparently on the contamination will →
'll <-
shall. As a result, the form -'ll in the first
person expresses not the same "pure" future as is expressed by the
indiscriminate will in the second and third persons.
The described
system of the British future is by far more complicated than the expression of
the future tense in the other national variants of English, in particular, in
American English, where the future form of the first person is functionally
equal with the other persons. In British English a possible tendency to a
similar levelled expression of the future is actively counteracted by the two
structural factors. The first is the existence of the two functionally
differing contractions of the future auxiliaries in the negative form, i. e.
shan't and won't, which imperatively support the survival of shall in the first
person against the levelled positive (affirmative) contraction -'ll.
The second is the use of the future tense in
interrogative sentences, where with the first person only shall is normally
used. Indeed, it is quite natural that a genuine question directed by the
speaker to himself,
i.e. a question showing doubt or speculation, is to be asked about an action of
non-wilful, involuntary order, and not otherwise. Cf.:
What shall we be
shown next? Shall I be able to master shorthand professionally? The question
was, should I see Beatrice again before her departure?
The semantics of
the first person futurity question is such that even the infinitives of
essentially volition-governed actions are transferred here to the plane of
non-volition, subordinating themselves to the general implication of doubt,
hesitation, uncertainty. Cf.:
What shall I answer
to an offer like that? How shall we tackle the matter if we are left to rely on
our own judgment?
Thus, the vitality
of the discriminate shall/will future, characteristic of careful English
speech, is supported by logically vindicated intra-lingual factors. Moreover,
the whole system of Modern British future with its mobile inter-action of the
two auxiliaries is a product of recent language development, not a relict of
the older periods of its history. It is this subtly regulated and still
unfinished system that gave cause to H. W. Fowler for his significant
statement: ".. of
the English of the English shall and will are the shibboleth."*
Apart from
shall/will + Infinitive
construction, there is another construction in English which has a potent
appeal for being analysed within the framework of the general problem of the
future tense. This is the combination of the predicator be going with the
infinitive. Indeed, the high frequency occurrence of this construction in
contexts conveying the idea of an immediate future action can't but draw a very
close attention on the part of a linguistic observer.
The combination may
denote a sheer intention (either the speaker's or some other person's) to
perform the action expressed by the infinitive, thus entering into the vast set
of "classical" modal constructions. E.g.:
I am going to ask
you a few more questions about the mysterious disappearance of the document,
Mr. Gregg. He looked across at my desk and I thought for a moment he was going
to give me the treatment, too.these simple modal uses of be going are countered
by cases where the direct meaning of intention rendered by the predicator
stands in contradiction with its environmental implications and is subdued by
them. Cf.:
You are trying to
frighten me. But you are not going to frighten me any more (L. Hellman). I did
not know how I was going to get out of the room (D. du Maurier).
Moreover, the
construction, despite its primary meaning of intention, presupposing a human
subject, is not infrequently used with non-human subjects and even in
impersonal sentences. Cf.:
She knew what she
was doing, and she was sure it was going to be worth doing (W. Saroyan).
There's going to be a contest over Ezra Grolley's estate (E. Gardner).
Because of these
properties it would appear tempting to class the construction in question as a
specific tense form, namely, the tense form of "immediate future",
analogous to the French futur immédiat
(e.g. Le spectacle va cornmencer - The
show is going to begin).
Still, on closer
consideration, we notice that the non-intention uses of the predicator be going
are not indifferent stylistically. Far from being neutral, they more often than
not display emotional colouring mixed with semantic connotations of oblique
modality.
For instance, when
the girl from the first of the above examples appreciates something as
"going to be worth doing", she is expressing her assurance of its
being so. When one labels the rain as "never going to stop", one
clearly expresses one's annoyance at the bad state of the weather. When a
future event is introduced by the formula "there to be going to be",
as is the case in the second of the cited examples, the speaker clearly implies
his foresight of it, or his anticipation of it, or, possibly, a warning to
beware of it, or else some other modal connotation of a like nature. Thus, on
the whole, the non-intention uses of the construction be going +
Infinitive cannot be rationally divided into
modal and non-modal, on the analogy of the construction shall/will +
Infinitive. Its broader combinability is based on semantic transposition and
can be likened to broader uses of the modal collocation be about, also of
basically intention semantics.
The oppositional
basis of the category of prospective time is neutralised in certain uses, in
keeping with the general regularities of oppositional reductions. The process
of neutralisation is connected with the shifting of the forms of primary time
(present and past) from the sphere of absolute tenses into the sphere of
relative tenses.
One of the typical
cases of the neutralisation in question consists in using a non-future temporal
form to express a future action which is to take place according to some plan
or arrangement. Cf.:
The government
meets in emergency session today over the question of continued violations of
the cease-fire. I hear your sister is soon arriving from Paris? Naturally I
would like to know when he's coming. Etc.
This case of oppositional
reduction is optional, the equivalent reconstruction of the correlated member
of the opposition is nearly always possible (with the respective changes of
connotations and style). Cf.:
... → The
government will meet in emergency session. ...
→ Your sister will soon arrive from
Paris? ... →
When will he be coming"?
Another type of
neutralisation of the prospective time opposition is observed in modal verbs
and modal word combinations. The basic peculiarity of these units bearing on
(he expression of time is, that the prospective implication is inherently
in-built in their semantics, which reflects not the action as such, but the
attitude towards the action expressed by the infinitive. For that reason, the
present verb-form of these units actually renders the idea of the future (and,
respectively, the past verb-form, the idea of the future-in-the-past). Cf.:
There's no saying
what may happen next. At any rate, the woman was sure to come later in the day.
But you have to present the report before Sunday, there's no alternative.
Sometimes the
explicit expression of the future is necessary even with modal collocations. To
make up for the lacking categorial forms, special modal substitutes have been
developed in language, some of which have received the status of suppletive
units (see above, Ch. III). Cf.:
But do not make
plans with David. You will not be able to carry them out. Things will have to
go one way or the other.
Alongside of the
above and very different from them, there is still another typical case of
neutralisation of the analysed categorial opposition, which is strictly
obligatory. It occurs in clauses of time and condition whose verb-predicate
expresses a future action. Cf.:
If things turn out
as has been arranged, the triumph will be all ours. I repeated my request to
notify me at once whenever the messenger arrived.
The latter type of
neutralisation is syntactically conditioned. In point of fact, the
neutralisation consists here in the primary tenses shifting from the sphere of
absolutive time into the sphere of relative time, since they become dependent
not on their immediate orientation towards the moment of speech, but on the
relation to another time level, namely, the time level presented in the
governing clause of the corresponding complex sentence.
This kind of
neutralising relative use of absolutive tense forms occupies a restricted
position in the integral tense system of English. In Russian, the syntactic
relative use of tenses is, on the contrary, widely spread. In particular, this
refers to the presentation of reported speech in the plane of the past, where
the Russian present tense is changed into the tense of simultaneity, the past
tense is changed into the tense of priority, and the future tense is changed
into the tense of prospected posteriority. Cf.:
(1) Он сказал, что изучает
немецкий язык. (2) Он сказал, что изучал немецкий язык. (3)
Он
сказал,
что
будет
изучать
немецкий
язык.
In English, the
primary tenses in similar syntactic conditions retain their absolutive nature
and are used in keeping with their direct, unchangeable meanings. Compare the
respective translations of the examples cited above:
(1) He
said that he was learning German (then). (2)
He said that he had learned German (before). (3)
He said that he would learn German (in the time
to come).
It doesn't follow
from this that the rule of sequence of tenses in English complex sentences
formulated by traditional grammar should be rejected as false. Sequence of
tenses is an important feature of all narration, for, depending on the
continual consecutive course of actual events in reality, they are presented in
the text in definite successions ordered
against a common general background. However,
what should be stressed here, is that the tense-shift involved in the
translation of the present-plane direct information into the past-plane
reported information is not a formal, but essentially a meaningful procedure.
XV. VERB: ASPECT
The aspective
meaning of the verb, as different from its temporal meaning, reflects the
inherent mode of the realisation of the process irrespective of its timing.
As we have already
seen, the aspective meaning can be in-built in the semantic structure of the
verb, forming an invariable, derivative category. In English, the various
lexical aspective meanings have been generalised by the verb in its subclass
division into limitive and unlimitive sets. On the whole, this division is
loose, the demarcation line between the sets is easily trespassed both ways. In
spite of their want of rigour, however, the aspective verbal subclasses are
grammatically relevant in so far as they are not indifferent to the choice of
the aspective grammatical forms of the verb. In Russian, the aspective division
of verbs into perfective and imperfective is, on the contrary, very strict.
Although the Russian category of aspect is derivative, it presents one of the
most typical features of the grammatical structure of the verb, governing its
tense system both formally and semantically.
On the other hand,
the aspective meaning can also be represented in variable grammatical
categories. Aspective grammatical change is wholly alien to the Russian
language, but it forms one of the basic features of the categorial structure of
the English verb.
Two systems of
verbal forms, in the past grammatical tradition analysed under the
indiscriminate heading of the "temporal inflexion", i. e. synthetic
inflexion proper and analytical composition as its equivalent, should be
evaluated in this light: the continuous forms and the perfect forms.
The aspective or
non-aspective identification of the forms in question will, in the long run, be
dependent on whether or not they express the direct, immediate time of the
action denoted by the verb, since a general connection between the
aspective and temporal verbal semantics is
indisputable.
The continuous
verbal forms analysed on the principles of oppositional approach admit of only
one interpretation, and that is aspective. The continuous forms are aspective
because, reflecting the inherent character of the process performed by the
verb, they do not, and cannot, denote the timing of the process. The opposition
constituting the corresponding category is effected between the continuous and
the non-continuous (indefinite) verbal forms. The categorial meaning discloses
the nature of development of the verbal action, on which ground the suggested
name for the category as a whole will be "development". As is the
case with the other categories, its expression is combined with other
categorial expressions in one and the same verb-form, involving also the
category that features the perfect. Thus, to be consistent in our judgments, we
must identify, within the framework of the manifestations of the category of
development, not only the perfect continuous forms, but also the perfect
indefinite forms (i.e. non-continuous).
The perfect, as
different from the continuous, does reflect a kind of timing, though in a
purely relative way. Namely, it coordinates two times, locating one of them in
retrospect towards the other. Should the grammatical meaning of the perfect
have been exhausted by this function, it ought to have been placed into one and
the same categorial system with the future, forming the integral category of
time coordination (correspondingly, prospective and retrospective). In reality,
though, it cannot be done, because the perfect expresses not only time in
relative retrospect, but also the very connection of a prior process with a
time-limit reflected in a subsequent event. Thus, the perfect forms of the verb
display a mixed, intermediary character, which places them apart both from the
relative posterior tense and the aspective development. The true nature of the
perfect is temporal aspect reflected in its own opposition, which cannot be
reduced to any other opposition of the otherwise recognised verbal categories.
The suggested name for this category will be "retrospective
coordination", or, contractedly, "retrospect". The categorial
member opposed to the perfect, for the sake of terminological consistency, will
be named "imperfect" (non-perfect). As an independent category, the
retrospective coordination is manifested in the integral verb-form together
with the manifestations of other categories, among them the
aspective category of development. Thus,
alongside of the forms of perfect continuous and perfect indefinite, the verb
distinguishes also the forms of imperfect continuous and imperfect indefinite.
At this point of
our considerations, we should like once again to call the reader's attention to
the difference between the categorial terminology and the definitions of
categories.
A category, in
normal use, cannot be represented twice in one and the same word-form. It
follows from this that the integral verb-form cannot display at once more than
one expression of each of the recognised verbal categories, though it does give
a representative expression to all the verbal categories taken together through
the corresponding obligatory featuring (which can be, as we know, either
positive or negative). And this fact provides us with a safe criterion of
categorial identification for cases where the forms under analysis display
related semantic functions.
We have recognised
in the verbal system of English two temporal categories (plus one
"minor" category of futurity option) and two aspective categories.
But does this mean that the English verb is "doubly" (or
"triply", for that matter) inflected by the "grammatical
category" of tense and the "grammatical category" of aspect? In
no wise.
The course of our
deductions has been quite the contrary. It is just because the verb, in its one
and the same, at each time uniquely given integral form of use, manifests not one,
but two expressions of time (for instance, past and future); it is because it
manifests not one, but two expressions of aspect (for instance, continuous and
perfect), that we have to recognise these expressions as categorially
different. In other words, such universal grammatical notions as
"time", "tense", "aspect", "mood" and
others, taken by themselves, do not automatically presuppose any unique
categorial systems. It is only the actual correlation of the corresponding
grammatical forms in a concrete, separate language that makes up a grammatical
category. In particular, when certain forms that come under the same meaningful
grammatical heading are mutually exclusive, it means that they together make up
a grammatical category. This is the case with the three Russian verbal tenses.
Indeed, the Russian verbal form of the future cannot syntagmatically coexist
with the present or past forms - these
forms are mutually exclusive, thereby constituting
one unified category of time (tense), existing
in the three categorial forms: the present, the past, the future. In English,
on the contrary, the future form of the verb can freely re-occur with the
strongly marked past form, thereby making up a category radically different
from the category manifested by the system of "present -
past" discrimination. And it is the same
case with the forms of the continuous and the perfect. Just because they can
freely coexist in one and the same syntagmatic manifestation of the verb, we
have to infer that they enter (in the capacity of oppositional markers)
essentially different categories, though related to each other by their general
aspective character.
The aspective
category of development is constituted by the opposition of the continuous
forms of the verb to the non-continuous, or indefinite forms of the verb. The
marked member of the opposition is the continuous, which is built up by the
auxiliary be plus the present participle of the conjugated verb. In symbolic
notation it is represented by the formula be...ing. The categorial meaning of
the continuous is "action in progress"; the unmarked member of the
opposition, the indefinite, leaves this meaning unspecified, i.e. expresses the
non-continuous.
The evolution of
views in connection with the interpretation of the continuous forms has
undergone three stages.
The traditional
analysis placed them among the tense-forms of the verb, defining them as
expressing an action going on simultaneously with some other action. This
temporal interpretation of the continuous was most consistently developed in
the works of H. Sweet and O. Jespersen. In point of fact, the continuous
usually goes with a verb which expresses a simultaneous action, but, as we have
stated before, the timing of the action is not expressed by the continuous as
such - rather,
the immediate time-meaning is conveyed by the syntactic constructions, as well
as the broader semantic context in which the form is used, since action in
progress, by definition, implies that it is developing at a certain time point.
The correlation of
the continuous with contextual indications of time is well illustrated on
examples of complex sentences with while-clauses. Four combinations of the
continuous and the indefinite are possible in principle in these constructions
(for two verbs are used here, one in the principal clause and one in the
subordinate clause, each capable of
taking both forms in question), and all the four possibilities are realised in
contexts of Modern English. Cf.:
Clearly, the
difference in meaning between the verb-entries in the cited examples cannot lie
in their time denotations, either absolutive, or relative. The time is shown by
their tense-signals of the past (the past form of the auxiliary be in the
continuous, or the suffix -{e)d in the indefinite). The meaningful difference consists
exactly in the categorial semantics of the indefinite and continuous: while the
latter shows the action in the very process of its realisation, the former
points it out as a mere fact.
On the other hand,
by virtue of its categorial semantics of action in progress (of necessity, at a
definite point of time), the continuous is usually employed in descriptions of
scenes correlating a number of actions going on simultaneously -
since all of them are actually shown in
progress, at the time implied by the narration. Cf.:
Standing on the
chair, I could see in through the barred window into the hall of the
Ayuntamiento and in there it was as it had been before. The priest was
standing, and those who were left were kneeling in a half circle around him and
they were all praying. Pablo was sitting on the big table in front of the
Mayor's chair with his shotgun slung over his back. His legs were hanging down
from the table and he was rolling a cigarette. Cuatro Dedos was sitting in the
Mayor's chair with his feet on the table and he was smoking a cigarette. All
the guards were sitting in different chairs of the administration, holding
their guns. The key to the big door was on the table beside Pablo (E.
Hemingway).
But if the actions
are not progressive by themselves (i.e. if they are not shown as progressive),
the description, naturally, will go without the continuous forms of the
corresponding verbs. E. g.:
Inland, the
prospect alters. There is an oval Maidan, and a long sallow hospital. Houses
belonging to Eurasians stand on the high ground by the railway station. Beyond
the railway - which
runs parallel to the river - the
land sinks, then
rises again rather steeply. On the second rise is laid out the little civil
station, and viewed hence Chandrapore appears to be a totally different place
(E. M. Forster ).
A further
demonstration of the essentially non-temporal meaning of the continuous is its
regular use in combination with the perfect, i.e. its use in the verb-form
perfect continuous. Surely, the very idea of perfect is alien to simultaneity,
so the continuous combined with the perfect in one and the same manifestation
of the verb can only be understood as expressing aspectuality, i.e. action in
progress.
Thus, the
consideration of the temporal element in the continuous shows that its
referring an action to a definite time-point, or its expressing simultaneity
irrespective of absolutive time, is in itself an aspective, not a temporal
factor.
At the second stage
of the interpretation of the continuous, the form was understood as rendering a
blend of temporal and aspective meanings -
the same as the other forms of the verb
obliquely connected with the factor of time, i.e. the indefinite and the
perfect. This view was developed by I. P. Ivanova.
The combined
temporal-aspective interpretation of the continuous, in general, should be
appraised as an essential step forward, because, first, it introduced on an
explicit, comprehensively grounded basis the idea of aspective meanings in the
grammatical system of English; second, it demonstrated the actual connection of
time and aspect in the integral categorial semantics of the verb. In fact, it
presented a thesis that proved to be crucial for the subsequent demonstration,
at the next stage of analysis, of the essence of the form on a strictly
oppositional foundation.
This latter phase
of study, initiated in the works of A. I.Smirnitsky, V. N.
Yartseva and B. A. Ilyish, was developed further
by B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya and exposed in its most comprehensive
form by L. S. Barkhudarov.
Probably the final
touch contributing to the presentation of the category of development at this
third stage of study should be still more explicit demonstration of its
opposition working beyond the correlation of the continuous non-perfect form
with the indefinite non-perfect form. In the expositions hitherto advanced the
two series of forms - continuous
and perfect - have
been shown, as it were, too emphatically in the light of their mutual contrast
against the primitive
indefinite, the perfect continuous form, which has been placed somewhat
separately, being rather interpreted as a "peculiarly modified"
perfect than a "peculiarly modified'' continuous. In reality, though, the
perfect continuous is equally both perfect and continuous, the respective
markings belonging to different, though related, categorial characteristics.
The category of
development, unlike the categories of person, number, and time, has a verbid
representation, namely, it is represented in the infinitive. This fact, for its
part, testifies to another than temporal nature of the continuous.
With the
infinitive, the category of development, naturally, expresses the same
meaningful contrast between action in progress and action not in progress as
with the finite forms of the verb. Cf.:
Kezia and her
grandmother were taking their siesta together. It was but natural for
Kezia and her grandmother
to be taking their
siesta together. What are you complaining about?--Is
there really anything for you to be complaining about?
But in addition to
this purely categorial distinction, the form of the continuous infinitive has a
tendency to acquire quite a special meaning in combination with modal verbs,
namely that of probability. This meaning is aspectual in a broader sense than
the "inner character" of action: the aspectuality amounts here to an
outer appraisal of the denoted process. Cf.:
Paul must wait for
you, you needn't be in a hurry. Paul must be waiting for us, so let's hurry up.
The first of the
two sentences expresses Paul's obligation to wait, whereas the second sentence
renders the speaker's supposition of the fact.
The general meaning
of probability is varied by different additional shades depending on the
semantic type of the modal verb and the corresponding contextual conditions,
such as uncertainty, incredulity, surprise, etc. Cf.:
But can she be
taking Moyra's words so personally? If the flight went smoothly, they may be
approaching the West Coast. You must be losing money over this job.
The action of the
continuous infinitive of probability, in
accord with the type of the modal verb and the context, may refer not only to
the plane of the present, but also to the plane of the future. Cf.: Ann must be
coming soon, you'd better have things put in order.
The gerund and the
participle do not distinguish the category of development as such, but the
traces of progressive meaning are inherent in these forms, especially in the
present participle, which itself is one of the markers of the category (in
combination with the categorial auxiliary). In particular, these traces are
easily disclosed in various syntactic participial complexes. Cf.:
The girl looked
straight into my face, smiling enigmatically. →
The girl was smiling enigmatically as she looked
straight into my face. We heard the leaves above our heads rustling in the
wind. → We
heard how the leaves above our heads were rustling in the wind.
However, it should
be noted, that the said traces of meaning are still traces, and they are more
often than not subdued and neutralised.
The opposition of
the category of development undergoes various reductions, in keeping with the
general regularities of the grammatical forms functioning in speech, as well as
of their paradigmatic combinability.
The easiest and
most regular neutralisational relations in the sphere continuous -
indefinite are observed in connection with the
subclass division of verbs into limitive and unlimitive, and within the
unlimitive into actional and statal.
Namely, the
unlimitive verbs are very easily neutralised in cases where the continuity of
action is rendered by means other than aspective. Cf.:
The night is
wonderfully silent. The stars shine with a fierce brilliancy, the Southern
Cross and Canopus; there is not a breath of wind. The Duke's face seemed
flushed, and more lined than some of his recent photographs showed. He held a
glass in his hand.
As to the statal
verbs, their development neutralisation amounts to a grammatical rule. It is
under this heading that the "never-used-in-the-continuous" verbs go,
i. e. the uniques be and have, verbs of possession other than have, verbs of
relation, of physical perceptions, of mental perceptions. The opposition of
development is also neutralised easily with
verbs in the passive voice, as well as with the
infinitive, the only explicit verbid exposer of the category.
Worthy of note is
the regular neutralisation of the development opposition with the introductory
verb supporting the participial construction of parallel action. E. g.: The man
stood smoking a pipe. (Not normally: The man was standing smoking a pipe.)
On the other hand,
the continuous can be used transpositionally to denote habitual, recurrent
actions in emphatic collocations. Cf.: Miss Tillings said you were always
talking as if there had been some funny business about me (M. Dickens).
In this connection,
special note should be made of the broadening use of the continuous with
unlimitive verbs, including verbs of statal existence. Here are some very
typical examples:
I only heard a
rumour that a certain member here present has been seeing the prisoner this
afternoon (E. M. Forster). I had a horrid feeling she was seeing right through
me and knowing all about me (A. Christie). What matters is, you're being damn
fools, both of you (A. Hailey).
Compare similar
transpositions in the expressions of anticipated future:
Dr Aarons will be
seeing the patient this morning, and I wish to be ready for him (A. Hailey).
Soon we shall be hearing the news about the docking of the spaceships having
gone through.
The linguistic
implication of these uses of the continuous is indeed very peculiar.
Technically it amounts to de-neutralising the usually neutralised continuous.
However, since the neutralisation of the continuous with these verbs is quite
regular, we have here essentially the phenomenon of reverse transposition -
an emphatic reduction of the second order,
serving the purpose of speech expressiveness.
We have considered
the relation of unlimitive verbs to the continuous form in the light of
reductional processes.
As for the limitive
verbs, their standing with the category of development and its oppositional
reductions is quite the reverse. Due to the very aspective quality of
limitiveness, these verbs, first, are not often used in the continuous form
in general, finding no frequent cause for it;
but second, in cases when the informative purpose does demand the expression of
an action in progress, the continuous with these verbs is quite obligatory and
normally cannot undergo reduction under any conditions. It cannot be reduced,
for otherwise the limitive meaning of the verb would prevail, and the
informative purpose would not be realised. Cf.:
The plane was just
touching down when we arrived at the airfield. The patient was sitting up in
his bed, his eyes riveted on the trees beyond the window.
The linguistic
paradox of these uses is that the continuous aspect with limitive verbs
neutralises the expression of their lexical aspect, turning them for the nonce
into unlimitive verbs. And this is one of the many manifestations of
grammatical relevance of lexemic categories.
In connection with
the problem of the aspective category of development, we must consider the
forms of the verb built up with the help of the auxiliary do. These forms,
entering the verbal system of the indefinite, have been described under
different headings.
Namely, the
auxiliary do, first, is presented in grammars as a means of building up
interrogative constructions when the verb is used in the indefinite aspect.
Second, the auxiliary do is described as a means of building up negative
constructions with the indefinite form of the verb. Third, it is shown as a
means of forming emphatic constructions of both affirmative declarative and
affirmative imperative communicative types, with the indefinite form of the
verb. Fourth, it is interpreted as a means of forming elliptical constructions
with the indefinite form of the verb.
L. S. Barkhudarov
was the first scholar who paid attention to the lack of accuracy, and probably
linguistic adequacy, in these definitions. Indeed, the misinterpretation of the
defined phenomena consists here in the fact that the do-forms are presented
immediately as parts of the corresponding syntactic constructions, whereas
actually they are parts of the corresponding verb-forms of the indefinite
aspect. Let us compare the following sentences in pairs:
Fred pulled her
hand to his heart. Did Fred pull her
hand to his heart?
You want me to hold a smile. You
don't want me to
hold a smile. In dreams people change
into somebody else.
- In dreams people do change into
somebody else. Ask
him into the drawing-room. Do
ask him into the
drawing-room. Mike liked the show immensely, and Kitty liked it too. ------------------------------------- Mike
liked the show immensely, and so did Kitty.
On the face of the
comparison, we see only the construction-forming function of the analysed
auxiliary, the cited formulations being seemingly vindicated both by the
structural and the functional difference between the sentences: the right-hand
constituent utterances in each of the given pairs has its respective
do-addition. However, let us relate these right-hand utterances to another kind
of categorial counterparts:
Did Fred pull her
hand to his heart? Will Fred pull
her hand to his
heart? You don't want me to hold a smile.
You won't want me
to hold a smile. In dreams people do
change into
somebody else. In dreams people will change
into somebody else.
Mike liked the show immensely, and
so did Kitty. Mike
will like the show immensely, and
so will Kitty.
Observing the
structure of the latter series of constructional pairs, we see at once that
their constituent sentences are built up on one and the same syntactic
principle of a special treatment of the morphological auxiliary element. And
here lies the necessary correction of the interpretation of Jo-forms. As a
matter of fact, do-forms should be first of all described as the variant
analytical indefinite forms of the verb that are effected to share the various
constructional functions with the other analytical forms of the verb placing
their respective auxiliaries in accented and otherwise individualised
positions. This presentation, while meeting the demands of adequate
description, at the same time is very convenient for explaining the formation
of the syntactic constructional categories on the unified basis of the role of
analytical forms of the verb. Namely, the formation of interrogative
constructions will be explained simply as a universal word-order procedure of
partial inversion (placing the auxiliary before the subject for all the
categorial forms of the verb); the formation of the corresponding negative will
be described as the use of the negative particle with the analytical auxiliary
for all the categorial forms of the verb; the formation of the corresponding
emphatic constructions will be described as the accent of the analytical
auxiliaries, including
the indefinite auxiliary; the formation of the corresponding reduced
constructions will be explained on the lines of the representative use of the auxiliaries
in general (which won't mar the substitute role of do).
For the sake of
terminological consistency the analytical form in question might be called the
"marked indefinite", on the analogy of the term "marked
infinitive". Thus, the indefinite forms of the non-perfect order will be
divided into the pure, or unmarked present and past indefinite, and the marked
present and past indefinite. As we have pointed out above, the existence of the
specifically marked present and past indefinite serves as one of the grounds
for identifying the verbal primary time and the verbal prospect as different
grammatical categories.
The category of
retrospective coordination (retrospect) is constituted by the opposition of the
perfect forms of the verb to the non-perfect, or imperfect forms. The marked
member of the opposition is the perfect, which is built up by the auxiliary
have in combination with the past participle of the conjugated verb. In
symbolic notation it is expressed by the formula have ...
en.
The functional
meaning of the category has been interpreted in linguistic literature in four
different ways, each contributing to the evolution of the general theory of
retrospective coordination.
The first
comprehensively represented grammatical exposition of the perfect verbal form
was the "tense view": by this view the perfect is approached as a
peculiar tense form. The tense view of the perfect is presented in the works of
H. Sweet, G. Curme, M. Bryant and J. R. Aiken, and some other foreign scholars.
In the Soviet linguistic literature this view was consistently developed by N.
F. Irtenyeva. The tense interpretation of the
perfect was also endorsed by the well-known course of English Grammar by M. A.
Ganshina and N. M.
Vasilevskaya.
The difference
between the perfect and non-perfect forms of the verb, according to the tense
interpretation of the perfect, consists in the fact that the perfect denotes a
secondary temporal characteristic of the action. Namely, it shows that the
denoted action precedes some other action or situation in the present, past, or
future. This secondary tense quality of the perfect, in the context of the
"tense view", is naturally contrasted against the secondary tense
quality of the cantinuous, which latter, according to N.
F. Irtenyeva, intensely expresses simultaneity
of the denoted action with some other action in the present, past, or future.
The idea of the
perfect conveying a secondary time characteristic of the action is quite a
sound one, because it shows that the perfect, in fact, coexists with the other,
primary expression of time. What else, if not a secondary time meaning of
priority, is rendered by the perfect forms in the following example:
Grandfather has taken his morning stroll and now is having a rest on the
veranda.
The situation is
easily translated into the past with the time correlation intact: →
Grandfather had taken his morning stroll and was having a rest on the veranda.
With the future,
the correlation is not so clearly pronounced. However, the reason for it lies
not in the deficiency of the perfect as a secondary tense, but in the nature of
the future time plane, which exists only as a prospective plane, thereby to a
degree levelling the expression of differing timings of actions. Making
allowance for the unavoidable prospective temporal neutralisations, the
perfective priority expressed in the given situation can be clearly conveyed
even in its future translations, extended by the exposition of the
corresponding connotations:
→ By the time
he will be having a rest on the veranda, Grandfather will surely have taken his
morning stroll. → Grandfather will have a rest on the veranda only after
he has taken his morning stroll.
Laying emphasis on
the temporal function of the perfect, the "tense view", though, fails
to expose with the necessary distinctness its aspective function, by which the
action is shown as successively or "transmissively" connected with a
certain time limit. Besides, the purely oppositional nature of the form is not
disclosed by this approach either, thus leaving the categorial status of the
perfect undefined.
The second
grammatical interpretation of the perfect was the "aspect view":
according to this interpretation the perfect is approached as an aspective form
of the verb. The aspect view is presented in the works of M. Deutschbein, E.A.
Sonnenschein, A. S. West, and other foreign
scholars. In the Soviet linguistic literature the aspective interpretation of
the perfect was comprehensively developed by G. N.
Vorontsova. This subtle observer of intricate
interdependencies of language masterly demonstrated the idea of the successive
connection of two events expressed by the perfect, prominence given by the form
to the transference or "transmission" of the accessories of a
pre-situation to a post-situation. The great merit of G. N.
Vorontsova's explanation of the aspective nature
of the perfect lies in the fact that the resultative meaning ascribed by some
scholars to the perfect as its determining grammatical function is understood
in her conception within a more general destination of this form, namely as a
particular manifestation of its transmissive functional semantics.
Indeed, if we
compare the two following verbal situations, we shall easily notice that the
first of them expresses result, while the second presents a connection of a
past event with a later one in a broad sense, the general inclusion of the
posterior situation in the sphere of influence of the anterior situation:
The wind has
dropped, and the sun burns more fiercely than ever.
"Have you
really never been to a ball before, Leila? But, my child, how too weird -"
cried the Sheridan girls.
The resultative
implication of the perfect in the first of the above examples can be
graphically shown by the diagnostic transformation, which is not applicable to
the second example: → The
sun burns more fiercely than ever as a result of the wind having dropped.
At the same time,
the plain resultative semantics quite evidently appears as a particular variety
of the general transmissive meaning, by which a posterior event is treated as a
successor of an anterior event on very broad lines of connection.
Recognising all the
merits of the aspect approach in question, however, we clearly see its two
serious drawbacks. The first of them is that, while emphasising the aspective
side of the function of the perfect, it underestimates its temporal side,
convincingly demonstrated by the tense view of the perfect described above. The
second drawback, though, is just the one characteristic of the tense view,
repeated on the respectively different material: the described aspective
interpretation of the perfect fails to strictly formulate its oppositional
nature, the categorial status of the perfect being left undefined.
The third
grammatical interpretation of the perfect was the "tense-aspect blend
view"; in accord with this interpretation the perfect is recognised as a
form of double temporal-aspective character, similar to the continuous. The
tense-aspect interpretation of the perfect was developed in the works of I. P.
Ivanova. According to I. P. Ivanova, the two verbal forms expressing temporal
and aspective functions in a blend are contrasted against the indefinite form
as their common counterpart of neutralised aspective properties.
The achievement of
the tense-aspect view of the perfect is the fact that it demonstrates the
actual double nature of the analysed verbal form, its inherent connection with
both temporal and aspective spheres of verbal semantics. Thus, as far as the
perfect is concerned, the tense-aspect view overcomes the one-sided approach to
it peculiar both to the first and the second of the noted conceptions.
Indeed, the
temporal meaning of the perfect is quite apparent in constructions like the
following: I have lived in this city long enough. I haven't met Charlie for
years.
The actual time
expressed by the perfect verbal forms used in the examples can be made explicit
by time-test questions: How long have you lived in this city? For how long
haven't you met Charlie?
Now, the purely
aspective semantic component of the perfect form will immediately be made
prominent if the sentences were continued like that: I have lived in this city
long enough to show you all that is worth seeing here. I haven't met Charlie
for years, and can hardly recognise him in a crowd.
The aspective
function of the perfect verbal forms in both sentences, in its turn, can easily
be revealed by aspect-test questions: What can you do as a result of your
having lived in this city for years? What is the consequence of your not having
met Charlie for years?
However,
comprehensively exposing the two different sides of the integral semantics of
the perfect, the tense-aspect conception loses sight of its categorial nature
altogether, since it leaves undisclosed how the grammatical function of the
perfect is effected in contrast with the continuous or indefinite, as well as
how the "categorial blend" of the perfect-continuous is contrasted
against its three counterparts, i.e. the perfect, the continuous, the
indefinite.
As we see, the
three described interpretations of the perfect, actually complementing one
another, have given in combination a broad and profound picture of the
semantical content
of the perfect verbal forms, though all of them have failed to explicitly
explain the grammatical category within the structure of which the perfect is
enabled to fulfil its distinctive function.
The categorial
individuality of the perfect was shown as a result of study conducted by the
eminent Soviet linguist A. I. Smirnitsky. His conception of the perfect, the
fourth in our enumeration, may be called the "time correlation view",
to use the explanatory name he gave to the identified category. What was
achieved by this brilliant thinker, is an explicit demonstration of the fact
that the perfect form, by means of its oppositional mark, builds up its own
category, different from both the "tense" (present -
past - future)
and the "aspect" (continuous -
indefinite), and not reducible to either of
them. The functional content of the category of "time correlation" («временная
отнесенность»)
was defined as priority expressed by the perfect
forms in the present, past or future contrasted against the non-expression of
priority by the non-perfect forms. The immediate factor that gave cause to A.
I. Smirnitsky to advance the new interpretation of the perfect was the peculiar
structure of the perfect continuous form in which the perfect, the form of
precedence, i.e. the form giving prominence to the idea of two times brought in
contrast, coexists syntagmatically with the continuous, the form of
simultaneity, i.e. the form expressing one time for two events, according to
the "tense view" conception of it. The gist of reasoning here is
that, since the two expressions of the same categorial semantics are impossible
in one and the same verbal form, the perfect cannot be either an aspective
form, granted the continuous expresses the category of aspect, or a temporal
form, granted the continuous expresses the category of tense. The inference is
that the category in question, the determining part of which is embodied in the
perfect, is different from both the tense and the aspect, this difference being
fixed by the special categorial term "time correlation".
The analysis
undertaken by A. I. Smirnitsky is of outstanding significance not only for
identifying the categorial status of the perfect, but also for specifying
further the general notion of a grammatical category. It develops the very
technique of this kind of identification.
Still, the
"time correlation view" is not devoid of certain limitations. First,
it somehow underestimates the aspective plane of the categorial semantics of
the perfect, very convincingly demonstrated by G. N.
Vorontsova in the context of the "aspect
view" of the perfect, as well as by I. P. Ivanova
in the context of the "tense-aspect blend
view" of the perfect. Second, and this is far more important, the
reasoning by which the category is identified, is not altogether complete in so
far as it confuses the general grammatical notions of time and aspect with the
categorial status of concrete word-forms in each particular language conveying
the corresponding meanings. Some languages may convey temporal or aspective
meanings within the functioning of one integral category for each (as, for
instance, the Russian language), while other languages may convey the same or
similar kind of meanings in two or even more categories for each (as, for
instance, the English language). The only true criterion of this is the
character of the representation of the respective categorial forms in the
actual speech manifestation of a lexeme. If a lexeme normally displays the syntagmatic
coexistence of several forms distinctly identifiable by their own peculiar
marks, as, for example, the forms of person, number, time, etc., it means that
these forms in the system of language make up different grammatical categories.
The integral grammatical meaning of any word-form (the concrete speech entry of
a lexeme) is determined by the whole combination ("bunch") of the
categories peculiar to the part of speech the lexeme belongs to. For instance,
the verb-form "has been speaking" in the sentence "The Red Chief
has just been speaking" expresses, in terms of immediately (positively)
presented grammatical forms, the third person of the category of person, the
singular of the category of number, the present of the category of time, the
continuous of the category of development, the perfect of the category under
analysis. As for the character of the determining meaning of any category, it
may either be related to the meaning of some adjoining category, or may not -
it depends on the actual categorial correlations
that have shaped in a language in the course of its historical development. In
particular, in Modern English, in accord with our knowledge of its structure,
two major purely temporal categories are to be identified, i.e. primary time
and prospective time, as well as two major aspective categories. One of the
latter is the category of development. The other, as has been decided above, is
the category of retrospective coordination featuring the perfect as the marked
component form and the imperfect as its unmarked counterpart. We have
considered it advisable to
re-name the indicated category in order, first, to stress its actual
retrospective property (in fact, what is strongly expressed in the temporal
plane of the category, is priority of action, not any other relative time
signification), and second, to reserve such a general term as
"correlation" for more unrestricted, free manipulations in
non-specified uses connected with grammatical analysis.
Thus, we have
arrived at the "strict categorial view" of the perfect, disclosing it
as the marking form of a separate verbal category, semantically intermediate
between aspective and temporal, but quite self-dependent in the general
categorial system of the English verb. It is this interpretation of the perfect
that gives a natural explanation to the "enigmatic" verbal form of
the perfect continuous, showing that each categorial marker -
both perfect and continuous -
being separately expressed in the speech entry
of the verbal lexeme, conveys its own part in the integral grammatical meaning
of the entry. Namely, the perfect interprets the action in the light of
priority and aspective transmission, while the continuous presents the same
action as progressive. As a result, far from displaying any kind of semantic
contradiction or discrepancy, the grammatical characterisation of the action
gains both in precision and vividness. The latter quality explains why this
verbal form is gaining more and more ground in present-day colloquial English.
As a matter of fact,
the specific semantic features of the perfect and the continuous in each
integrating use can be distinctly exposed by separate diagnostic tests. Cf.: A
week or two ago someone related an incident to me with the suggestion that I
should write a story on it, and since then I have been thinking it over (S.
Maugham).
Testing for the
perfect giving prominence to the expression of priority in retrospective
coordination will be represented as follows: →
I have been thinking over the suggestion for a
week or two now.
Testing for the
perfect giving prominence to the expression of succession in retrospective
coordination will be made thus: → Since
the time the suggestion was made I have been thinking it over.
Finally, testing
for the continuous giving prominence to the expression of action in progress
will include expansion: → Since
the suggestion was made I have been thinking it over continually,
Naturally, both perfect indefinite and perfect
continuous, being categorially characterised by their respective features, in
normal use are not strictly dependent on a favourable contextual environment
and can express their semantics in isolation from adverbial time indicators.
Cf.:
Surprisingly, she
did not protest, for she had given up the struggle (M. Dickens). "What have
you been doing down there?" Miss Peel asked him. "I've been looking
for you all over the play-ground" (M. Dickens).
The exception is
the future perfect that practically always requires a contextual indicator of
time due to the prospective character of posteriority, of which we have already
spoken.
It should be noted
that with the past perfect the priority principle is more distinct than with
the present perfect, which again is explained semantically. In many cases the
past perfect goes with the lexical indicators of time introducing the past
plane as such in the microcontext. On the other hand, the transmissive
semantics of the perfect can so radically take an upper hand over its priority
semantics even in the past plane that the form is placed in a peculiar
expressive contradiction with a lexical introduction of priority. In
particular, it concerns constructions introduced by the subordinative
conjunction before. Cf.:
It was his habit to
find a girl who suited him and live with her as long as he was ashore. But he
had forgotten her before the anchor had come dripping out of the water and been
made fast. The sea was his home (J. Tey).
In keeping with the
general tendency, the category of retrospective coordination can be
contextually neutralised, the imperfect as the weak member of the opposition
filling in the position of neutralisation. Cf.:
"I feel
exactly like you," she said, "only different, because after all I
didn't produce him; but, Mother, darling, it's all right..." (J.
Galsworthy). Christine nibbled on Oyster Bienville. "I always thought it was
because they spawned in summer" (A. Hailey).
In this connection,
the treatment of the lexemic aspective division of verbs by the perfect is,
correspondingly, the reverse, if less distinctly pronounced, of their treatment
by the continuous. Namely, the expression of retrospective coordination is
neutralised most naturally and freely with limitive verbs. As for the
unlimitive verbs, these, by being used in the perfect, are rather turned into
"limitive for the nonce". Cf.:
"I'm no beaten
rug. I don't need to feel like one. I've been a teacher all my life, with
plenty to show for it" (A. Hailey).
Very peculiar
neutralisations take place between the forms of the present perfect -
imperfect. Essentially these neutralisations signal
instantaneous subclass migrations of the verb from a limitive to an unlimitive
one. Cf.:
Where do you come
from? (I.e. What is the place of your origin?) I put all my investment in
London. (I.e. I keep all my money there).
Characteristic
colloquial neutralisations affect also some verbs of physical and mental
perceptions. Cf.:
I forget what
you've told me about Nick. I hear the management has softened their stand after
all the hurly-burly!
The perfect forms
in these contexts are always possible, being the appropriate ones for a mode of
expression devoid of tinges of colloquialism.
The categorial
opposition "perfect versus imperfect" is broadly represented in
verbids. The verbid representation of the opposition, though, is governed by a
distinct restrictive regularity which may be formulated as follows: the perfect
is used with verbids only in semantically strong positions, i.e. when its
categorial meaning is made prominent. Otherwise the opposition is neutralised,
the imperfect being used in the position of neutralisation. Quite evidently
this regularity is brought about by the intermediary lexico-grammatical
features of verbids, since the category of retrospective coordination is
utterly alien to the non-verbal parts of speech. The structural neutralisation
of the opposition is especially distinct with the present participle of the
limitive verbs, its indefinite form very naturally expressing priority in the
perfective sense. Cf.: She came to Victoria to see Joy off, and Freddy Rigby
came too, bringing a crowd of the kind of young people Rodney did not care for
(M. Dickens).
But the rule of the
strong position is valid here also. Cf.: Her Auntie Phyll had too many
children. Having brought
up six in a messy, undisciplined way, she had started all over again with
another baby late in life (M. Dickens).
With the gerund
introduced by a preposition of time the perfect is more often than not
neutralised. E.g.: He was at Cambridge and after taking his degree decided to
be a planter (S. Maugham).
Cf. the perfect gerund
in a strong position: The memory of having met the famous writer in his young
days made him feel proud even now.
Less liable to
neutralisation is the infinitive. The category of retrospective coordination is
for the most part consistently represented in its independent constructions,
used as concise semi-predicative equivalents of syntactic units of full
predication. Cf.:
It was utterly
unbelievable for the man to have no competence whatsoever (simultaneity
expressed by the imperfect). - It
was utterly unbelievable for the man to have had no competence whatsoever
(priority expressed by the perfect).
The perfect
infinitive of notional verbs used with modal predicators, similar to the
continuous, performs the two types of functions. First, it expresses priority
and transmission in retrospective coordination, in keeping with its categorial
destination. Second, dependent on the concrete function of each modal verb and
its equivalent, it helps convey gradations of probabilities in suppositions.
E.g.:
He may have warned
Christine, or again, he may not have warned her. Who can tell? Things must have
been easier fifty years ago. You needn't worry, Miss Nickolson. The children
are sure to have been following our instructions, it can't have been otherwise.
In addition, as its
third type of function, also dependent on the individual character of different
modal verbs, the perfect can render the idea of non-compliance with certain
rule, advice, recommendation, etc. The modal verbs in these cases serve as
signals of remonstrance (mostly the verbs ought to and should). Cf.: Mary ought
to have thought of the possible consequences. Now the situation can't be
mended, I'm afraid.
The modal will used
with a perfect in a specific collocation renders a polite, but officially worded
statement of the presupposed hearer's knowledge of an indicated fact. Cf.:
"You will no
doubt have heard, Admiral Morgan, that Lord Vaughan is going to replace Sir
Thomas Lynch as Governor of Jamaica," Charles said, and cast a glance of
secret amusement at the strong countenance of his most famous sailor (J. Tey).
It will not have escaped your attention, Inspector, that the visit of the nuns
was the same day that poisoned wedding cake found its way into that cottage (A.
Christie).
Evident relation
between the perfect and the continuous in their specific modal functions (i.e.
in the use under modal government) can be pointed out as a testimony to the
category of retrospective coordination being related to the category of
development on the broad semantic basis of aspectuality.
XVI. VERB: VOICE
The verbal category
of voice shows the direction of the process as regards the participants of the
situation reflected in the syntactic construction.
The voice of the
English verb is expressed by the opposition of the passive form of the verb to
the active form of the verb. The sign marking the passive form is the
combination of the auxiliary be with the past participle of the conjugated verb
(in symbolic notation: be ... en
- see Ch. II, §
5). The passive form as the strong
member of the opposition expresses reception of the action by the subject of
the syntactic construction (i.e. the "passive" subject, denoting the
object of the action); the active form as the weak member of the opposition
leaves this meaning unspecified, i.e. it expresses "non-passivity".
In colloquial
speech the role of the passive auxiliary can occasionally be performed by the
verb get and, probably, become* Cf.:
Sam got licked for
a good reason, though not by me. The young violinist became admired by all.
The category of
voice has a much broader representation in the system of the English verb than
in the system of the
Russian verb, since
in English not only transitive, but also intransitive objective verbs including
prepositional ones can be used in the passive (the preposition being retained
in the absolutive location). Besides, verbs taking not one, but two objects, as
a rule, can feature both of them in the position of the passive subject. E.g.:
I've just been rung
up by the police. The diplomat was refused transit facilities through London.
She was undisturbed by the frown on his face. Have you ever been told that
you're very good looking? He was said to have been very wild in his youth. The
dress has never been tried on. The child will be looked after all right. I
won't be talked to like this. Etc.
Still, not all the
verbs capable of taking an object are actually used in the passive. In
particular, the passive form is alien to many verbs of the statal subclass
(displaying a weak dynamic force), such as have (direct possessive meaning),
belong, cost, resemble, fail, misgive, etc. Thus, in accord with their relation
to the passive voice, all the verbs can be divided into two large sets: the set
of passivised verbs and the set of non-passivised verbs.
A question then
should be posed whether the category of voice is a full-representative verbal
category, i.e. represented in the system of the verb as a whole, or a
partial-representative category, confined only to the passivised verbal set.
Considerations of both form and function tend to interpret voice rather as a
full-representative category, the same as person, number, tense, and aspect.
Three reasons can be given to back this appraisal.
First, the integral
categorial presentation of non-passivised verbs fully coincides with that of
passivised verbs used in the active voice (cf. takes -
goes, is taking -
is going, has taken -
has gone, etc.). Second, the active voice as the
weak member of the categorial opposition is characterised in general not by the
"active" meaning as such (i.e. necessarily featuring the subject as
the doer of the action), but by the extensive non-passive meaning of a very
wide range of actual significations, some of them approaching by their
process-direction characteristics those of non-passivised verbs (cf. The door
opens inside the room; The magazine doesn't sell well). Third, the demarcation
line between the passivised and non-passivised sets is by no means rigid, and
the verbs of the non-passivised order may migrate into the
passivised order in various contextual
conditions (cf. The bed has not been slept in; The house seems not to have been
lived in for a long time).
Thus, the category
of voice should be interpreted as being reflected in the whole system of verbs,
the non-passivised verbs presenting the active voice form if not directly, then
indirectly.
As a regular
categorial form of the verb, the passive voice is combined in the same lexeme
with other oppositionally strong forms of the verbal categories of the
tense-aspect system, i.e. the past, the future, the continuous, the perfect.
But it has a neutralising effect on the category of development in the forms
where the auxiliary be must be doubly employed as a verbid (the infinitive, the
present participle, the past participle), so that the future continuous
passive, as well as the perfect continuous passive are practically not used in speech.
As a result, the future continuous active has as its regular counterpart by the
voice opposition the future indefinite passive; the perfect continuous active
in all the tense-forms has as its regular counterpart the perfect indefinite
passive. Cf.:
The police will be
keeping an army of reporters at bay. → An
army of reporters will be kept at bay by the police. We have been expecting the
decision for a long time. -» The
decision has been expected for a long time.
The category of
voice differs radically from all the other hitherto considered categories from
the point of view of its referential qualities. Indeed, all the previously
described categories reflect various characteristics of processes, both direct
and oblique, as certain facts of reality existing irrespective of the speaker's
perception. For instance, the verbal category of person expresses the personal
relation of the process. The verbal number, together with person, expresses its
person-numerical relation. The verbal primary time denotes the absolutive
timing of the process, i.e. its timing in reference to the moment of speech.
The category of prospect expresses the timing of the process from the point of
view of its relation to the plane of posteriority. Finally, the analysed
aspects characterise the respective inner qualities of the process. So, each of
these categories does disclose some actual property of the process denoted by
the verb, adding more and more particulars to the depicted processual
situation. But we cannot say the same about the category of voice.
As a matter of
fact, the situation reflected by the passive construction does not differ in
the least from the situation reflected by the active construction -
the nature of the process is preserved intact,
the situational participants remain in their places in their unchanged quality.
What is changed, then, with the transition from the active voice to the passive
voice, is the subjective appraisal of the situation by the speaker, the plane
of his presentation of it. It is clearly seen when comparing any pair of
constructions one of which is the passive counterpart of the other. Cf.: The
guards dispersed the crowd in front of the Presidential Palace. →
The crowd in front of the Presidential Palace
was dispersed by the guards.
In the two
constructions, the guards as the doer of the action, the crowd as the recipient
of the action are the same; the same also is the place of action, i.e. the
space in front of the Palace. The presentation planes, though, are quite
different with the respective constructions, they are in fact mutually reverse.
Namely, the first sentence, by its functional destination, features the act of
the guards, whereas the second sentence, in accord with its meaningful purpose,
features the experience of the crowd.
This property of
the category of voice shows its immediate connection with syntax, which finds
expression in direct transformational relations between the active and passive
constructions.
The said
fundamental meaningful difference between the two forms of the verb and the
corresponding constructions that are built around them goes with all the
concrete connotations specifically expressed by the active and passive
presentation of the same event in various situational contexts. In particular,
we find the object-experience-featuring achieved by the passive in its typical
uses in cases when the subject is unknown or is not to be mentioned for certain
reasons, or when the attention of the speaker is centred on the action as such.
Cf., respectively:
Another act of terrorism
has been committed in Argentina. Dinner was announced, and our conversation
stopped. The defeat of the champion was very much regretted.
All the functional
distinctions of the passive, both categorial and contextual-connotative, are
sustained in its use with verbids.
For instance, in
the following passive infinitive phrase the categorial
object-experience-featuring is accompanied by
the logical accent of the process characterising
the quality of its situational object (expressed by the subject of the passive
construction): This is an event never to be forgotten.
Cf. the
corresponding sentence-transform: This event will never be forgotten.
The gerundial
phrase that is given below, conveying the principal categorial meaning of the
passive, suppresses the exposition of the indefinite subject of the process:
After being wrongly delivered, the letter found its addressee at last.
Cf. the time-clause
transformational equivalent of the gerundial phrase: After the letter had been
wrongly delivered, it found its addressee at last.
The following
passive participial construction in an absolutive position accentuates the
resultative process: The enemy batteries having been put out of action, our
troops continued to push on the offensive.
Cf. the clausal
equivalent of the construction: When the enemy batteries had been put out of
action, our troops continued to push on the offensive.
The past participle
of the objective verb is passive in meaning, and phrases built up by it display
all the cited characteristics. E. g.: Seen from the valley, the castle on the
cliff presented a fantastic sight.
Cf. the clausal
equivalent of the past participial phrase: When it was seen from the valley,
the castle on the cliff presented a fantastic sight.
The big problem in
connection with the voice identification in English is the problem of
"medial" voices, i.e. the functioning of the voice forms in other
than the passive or active meanings. All the medial voice uses are effected
within the functional range of the unmarked member of the voice opposition. Let
us consider the following examples:
I will shave and
wash, and be ready for breakfast in half an hour. I'm afraid Mary hasn't
dressed up yet. Now I see your son is thoroughly preparing for the entrance
examinations.
The indicated verbs
in the given sentences are objective, • transitive,
used absolutely, in the form of the active voice. But the real voice meaning
rendered by the verb-entries is not active, since the actions expressed are not
passed from the subject to any outer object; on the contrary, these actions
are confined to no other participant of the
situation than the subject, the latter constituting its own object of the
action performance. This kind of verbal meaning of the action performed by the
subject upon itself is classed as "reflexive". The same meaning can
be rendered explicit by combining the verb with the reflexive
"self-pronoun: I will shave myself, wash myself; Mary hasn't dressed
herself up yet; your son is thoroughly preparing himself. Let us take examples
of another kind:
The friends will be
meeting tomorrow. Unfortunately, Nellie and Christopher divorced two years
after their magnificent marriage. Are Phil and Glen quarrelling again over
their toy cruiser?
The actions
expressed by the verbs in the above sentences are also confined to the subject,
the same as in the first series of examples, but, as different from them, these
actions are performed by the subject constituents reciprocally: the friends
will be meeting one another; Nellie divorced Christopher, but Christopher, in
his turn, divorced Nellie; Phil is quarrelling with Glen, but Glen, in his
turn, is quarrelling with Phil. This verbal meaning of the action performed by
the subjects in the subject group on one another is called
"reciprocal". As is the case with the reflexive meaning, the
reciprocal meaning can be rendered explicit by combining the verbs with special
pronouns, namely, the reciprocal pronouns: the friends will be meeting one another;
Nellie and Christopher divorced each other; the children are quarrelling with
each other.
The cited reflexive
and reciprocal uses of verbs are open to consideration as special grammatical
voices, called, respectively, "reflexive" and "reciprocal".
The reflexive and reciprocal pronouns within the framework of the hypothetical
voice identification of the uses in question should be looked upon as the voice
auxiliaries.
That the verb-forms
in the given collocations do render the idea of the direction of situational
action is indisputable, and in this sense the considered verbal meanings are
those of voice. On the other hand, the uses in question evidently lack a
generalising force necessary for any lingual unit type or combination type to
be classed as grammatical. The reflexive and reciprocal pronouns, for their
part, are still positional members of the sentence, though phrasemically bound
with their notional kernel elements. The inference is that
the forms are not grammatical-categorial; they
are phrasal-derivative, though grammatically relevant.
The verbs in
reflexive and reciprocal uses in combination with the reflexive and reciprocal
pronouns may be called, respectively, "reflexivised" and
"reciprocalised". Used absolutively, they are just reflexive and
reciprocal variants of their lexemes.
Subject to
reflexivisation and reciprocalisation may be not only natively reflexive and
reciprocal lexemic variants, but other verbs as well. Cf.:
The professor was
arguing with himself, as usual. The parties have been accusing one another
vehemently.
To distinguish
between the two cases of the considered phrasal-derivative process, the former
can be classed as "organic", the latter as "inorganic"
reflexivisation and reciprocalisation.
The derivative,
i.e. lexemic expression of voice meanings may be likened, with due alteration
of details, to the lexemic expression of aspective meanings. In the domain of
aspectuality we also find derivative aspects, having a set of lexical markers
(verbal post-positions) and generalised as limitive and non-limitive.
Alongside of the
considered two, there is still a third use of the verb in English directly
connected with the grammatical voice distinctions. This use can be shown on the
following examples:
The new paper-backs
are selling excellently. The suggested procedure will hardly apply to all the
instances. Large native cigarettes smoked easily and coolly. Perhaps the loin
chop will eat better than it looks.
The actions
expressed by the otherwise transitive verbs in the cited examples are confined
to the subject, though not in a way of active self-transitive subject
performance, but as if going on of their own accord. The presentation of the
verbal action of this type comes under the heading of the "middle"
voice.
However, lacking
both regularity and an outer form of expression, it is natural to understand
the "middle" voice uses of verbs as cases of neutralising reduction
of the voice opposition. The peculiarity of the voice neutralisation of this
kind is, that the weak member of opposition used in
the position of neutralisation does not fully
coincide in function with the strong member, but rather is located somewhere in
between the two functional borders. Hence, its "middle" quality is
truly reflected in its name. Compare the shown middle type neutralisation of
voice in the infinitive:
She was delightful
to look at, witty to talk to - altogether
the most charming of companions. You have explained so fully everything there
is to explain that there is no need for me to ask questions.
Another problem
posed by the category of voice and connected with neutralisations concerns the
relation between the morphological form of the passive voice and syntactical
form of the corresponding complex nominal predicate with the pure link be. As a
matter of fact, the outer structure of the two combinations is much the same.
Cf.:
You may consider me
a coward, but there you are mistaken. They were all seised in their homes.
The first of the
two examples presents a case of a nominal predicate, the second, a case of a
passive voice form. Though the constructions are outwardly alike, there is no
doubt as to their different grammatical status. The question is, why?
As is known, the
demarcation between the construction types in question is commonly sought on the
lines of the semantic character of the constructions. Namely, if the
construction expresses an action, it is taken to refer to the passive voice
form; if it expresses a state, it is interpreted as a nominal predicate. Cf.
another pair of examples:
The door was closed
by the butler as softly as could be. The door on the left was closed.
The predicate of
the first sentence displays the "passive of action", i.e. it is
expressed by a verb used in the passive voice; the predicate of the second
sentence, in accord with the cited semantic interpretation, is understood as
displaying the "passive of state", i.e. as consisting of a link-verb
and a nominal part expressed by a past participle.
Of course, the
factor of semantics as the criterion of the dynamic force of the construction
is quite in its place, since the dynamic force itself is a meaningful factor of
language.
But the
"technically" grammatical quality of the construction is determined
not by the meaning in isolation; it is determined by the categorial and functional
properties of its constituents, first and foremost, its participial part. Thus,
if this part, in principle, expresses processual verbality, however statal it
may be in its semantic core, then the whole construction should be understood
as a case of the finite passive in the categorial sense. E.g.: The young
practitioner was highly esteemed in his district.
If, on the other
hand, the participial part of the construction doesn't convey the idea of
processual verbality, in other words, if it has ceased to be a participle and
is turned into an adjective, then the whole construction is to be taken for a
nominal predicate. But in the latter case it is not categorially passive at
all.
Proceeding from
this criterion, we see that the predicate in the construction "You are
mistaken" (the first example in the present paragraph) is nominal simply
by virtue of its notional part being an adjective, not a participle. The
corresponding non-adjectival participle would be used in quite another type of
constructions. Cf.: I was often mistaken for my friend Otto, though I never
could tell why.
On the other hand,
this very criterion shows us that the categorial status of the predicate in the
sentence "The door was closed" is wholly neutralised in so far as it
is categorially latent, and only a living context may de-neutralise it both
ways. In particular, the context including the by-phrase of the doer (e.g. by
the butler) de-neutralises it into the passive form of the verb; but the
context in the following example de-neutralises it into the adjectival nominal
collocation: The door on the left was closed, and the door on the right was
open.
Thus, with the
construction in question the context may have both voice-suppressing,
"statalising" effect, and voice-stimulating, "processualising"
effect. It is very interesting to note that the role of processualising
stimulators of the passive can be performed, alongside of action-modifying
adverbials, also by some categorial forms of the verb itself, namely, by the
future, the continuous, and the perfect -
i.e. by the forms of the time-aspect order other
than the indefinite imperfect past and present. The said contextual stimulators
are especially important for limitive verbs, since their past participles
combine the semantics of processual passive with that of resultative perfect.
Cf.:
The fence is
painted. - The
fence is painted light green. - The
fence is to be painted. - The
fence will be painted. _ The
fence has just been painted. -The
fence is just being painted.
The fact that the
indefinite imperfect past and present are left indifferent to this gradation of
dynamism in passive constructions bears one more evidence that the past and
present of the English verb constitute a separate grammatical category
distinctly different from the expression of the future (see Ch. XIV).
XVII. VERB: MOOD
The category of
mood, undoubtedly, is the most controversial category of the verb. On the face
of it, the principles of its analysis, the nomenclature, the relation to other
categories, in particular, to tenses, all this has received and is receiving
different presentations and appraisals with different authors. Very significant
in connection with the theoretical standing of the category are the following
words by B. A. Ilyish: "The category of mood in the present English verb
has given rise to so many discussions, and has been treated in so many
different ways, that it seems hardly possible to arrive at any more or less
convincing and universally acceptable conclusion concerning it" [Ilyish, 99].
Needless to say,
the only and true cause of the multiplicity of opinion in question lies in the
complexity of the category as such, made especially peculiar by the contrast of
its meaningful intricacy against the scarcity of the English word inflexion.
But, stressing the disputability of so many theoretical points connected with
the English mood, the scholars are sometimes apt to forget the positive results
already achieved in this domain during scores of years of both textual
researches and the controversies accompanying them.
We must always
remember that the knowledge of verbal structure, the understanding of its
working in the construction of speech utterances have been tellingly deepened
by the studies of the mood system within the general framework of modern
grammatical theories, especially by the extensive
investigations undertaken by Soviet scholars in
the past three decades. The main contributions made in this field concern the
more and more precise statement of the significance of the functional plane of
any category; the exposition of the subtle paradigmatic correlations that,
working on the same unchangeable verbal basis, acquire the status of changeable
forms; the demonstration of the sentence-constructional value of the verb and its
mood, the meaningful destination of it being realised on the level of the
syntactic predicative unit as a whole. Among the scholars we are indebted to
for this knowledge and understanding, to be named in the first place is A. I.
Smirnitsky, whose theories revolutionised the presentation of English verbal
grammar; then B. A. Ilyish, a linguist who skilfully demonstrated the strong
and weak points of the possible approaches to the general problem of mood; then
G. N. Vorontsova,
L. S. Barkhudarov, I. B. Khlebnikova, and a number of others, whose keen
observations and theoretical generalisations, throwing a new light on the
analysed phenomena and discussed problems, at the same time serve as an
incentive to further investigations in this interesting sphere of language
study. It is due to the materials gathered and results obtained by these
scholars that we venture the present, of necessity schematic, outline of the
category under analysis.
The category of
mood expresses the character of connection between the process denoted by the
verb and the actual reality, either presenting the process as a fact that
really happened, happens or will happen, or treating it as an imaginary
phenomenon, i.e. the subject of a hypothesis, speculation, desire. It follows
from this that the functional opposition underlying the category as a whole is
constituted by the forms of oblique mood meaning, i.e. those of unreality,
contrasted against the forms of direct mood meaning, i.e. those of reality, the
former making up the strong member, the latter, the weak member of the
opposition. What is, though, the formal sign of this categorial opposition?
What kind of morphological change makes up the material basis of the functional
semantics of the oppositional contrast of forms? The answer to this question,
evidently, can be obtained as a result of an observation of the relevant
language data in the light of the two correlated presentations of the category,
namely, a formal presentation and a functional presentation.
But before going
into details of fact, we must emphasise, that the most general principle of the
interpretation of the category of mood within the framework of the two
approaches is essentially the same; it is the statement of the semantic content
of the. category as determining the reality factor of the verbal action, i.e.
showing whether the denoted action is real or unreal.
In this respect, it
should be clear that the category of mood, like the category of voice, differs
in principle from the immanent verbal categories of time, prospect,
development, and retrospective coordination. Indeed, while the enumerated
categories characterise the action from the point of view of its various
inherent properties, the category of mood expresses the outer interpretation of
the action as a whole, namely, the speaker's introduction of it as actual or
imaginary. Together with the category of voice, this category, not
reconstructing the process by way of reflecting its constituent qualities,
gives an integrating appraisal of she process and establishes its lingual
representation in a syntactic context.
The formal
description of the category has its source in the traditional school grammar.
It is through the observation of immediate differences in changeable forms that
the mood distinctions of the verb were indicated by the forefathers of modern
sophisticated descriptions of the English grammatical structure. These
differences, similar to the categorial forms of person, number, and time, are
most clearly pronounced with the unique verb be.
Namely, it is first
and foremost with the verb be that the pure infinitive stem in the construction
of the verbal form of desired or hypothetical action is made prominent.
"Be it as you wish", "So be it", "Be what may",
"The powers that be", "The insistence that the accused be
present" - such
and like constructions, though characterised by a certain bookish flavour, bear
indisputable testimony to the fact that the verb be has a special finite
oblique mood form, different from the direct indicative. Together with the isolated,
notional be, as well as the linking be, in the capacity of the same mood form
come also the passive manifestations of verbs with be in a morphologically
bound position, cf.: The stipulation
that the deal be made without delay, the demand that the matter be examined
carefully, etc.
By way of
correlation with the oblique be, the infinitive stem of the other verbs is
clearly seen as constituting the same form of the considered verbal mood. Not
only constructions featuring the third person singular without its categorial
mark -(e)s, but also constructions of other personal forms of the verb are
ordered under this heading. Thus, we distinguish the indicated mood form of the
verb in sentences like "Happen what may", "God forgive us",
"Long live our friendship", "It is important that he arrive here
as soon as possible", and also "The agreement stipulates that the
goods pass customs free", "It is recommended that the elections start
on Monday", "My orders are that the guards draw up", etc.
Semantical observation
of the constructions with the analysed verbal form shows that within the
general meaning of desired or hypothetical action, it signifies different
attitudes towards the process denoted by the verb and the situation denoted by
the construction built up around it, namely, besides desire, also supposition,
speculation, suggestion, recommendation, inducement of various degrees of
insistence including commands.
Thus, the analysed
form-type presents the mood of attitudes. Traditionally it is called
"subjunctive", or in more modern terminological nomination,
"subjunctive one". Since the term "subjunctive" is also
used to cover the oblique mood system as a whole, some sort of terminological
specification is to be introduced that would give a semantic alternative to the
purely formal "subjunctive one" designation. Taking into account the
semantics of the form-type in question, we suggest that it should be named the
"spective" mood, employing just the Latin base for the notion of
"attitudes". So, what we are describing now, is the spective form of
the subjunctive mood, or, in keeping with the usual working linguistic
parlance, simply the spective mood, in its pure, classical manifestation.
Going on with our
analysis, we must consider now the imperative form of the verb, traditionally
referred to as a separate, imperative mood.
In accord with the
formal principles of analysis, it is easy to see that the verbal imperative
morphemically coincides with the spective mood, since it presents the same
infinitive stem, though in relation to the second person only. Turning to the
semantics of the imperative, we note here as constitutive the meaning of
attitudes of the general spective description. This concerns the forms both of
be and the other verbs, cf.: Be on your guard! Be off! Do be careful with the
papers! Don't be blue! Do as I ask you! Put down the address, will you? About
turn!
As is known, the
imperative mood is analysed in certain grammatical treatises as semantically
direct mood, in this sense being likened to the indicative [Ganshina,
Vasilevskaya, 200]. This
kind of interpretation, though, is hardly convincing. The imperative form
displays every property of a form of attitudes, which can easily be shown by
means of equivalent transformations. Cf.:
Be off! →
I demand that you be off. Do be careful with the
papers! → My
request is that you do be careful with the papers. Do as I ask you! →
I insist that you do as I ask you. About turn! →
I command that you turn about.
Let us take it for
demonstrated, then, that the imperative verbal forms may be looked upon as a
variety of the spective, i.e. its particular, if very important,
manifestation.*
At this stage of
study we must pay attention to how time is expressed with the analysed form. In
doing so we should have in mind that, since the expression of verbal time is
categorial, a consideration of it does not necessarily break off with the
formal principle of observation. In this connection, first, we note that the
infinitive stem taken for the building up of the spective is just the
present-tense stem of the integral conjugation of the verb. The spective be,
the irregular (suppletive) formation, is the only exception from this correlation
(though, as we have seen, it does give the general pattern for the mood
identification in cases other than the third person singular). Second, we
observe that constructions with the spective, though expressed by the
present-stem of the verb, can be transferred into the past plane context. Cf.:
It was recommended
that the elections start on Monday. My orders were that the guards draw up. The
agreement stipulated that the goods pass customs free.
This phenomenon
marks something entirely new from the point of view of the categorial status of
the verbal time in the indicative. Indeed, in the indicative the category of
time is
essentially absolutive, while in the sphere of the subjunctive (in our case,
spective) the present stem, as we see, is used relatively, denoting the past in
the context of the past.
Here our purely
formal, i.e. morphemic consideration of the present stem of the subjunctive
comes to an end. Moreover, remaining on the strictly formal ground in the
strictly morphemic sense, we would have to state that the demonstrated system
of the spective mood exhausts, or nearly exhausts, the entire English oblique
mood morphology. See: [Бархударов,
(2), 129]. However, turning to functional
considerations of the expression of the oblique mood semantics, we see that the
system of the subjunctive, far from being exhausted, rather begins at this
point.
Observations of the
materials undertaken on the comparative functional basis have led linguists to
the identification of a number of construction types rendering the same
semantics as is expressed by the spective mood forms demonstrated above. These
generalised expressions of attitudes may be classed into the following three
groups.
The first
construction type of attitude series is formed by the combination may/might +
Infinitive. It is used to express wish, desire, hope in the contextual
syntactic conditions similar to those of the morphemic (native) spective forms.
Cf.:
May it be as you
wish! May it all happen as you desire! May success attend you. I hope that he
may be safe. Let's pray that everything might still turn to the good, after
all. May our friendship live long.
The second
construction type of attitude series is formed by the combination should +
Infinitive. It is used in various subordinate predicative units to express
supposition, speculation, suggestion, recommendation, inducements of different
kinds and degrees of intensity. Cf.:
Whatever they
should say of the project, it must be considered seriously. It has been
arranged that the delegation should be received by the President of the
Federation. Orders were given that the searching group should start out at once.
The third
construction type of the same series is formed by the combination let +
Objective Substantive+Infinitive. It is used to express inducement (i.e. an
appeal to commit an
action) in relation to all the persons, but preferably to the first person
plural and third person both numbers. The notional homonym let, naturally, is
not taken into account. Cf.:
Let's agree to end
this wait-and-see policy. Now don't let's be hearing any more of this. Let him
repeat the accusation in Tim's presence. Let our military forces be capable and
ready. Let me try to convince them myself.
All the three types
of constructions are characterised by a high frequency occurrence, by
uniformity of structure, by regularity of correspondence to the
"pure", native morphemic spective form of the verb. For that matter,
taken as a whole, they are more universal stylistically than the pure spective
form, in so far as they are less bound by conventions of usage and have a wider
range of expressive connotations of various kinds. These qualities show that
the described constructions may safely be identified as functional equivalents
of the pure spective mood. Since they specialise, within the general spective
mood meaning, in semantic destination, the specialisation being determined by the
semantic type of their modal markers, we propose to unite them under the
tentative heading of the "modal" spective mood forms, or, by way of
the usual working contraction, the modal spective mood, as contrasted against
the "pure" spective expressed by native morphemic means (morphemic
zeroing).
The functional
varieties of the modal spective, i.e. its specialised forms, as is evident from
the given examples, should be classed as, first, the "desiderative"
series (may-spective, the form of desire); second, the
"considerative" series (should-spective, the form of considerations);
third, the "imperative" series (let-spective, the form of commands).
We must stress that
by terming the spective constructional forms "modal" we don't mean to
bring down their grammatical value. Modality is part and parcel of predication,
and the modern paradigmatic interpretation of syntactic constructions has
demonstrated that all the combinations of modal verbs as such constitute
grammatical means of sentence-forming. On the other hand, the relevance of
medial morpho-syntactic factor in the structure of the forms in question can't
be altogether excluded from the final estimation of their status. The whole
system of the English subjunctive mood is far from stabilised, it is just in the
making, and all that we can say about the analysed spective forms
in this connection is that they tend to quickly
develop into rigidly "formalised" features of morphology.
Very important for
confirming the categorial nature of the modal spective forms is the way they
express the timing of the process. The verbal time proper is neutralised with
these forms and, considering their relation to the present-order pure spective,
they can also be classed as "present" in this sense. As to the actual
expression of time, it is rendered relatively, by means of the aspective
category of retrospective coordination: the imperfect denotes the relative
present (simultaneity and posteriority), while the perfect denotes the relative
past (priority in the present and the past). This regularity, common for all
the system of the subjunctive mood, is not always clearly seen in the
constructions of the spective taken by themselves (i.e. without a comparison
with the subjunctive of the past order, which is to be considered further) due
to the functional destination of this mood.
The perfect is
hardly ever used with the pure spective non-imperative. As far as the
imperative is concerned, the natural time-aspect plane is here the
present-oriented imperfect strictly relative to the moment of speech, since, by
definition, the imperative is addressed to the listener. The occasional perfect
with the imperative gives accent to the idea of some time-limit being
transgressed, or stresses an urge to fulfil the action in its entirety. Cf.:
Try and have done,
it's not so difficult as it seems. Let's have finished with the whole affair!
Still, when it is
justified by the context, the regularity of expressing time through aspect is
displayed by the specialised modal spective with the proper distinctness. Cf.:
I wish her plans
might succeed (the present simultaneity
- posteriority).
I wished her plans might succeed (the
past simultaneity -
posteriority). I wish her plans might
have succeeded
(failure in the present priority). I wished
her plans might
have succeeded (failure in the past priority). Whatever the outcome of the
conference should be, stalemate cannot be tolerated (the present simultaneity -
posteriority). --------- The commentator
emphasised that, whatever the
outcome of the
conference should be, stalemate could not be tolerated (the past simultaneity -
posteriority). Whatever the outcome of the
conference should have been, stalemate cannot be tolerated (the present
priority, the outcome of
the conference is
unknown). The commentator emphasised
that, whatever the
outcome of the conference should have been, stalemate could not be tolerated
(the past priority, the outcome of the conference was unknown).
The perfect of the
modal spective makes up for the deficiency of the pure spective which lacks the
perfect forms. Cf.:
Be it so or
otherwise, I see no purpose in our argument (simultaneity in the present). ----------------------------------- Should
it have been otherwise, there might have been some purpose in our argument
(priority in the present).
As the next step of
the investigation, we are to consider the forms of the subjunctive referring to
the past order of the verb. The approach based on the purely morphemic
principles leads us here also to the identification of the specific form of the
conjugated be as the only native manifestation of the categorial expression of
unreal process. E.g.:
Oh, that he were
together with us now! If I were in your place, I'd only be happy. If it were in
my power, I wouldn't hesitate to interfere.
As is the case with
be in the present subjunctive (spective), the sphere of its past subjunctive
use is not confined to its notional and linking functions, but is automatically
extended to the broad imperfect system of the passive voice, as well as the
imperfect system of the present continuous. Cf.:
If he were given
the same advice by an outsider, he would no doubt profit by it; with the
relatives it might be the other way about, I'm afraid. I'd repeat that you were
right from the start, even though Jim himself were putting down each word I say
against him.
Unfortunately, the
cited case types practically exhaust the native past subjunctive distinctions
of be, since with the past subjunctive, unlike the present, it is only the
first and third persons singular that have the suppletive marking feature were.
The rest of the forms coincide with the past indicative. Moreover, the
discriminate personal finite was more and more penetrates into the subjunctive,
thus liquidating the scarce remnants of differences between the subjunctive and
the indicative of the past order as a whole. Cf.: If he was as open-hearted as
you are, it would make all the difference.
Thus, from here on
we have to go beyond the morphemic principle of analysis and look for other
discriminative marks of the subjunctive elsewhere. Luckily, we don't have to
wander very far in search of them, but discover them in the explicitly
distinctive, strikingly significant correlation of the aspective forms of
retrospective coordination. These are clearly taken to signify the time of the
imaginary process, namely, imperfect for the absolute and relative present,
perfect for the absolute and relative past. Thereby, in union with the past
verbal forms as such, the perfect-imperfect retrospective coordination system
is made to mark the past subjunctive in universal contradistinction to the past
and present indicative. This feature is all the more important, since it is
employed not only in the structures patterned by the subjunctive were and those
used in similar environmental conditions, but also in the further would -
should-structures, in which the feature of the
past is complicated by the feature of the posteriority, also reformed
semantically. Cf.:
I'm sure if she
tried, she would manage to master riding not later than by the autumn, for all
her unsporting habits
(simultaneity -
posteriority in the present). I was sure
if she tried, she
would manage it by the next autumn (simultaneity -
posteriority in the past). How much
embarrassment should I have been spared if only I had known the truth
before! (priority
of the two events in the present). I
couldn't keep from saying that I should have
been spared much embarrassment if only I had known the truth before (priority
of the two events in the past).
The sought-for
universal mark of the subjunctive, the "unknown quantity" which we
have undertaken to find is, then, the tense-retrospect shift noted in a
preliminary way above, while handling the forms of the present (i.e. spective)
subjunctive. The differential mark is unmistakable, both delimiting the present
and past subjunctive in their different functional spheres (the present and the
past verbal forms as such), and distinguishing the subjunctive as a whole from
the indicative as a whole (the tense-retrospect shift taken in its entirety).
The mark is explicit not by virtue of the grammatical system being just so many
ready-made, presunmovable sets of units and forms; it is explicit due to something
very important existing in addition to the static correlations and
interdependencies making up the base of the system. What renders it not only
distinct, but absolutely essential, is the paradigmatic relations in dynamics
of language functioning. It is this dynamic life of paradigmatic connections in
the course of speech production and perception that turns the latent structural
differences, if small and insignificant in themselves, into regular and
accurate means of expression. The tense-retrospect shift analysed within the
framework of the latent system is almost imperceptible, almost entirely hidden
under the cover of morphemic identity. But this identity proves ephemeral the
very moment the process of speech begins. The paradigmatic connections all come
into life as if by magic; the different treatments of absolutive and relative
tenses sharply contrast one against the other; the imperfect and perfect
indicative antagonise those of the subjunctive; the tense-retrospect shift
manifests its working in explicit structural formations of contexts and
environments, not allowing grammatical misunderstandings between the
participants of lingual communication.
Thus, having
abandoned the exhausted formal approach in the traditional sense in order to
seek the subjunctive distinctions on the functional lines, we return to
formality all the same, though existing on a broader, dynamic, but none the
less real basis.
As for the
functional side of it, not yet looked into with the past subjunctive, it
evidently differs considerably from that which we have seen in the system of
the present subjunctive. The present subjunctive is a system of verbal forms
expressing a hypothetical action appraised in various attitudes, namely, as an
object of desire, wish, consideration, etc. The two parallel sets of
manifestations of the present subjunctive, i.e. the pure spective and the modal
spective, stand in variant functional inter-relations, conveying essentially
identical basic semantics and partially complementing each other on the
connotative and structural lines. As different from this, the past subjunctive
is not a mood of attitudes. Rather, it is a mood of reasoning by the rule of
contraries, the contraries being situations of reality opposed to the
corresponding situations of unreality, i.e. opposed to the reflections of the
same situations placed by an effort of thinking in different, imaginary
connections with one another. Furthermore, the past subjunctive, unlike the
present subjunctive, is not a system of two variant sets of forms, though,
incidentally, it does present two sets of forms constituting a system. The
difference is, that the systemic sets of the past subjunctive are functional
invariants, semantically complementing each other in the construction of
complex sentences reflecting the causal-conditional relations of events.
The most
characteristic construction in which the two form-types occur in such a way
that one constitutes the environment of the other is the complex sentence with
a clause of unreal condition. The subjunctive form-type used in the conditional
clause is the past unposterior; the subjunctive form-type used in the principal
clause is the past posterior. By referring the verbal forms to the past, as
well as to the posterior, we don't imply any actual significations effected by
the forms either of the past, or of the posterior: the terms are purely
technical, describing the outer structure, or morphemic derivation, of the
verbal forms in question. The method by which both forms actualise the
denotation of the timing of the process has been described above.
The subjunctive
past unposterior is called by some grammarians "subjunctive two".
Since we have reserved the term "subjunctive" for denoting the mood
of unreality as a whole, another functional name should be chosen for this
particular form-type of the subjunctive. "Spective" can't be used
here for the simple reason that the analysed mood form differs in principle
from the spective in so far as its main functions, with the exception of a few
construction-types, do not express attitudes. So, to find an appropriate
functional name for the mood form in question, we must consider the actual
semantic role served by it in syntactic constructions.
We have already
stated that the most typical use of the past unposterior subjunctive is
connected with the expression of unreal actions in conditional clauses (see
examples cited above). Further observations of texts show that, in principle,
in all the other cases of its use the idea of unreal condition is, if not directly
expressed, then implied by way of "subtext". These are constructions
of concession and comparison, expressions of urgency, expressions of wish
introduced independently and in object clauses. Let us examine them separately.
The syntactic
clause featuring the analysed form in the context nearest to the clause of
condition is the clause of concession. E.g.:
Even if he had been
a commanding officer himself, he wouldn't have received a more solemn welcome
in the mess. Even though it were raining, we'll go boating on the lake.
It is easy to see,
that the so-called "concession" in the cited complex sentences
presents a variety of condition. Namely, it is unreal or hypothetical condition
which is either overcome or neglected. And it is expressed intensely. Thus, the
transformational exposition of the respective implications will be the
following:
... → In
spite of the fact that he was not a commanding officer, he was given the most
solemn welcome of the sort commanding officers were given. ...
→ We don't know whether it will be
raining or not, but even in case it is raining we will go boating.
Comparisons with
the subjunctive are expressed in adverbial clauses and in predicative clauses.
In both cases condition is implied by way of contracted implication. Cf. an adverbial
comparative clause: She was talking to Bennie as if he were a grown person.
The inherent
condition is exposed by re-constructing the logic of the imaginary situation: →
She was talking to Bennie as she would be
talking to him if he were a grown person.
A similar
transformation applies to the predicative comparative clause: It looks as if it
had been snowing all the week. → It
looks as it would look if it had been snowing all the week.
In the subjunctive
expression of urgency (temporal limit) the implied urgent condition can be
exposed by indicating a possible presupposed consequence. Cf.: It is high time
the right key to the problem were found. *
→ *
The finding of the right key to the problem is a
condition that has long been necessary to realise; those interested would be
satisfied in this case.
In clauses and
sentences of wish featuring the subjunctive, the implied condition is dependent
on the expressed desire of a situation contrary to reality, and on the regret
referring jo the existing state of things. This can also be exposed by
indicating a possible presupposed consequence. Cf. a complex sentence with an
object clause of wish-subjunctive:
I wish my brain
weren't in such a whirl all the time. *→ My
brain not being in such a whirl all the time is a condition for my attending to
matters more efficiently.
The
wish-subjunctive in independent sentences has the same implication: Oh, that
the distress signals had only been heard when we could be in time to rescue the
crew! *→
Our hearing the distress signals was a condition for the possibility of our
being in time to rescue the crew. We are in despair that it was not so.
As is indicated in
grammars, modal verbs used in similar constructions display the functional
features of the subjunctive, including the verb would which implies some effort
of wilful activity. Cf.:
I wish he could
have cornel - The
implication is that, unfortunately, he had no such possibility. I wish he would
have cornel - The
implication is that he had not come of his own free will.
As we see, the
subjunctive form under analysis in its various uses does express the unreality
of an action which constitutes a condition for the corresponding consequence.
Provided our observation is true, and the considered subjunctive uses are
essentially those of stipulation, the appropriate explanatory term for this
form of the subjunctive would be "stipulative". Thus, the subjunctive
form-type which is referred to on the structural basis as the past unposterior,
on the functional basis will be referred to as stipulative.
Now let us consider
the form-type of the subjunctive which structurally presents the past
posterior. As we have stated before, its most characteristic use is connected
with the principal clause of the complex sentence expressing a situation of
unreal condition: the principal clause conveys the idea of its imaginary
consequence, thereby also relating to unreal state of events. Cf.:
If the peace-keeping force had not been on the
alert, the civil war in that area would have resumed anew.
The consequential
situation of fact is dependent on the conditional situation of fact as a
necessity; and this factual correlation is preserved in reference to the
corresponding imaginary situations. This can be shown by a transformation: →
For the civil war in that area not to have
resumed anew, the peace-keeping force had to be on the alert.
Cf. another
example: If two people were found with a great bodily resemblance, the
experiment would succeed. →
For the experiment
to succeed, it is necessary to find two people with a great bodily resemblance.
In keeping with its
functional meaning, this kind of consequence may be named a "consequence
of necessity".
A consequence
dependent on a "concessive" condition shown above has another implication.
Two semantic varieties of clauses of consequence should be pointed out as
connected with the said concessive condition and featuring the subjunctive
mood. The first variety presents a would-be effected action in consequence of a
would-be overcome unfavourable condition as a sort of challenge. E.g.:
I know Sam. Even if they had tried to cajole him
into acceptance, he would have flatly refused to cooperate.
The second variety
of concessive-conditional consequence featuring the subjunctive, as different
from the "consequence of challenge", expresses neglect of a
hypothetical situation. Cf.: Even though weather-conditions were altogether
forbidding, the reconnaissance flight would start as scheduled.
Apart from complex
sentences, the past posterior form of the subjunctive can be used in
independent sentences. It is easy to see, though, that these sentences are
based on the presupposition of some condition, the consequence of which they
express. It means that from the point of view of the analysed functions they
practically do not differ from the constructions of consequence shown above.
Cf: He would be here by now: he may have missed his train. →
He may have missed his train, otherwise (i.e. if
he hadn't missed it) he would be here by now.
As we see, the
subjunctive form-type in question in the bulk of its uses essentially expresses
an unreal consequential action dependent on an unreal stipulating action. In
grammars which accept the idea of this form being a variety of the verbal mood
of unreality, it is commonly called "conditional". However, the cited
material tends to show that the term in this use is evidently inadequate and
misleading. In keeping with the demonstrated functional nature of the analysed
verbal form it would be appropriate, relying on the Latin etymology, to name it
"consective". "Consective" in function, "past
posterior" in structure - the
two names will go together similar to the previously advanced pair
"stipulative" - "past
unposterior" for the related form of the subjunctive.
Thus, the functions
of the two past form-types of the subjunctive are really different from each
other on the semantic lines.
On the other hand, this difference is of such a kind that the forms complement
each other within one embedding syntactic construction, at the same time being
manifestations of the basic integral mood of unreality. This allows us to unite
both analysed form-types under one heading, opposed not only structurally, but
also functionally to the heading of the spective mood. And the appropriate term
for this united system of the past-tense subjunctive will be
"conditional". Indeed, the name had to be rejected as the designation
of the consequential (consective) form of the subjunctive taken separately, but
it will be very helpful in showing the actual unity of the forms not only on
the ground of their structure (i.e. the past tense order), but also from the
point of view of their semantico-syntactic destination.
The conditional
system of the subjunctive having received its characterisation in functional
terms, the simplified "numbering" terminology may also be of use for
practical teaching purposes. Since the purely formal name for the stipulative
mood-form, now in more or less common use, is "subjunctive two", it
would stand to reason to introduce the term "subjunctive three" for
the consective form of the subjunctive. "Subjunctive three" will then
finish the set of numbering names for the three pure forms of the mood of
unreality, the "modal spective" being left out of the set due to its
non-pure and heterogeneous character.
We have surveyed
the structure of the category of mood, trying to expose the correlation of its
formal and semantic features, and also attempting to choose the appropriate
terms of linguistic denotation for this correlation. The system is not a simple
one, though its basic scheme is not so cumbersome as it would appear in the
estimation of certain academic opinion. The dynamic scheme of the category has
been much clarified of late in the diverse researches carried out by Soviet and
foreign linguists.
One of the
drawbacks of the descriptions of the category of mood in the existing manuals
is the confusion of the functional (semantic) terms of analysis with the formal
(categorial) terms of analysis.
To begin with,
hardly convenient in this respect would appear the shifted nomination of the
"oblique" tenses broadly used in grammars, i.e. the renaming of the
past imperfect into the "present" and the past perfect into the
simple "past". By this shift in terms the authors, naturally, meant
to indicate the tense-shift of the "oblique moods", i.e. the
functional difference of the tenses in the subjunctive mood from their counterparts
in the indicative mood. But the term "tense" is clearly a categorial
name which ought to be consistent with the formal structure of the category
common for the whole of the verb. As a result of the terminological shift, the
tense-structure of the verb receives a hindering reflection, the confusion
being aggravated by the additional difficulty of contrasting the
"present" tense of one system of the oblique moods (which is formally
past) against the "present" tense of another system of the oblique
moods (which is formally present).
Hardly consistent
with adequacy would appear the division of the general mood system into several
moods on the upper level of presentation. "Imperative",
"subjunctive one", "subjunctive two",
"conditional", "suppositional" -
these are in fact shown in separate contrasts to
the indicative, which hinders the observation of the common basis underlying
the analysed category.
The notions
"synthetical" moods and "analytical" moods, being formal,
hardly meet the requirements of clarity in correlation, since, on the one hand,
the "synthetical" formation in the English subjunctive is of a purely
negative nature (no inflexion), and, on the other hand, the
"analytical" oblique formations ("conditional",
"suppositional") and the "synthetical" oblique formations
("subjunctive one", "subjunctive two") are asymmetrically
related to the analytical and synthetical features of the temporal-aspective
forms of the verb ("subjunctive one" plus part of "subjunctive
two" against the "analytical moods" plus the other part of
"subjunctive two").
Apparently
inconsistent with the function of the referent form is the accepted name
"conditional" by which the form-type of consequence is designated in
contrast to the actual form-type of condition ("subjunctive two").
The attempted
survey of the system of the English mood based on the recent extensive study of
it (undertaken, first of all, by Soviet scholars) and featuring oppositional
interpretations, has been aimed at bringing in appropriate correlation the
formal and the functional presentations of its structure.
We have emphasised
that, underlying the unity of the whole system, is the one integral form of the
subjunctive standing in opposition to the one integral form of the indicative.
The formal mark of the opposition is the tense-retrospect shift in the
subjunctive, the latter being the strong member of the opposition. The shift
consists in the perfect aspect being opposed to the imperfect aspect, both
turned into the relative substitutes for the absolutive past and present tenses
of the indicative. The shift has been brought about historically, as has been
rightly demonstrated by scholars, due to the semantic nature of the
subjunctive, since, from the point of view of semantics, it is rather a mood of
meditation and imagination.
The term
"subjunctive" itself cannot be called a very lucky one: its actual
motivation by the referent phenomena has long been lost so that at present it
is neither formal, nor functional. The mood system of unreality designated by
the name "subjunctive" might as well be called
"conjunctive", another meaningless term, but stressing the unity of
English with other Germanic languages. We have chosen the name
"subjunctive", though, as a tribute to the purely English grammatical
tradition. As for its unmotivated character, with a name of the most general
order it might be considered as its asset, after all.
The subjunctive,
the integral mood of unreality, presents the two sets of forms according to the
structural division of verbal tenses into the present and the past. These
form-sets constitute the two corresponding functional subsystems of the
subjunctive, namely, the spective, the mood of attitudes, and the conditional,
the mood of appraising causal-conditional relations of processes. Each of
these, in its turn, falls into two systemic sub-sets, so that on the
immediately working level of presentation we have the four subjunctive
form-types identified on the basis of the strict correlation between their
structure and their function: the pure spective, the modal spective, the
stipulative conditional, the consective conditional.
For the sake of
simplifying the working terminology and bearing in mind the existing practice,
the non-modal forms of the subjunctive can be called, respectively, subjunctive
one (spective), subjunctive two (stipulative), subjunctive three (consective);
against this background, the modal spective can simply be referred to as the
modal subjunctive, which will exactly correspond to its functional nature in
distinction to the three "pure" subjunctive forms.
The described
system is not finished in terms of the historical development of language; on
the contrary, it is in the state
of making and change. Its actual manifestations are complicated by
neutralisations of formal contrasts (such as, for instance, between the past
indicative and the past subjunctive in reported speech); by neutralisations of
semantic contrasts (such as, for instance, between the considerative modal spective
and the desiderative modal spective); by fluctuating uses of the auxiliaries
(would - should);
by fluctuating uses of the finite be in the singular (were -
was); etc. Our task in the objective study of
language, as well as in language teaching, is to accurately register these
phenomena, to explain their mechanism and systemic implications, to show the
relevant tendencies of usage in terms of varying syntactic environments,
topical contexts, stylistic preferences.
As we see, the
category of mood, for all the positive linguistic work performed upon it,
continues to be a tremendously interesting field of analytical observation.
There is no doubt that its numerous particular properties, as well as its
fundamental qualities as a whole, will be further exposed, clarified, and
paradigmatically ordered in the course of continued linguistic research.
XVIII. ADJECTIVE
The adjective
expresses the categorial semantics of property of a substance. It means that
each adjective used in the text presupposes relation to some noun the property
of whose referent it denotes, such as its material, colour, dimensions,
position, state, and other characteristics both permanent and temporary. It
follows from this that, unlike nouns, adjectives do not possess a full
nominative value. Indeed, words like long, hospitable, fragrant cannot effect
any self-dependent nominations; as units of informative sequences they exist
only in collocations showing what is long, who is hospitable, what is fragrant.
The semantically
bound character of the adjective is emphasised in English by the use of the
prop-substitute one in the absence of the notional head-noun of the phrase.
E.g.: I don't want a yellow balloon, let me have the green one over there.
On the other hand,
if the adjective is placed in a nominatively
self-dependent position, this leads to its substantivisation. E.g.: Outside it
was a beautiful day, and the sun tinged the snow with red. Cf.: The sun tinged
the snow with the red colour.
Adjectives are
distinguished by a specific combinability with nouns, which they modify, if not
accompanied by adjuncts, usually in pre-position, and occasionally in
postposition; by a combinability with link-verbs, both functional and notional;
by a combinability with modifying adverbs.
In the sentence the
adjective performs the functions of an attribute and a predicative. Of the two,
the more specific function of the adjective is that of an attribute, since the
function of a predicative can be performed by the noun as well. There is,
though, a profound difference between the predicative uses of the adjective and
the noun which is determined by their native categorial features. Namely, the
predicative adjective expresses some attributive property of its noun-referent,
whereas the predicative noun expresses various substantival characteristics of
its referent, such as its identification or classification of different types.
This can be shown on examples analysed by definitional and transformational
procedures. Cf.:
You talk to people
as if they were a group. → You
talk to people as if they formed a group. Quite obviously, he was a friend. -»
His behaviour was like that of a friend.
Cf., as against the
above:
I will be silent as
a grave. → I
will be like a silent grave. Walker felt healthy. →
Walker felt a healthy man. It was sensational.
→ That fact was a sensational fact.
When used as
predicatives or post-positional attributes, a considerable number of
adjectives, in addition to the general combinability characteristics of the
whole class, are distinguished by a complementive combinability with nouns. The
complement-expansions of adjectives are effected by means of prepositions. E.g.
fond of, jealous of, curious of, suspicious of; angry with, sick with; serious
about, certain about, happy about; grateful to, thankful to, etc. Many such
adjectival collocations render essentially verbal meanings and some of them
have direct or indirect parallels among verbs. Cf.: be fond of -
love, like; be envious of -
envy; be angry with -
resent; be mad for, about -
covet; be thankful to -
thank.
Alongside of other
complementive relations expressed with the help of prepositions and
corresponding to direct and prepositional object-relations of verbs, some of
these adjectives may render relations of addressee. Cf.: grateful to, indebted
to, partial to, useful for.
To the derivational
features of adjectives, belong a number of suffixes and prefixes of which the
most important are: -ful (hopeful), -less (flawless), -ish (bluish), -ous
(famous), -ive (decorative), -ic (basic); un- (unprecedented), in-
(inaccurate), pre- (premature). Among the adjectival affixes should also be
named the prefix a-, constitutive for the stative subclass which is to be
discussed below.
As for the variable
(demutative) morphological features, the English adjective, having lost in the
course of the history of English all its forms of grammatical agreement with
the noun, is distinguished only by the hybrid category of comparison, which
will form a special subject of our study.
All the adjectives
are traditionally divided into two large subclasses: qualitative and relative.
Relative adjectives
express such properties of a substance as are determined by the direct relation
of the substance to some other substance. E.g.: wood -
a wooden hut; mathematics -
mathematical precision; history -
a historical event; table -
tabular presentation; colour -
coloured postcards; surgery -
surgical treatment; the Middle Ages -
mediaeval rites.
The nature of this
"relationship" in adjectives is best revealed by definitional
correlations. Cf.: a wooden hut - a
hut made of wood; a historical event - an
event referring to a certain period of history; surgical treatment -
treatment consisting in the implementation of
surgery; etc.
Qualitative
adjectives, as different from relative ones, denote various qualities of
substances which admit of a quantitative estimation, i.e. of establishing their
correlative quantitative measure. The measure of a quality can be estimated as
high or low, adequate or inadequate, sufficient or insufficient, optimal or
excessive. Cf.: an awkward situation - a
very awkward situation; a difficult task -
too difficult a task; an enthusiastic reception -
rather an enthusiastic reception; a hearty
welcome - not
a very hearty welcome; etc.
In this connection,
the ability of an adjective to form degrees of comparison is usually taken as a
formal sign of its
qualitative character, in opposition to a relative adjective which is
understood as incapable of forming degrees of comparison by definition. Cf.: a
pretty girl - a
prettier girl; a quick look - a
quicker look; a hearty welcome - the
heartiest of welcomes; a bombastic speech -
the most bombastic speech.
Mow ever, in actual
speech the described principle of distinction is not at all strictly observed,
which is noted in the very grammar treatises putting it forward. Two typical
cases of contradiction should be pointed out here.
In the first place,
substances can possess such qualities as are incompatible with the idea of
degrees of comparison. Accordingly, adjectives denoting these qualities, while
belonging to the qualitative subclass, are in the ordinary use incapable of
forming degrees of comparison. Here refer adjectives like extinct, immobile,
deaf, final, fixed, etc.
In the second
place, many adjectives considered under the heading of relative still can form
degrees of comparison, thereby, as it were, transforming the denoted relative
property of a substance into such as can be graded quantitatively. Cf.: a
mediaeval approach-rather
a mediaeval approach - a
far more mediaeval approach; of a military design -
of a less military design -
of a more military design; a grammatical topic -
a purely grammatical topic -
the most grammatical of the suggested topics.
In order to
overcome the demonstrated lack of rigour in the definitions in question, we may
introduce an additional linguistic distinction which is more adaptable to the
chances of usage. The suggested distinction is based on the evaluative function
of adjectives. According as they actually give some qualitative evaluation to
the substance referent or only point out its corresponding native property, all
the adjective functions may be grammatically divided into
"evaluative" and "specificative". In particular, one and
the same adjective, irrespective of its being basically (i.e. in the sense of
the fundamental semantic property of its root constituent) "relative"
or "qualitative", can be used either in the evaluative function or in
the specificative function.
For instance, the
adjective good is basically qualitative. On the other hand, when employed as a
grading term in teaching, i.e. a term forming part of the marking scale
together with the grading terms bad, satisfactory, excellent, it acquires the
said specificative value; in other words, it becomes a specificative, not an
evaluative unit in the grammatical sense
(though, dialectically, it does signify in this
case a lexical evaluation of the pupil's progress). Conversely, the adjective
wooden is basically relative, but when used in the broader meaning "expressionless"
or "awkward" it acquires an evaluative force and, consequently,
can presuppose a greater or lesser degree
("amount") of the denoted properly in the corresponding referent.
E.g.:
Bundle found
herself looking into the expressionless, wooden face of Superintendent Battle
(A. Christie). The superintendent was sitting behind a table and looking more
wooden than ever (Ibid).
The degrees of
comparison are essentially evaluative formulas, therefore any adjective used in
a higher comparison degree (comparative, superlative) is thereby made into an
evaluative adjective, if only for the nonce (see the examples above).
Thus, the
introduced distinction between the evaluative and specificative uses of
adjectives, in the long run, emphasises the fact that the morphological
category of comparison (comparison degrees) is potentially represented in the
whole class of adjectives and is constitutive for it.
Among the words
signifying properties of a nounal referent there is a lexemic set which claims
to be recognised as a separate part of speech, i.e. as a class of words
different from the adjectives in its class-forming features. These are words
built up by the prefix a- and denoting different states, mostly of temporary
duration. Here belong lexemes like afraid, agog, adrift, ablaze. In traditional
grammar these words were generally considered under the heading of
"predicative adjectives" (some of them also under the heading of
adverbs), since their most typical position in the sentence is that of a
predicative and they are but occasionally used as pre-positional attributes to
nouns.
Notional words
signifying states and specifically used as predicatives were first identified
as a separate part of speech in the Russian language by L. V. Shcherba and V.
V. Vinogradov. The two scholars called the newly identified part of speech the
"category of state" (and, correspondingly, separate words making up
this category, "words of the category of state"). Here belong the
Russian words mostly ending in -o, but also having other suffixes: тепло,
зябко,
одиноко,
радостно,
жаль,
лень,
etc. Traditionally the Russian
words of the category of state were considered
as constituents of the class of adverbs, and they are still considered as such
by many Russian scholars.
On the analogy of
the Russian "category of state", the English qualifying a-words of
the corresponding meanings were subjected to a lexico-grammatical analysis and
given the part-of-speech heading "category of state". This analysis
was first conducted by B. A. Ilyish and later continued by other linguists. The
term "words of the category of state", being rather cumbersome from
the technical point of view, was later changed into "stative words",
or "statives".
The part-of-speech
interpretation of the statives is not shared by all linguists working in the
domain of English, and has found both its proponents and opponents.
Probably the most
consistent and explicit exposition of the part-of-speech interpretation of
statives has been given by B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya [Khaimovich,
Rogovskaya, 199 ff].
Their theses supporting the view in question can be summarised as follows.
First, the
statives, called by the quoted authors "ad-links" (by virtue of their
connection with link-verbs and on the analogy of the term "adverbs"),
are allegedly opposed to adjectives on a purely semantic basis, since
adjectives denote "qualities", and statives-adlinks denote "states".
Second, as different from adjectives, statives-adlinks are characterised by the
specific prefix a-. Third, they allegedly do not possess the category of the
degrees of comparison. Fourth, the combinability of statives-adlinks is
different from that of adjectives in so far as they are not used in the
pre-positional attributive function, i.e. are characterised by the absence of
the right-hand combinability with nouns.
The advanced
reasons, presupposing many-sided categorial estimation of statives, are undoubtedly
serious and worthy of note. Still, a closer consideration of the properties of
the analysed lexemic set cannot but show that, on the whole, the said reasons
are hardly instrumental in proving the main idea, i.e. in establishing the
English stative as a separate part of speech. The re-consideration of the
stative on the basis of comparison with the classical adjective inevitably
discloses the fundamental relationship between the two, -
such relationship as should be interpreted in no
other terms than identity on the part-of-speech level, though, naturally,
providing for their distinct differentiation on the subclass level.
The first scholar
who undertook this kind of re-consideration of the lexemic status of English
statives was L. S. Barkhudarov, and in our estimation of them we essentially
follow his principles, pointing out some additional criteria of argument.
First, considering
the basic meaning expressed by the stative, we formulate it as "stative
property", i.e. a kind of property of a nounal referent. As we already
know, the adjective as a whole signifies not "quality" in the narrow
sense, but "property", which is categorially divided into
"substantive quality as such" and "substantive relation".
In this respect, statives do not fundamentally differ from classical
adjectives. Moreover, common adjectives and participles in adjective-type
functions can express the same, or, more specifically, typologically the same
properties (or "qualities" in a broader sense) as are expressed by
statives.
Indeed, the main
meaning types conveyed by statives are: the psychic state of a person (afraid,
ashamed, aware); the physical state of a person (astir, afoot); the physical
state of an object (afire, ablaze, aglow); the state of an object in space
(askew, awry, aslant). Meanings of the same order are rendered by
pre-positional adjectives. Cf.:
the living
predecessor - the
predecessor alive; eager curiosity - curiosity
agog; the burning house - the
house afire; a floating raft - a
raft afloat; a half-open door - a
door adjar; slanting ropes - ropes
aslant; a vigilant man
0
a man awake; similar cases -
cases alike; an excited crowd
1
a crowd astir.
It goes without
saying that many other adjectives and participles convey the meanings of
various states irrespective of their analogy with statives. Cf. such words of
the order of psychic state as despondent, curious, happy, joyful; such words of
the order of human physical state as sound, refreshed, healthy, hungry; such
words of the order of activity state as busy, functioning, active, employed,
etc.
Second, turning to
the combinability characteristics of statives, we see that, though differing
from those of the common adjectives in one point negatively, they basically
coincide with them in the other points. As a matter of fact, statives are not
used in attributive pre-position, but, like adjectives, they are distinguished
by the left-hand categorial combinability both with nouns and link-verbs. Cf.:
The household was
all astir. The household was all excited It was strange to see the
household astir at this hour of the day. It was strange to see the household
active at this hour of the day.
Third, analysing
the functions of the stative corresponding to its combinability patterns, we
see that essentially they do not differ from the functions of the common
adjective. Namely, the two basic functions of the stative are the predicative
and the attribute. The similarity of functions leads to the possibility of the
use of a stative and a common adjective in a homogeneous group. E.g.: Launches
and barges moored to the dock were ablaze and loud with wild sound.
True, the
predominant function of the stative, as different from the common adjective, is
that of the predicative. But then, the important structural and functional
peculiarities of statives uniting them in a distinctly separate set of lexemes
cannot be disputed. What is disputed is the status of this set in relation to
the notional parts of speech, not its existence or identification as such.
Fourth, from our
point of view, it would not be quite consistent with the actual lingual data to
place the stative strictly out of the category of comparison. As we have shown
above, the category of comparison is connected with the functional division of
adjectives into evaluative and specificative. Like common adjectives, statives
are subject to this flexible division, and so in principle they are included
into the expression of the quantitative estimation of the corresponding
properties conveyed by them. True, statives do not take the synthetical forms
of the degrees of comparison, but they are capable of expressing comparison
analytically, in cases where it is to be expressed. Cf.:
Of us all, Jack was
the one most aware of the delicate situation in which we found ourselves. I saw
that the adjusting lever stood far more askew than was allowed by the
directions.
Fifth, quantitative
considerations, though being a subsidiary factor of reasoning, tend to support
the conjoint part-of-speech interpretation of statives and common adjectives.
Indeed, the total number of statives does not exceed several dozen (a couple of
dozen basic, "stable" units and, probably,
thrice as many "unstable" words of the
nature of coinages for the nonce (Жигадло,
Иванова,
Иофик,
170]). This number is negligible in
comparison with the number of words of the otherwise identified notional parts
of speech, each of them counting thousands of units. Why, then, an honour of
the part-of-speech status to be granted to a small group of words not differing
in their fundamental lexico-grammatical features from one of the established
large word-classes?
As for the
set-forming prefix a-, it hardly deserves a serious consideration as a formal
basis of the part-of-speech identification of statives simply because formal
features cannot be taken in isolation from functional features. Moreover, as is
known, there are words of property not distinguished by this prefix, which
display essential functional characteristics inherent in the stative set. In
particular, here belong such adjectives as ill, well, glad, sorry, worth
{while), subject (to), due (to), underway, and some others. On the other hand,
among the basic statives we find such as can hardly be analysed into a genuine
combination of the type "prefix+root", because their morphemic parts
have become fused into one indivisible unit in the course of language history,
e.g. aware, afraid, aloof.
Thus, the
undertaken semantic and functional analysis shows that statives, though forming
a unified set of words, do not constitute a separate lexemic class existing in
language on exactly the same footing as the noun, the verb, the adjective, the
adverb; rather it should be looked upon as a subclass within the general class
of adjectives. It is essentially an adjectival subclass, because, due to their
peculiar features, statives are not directly opposed to the notional parts of
speech taken together, but are quite particularly opposed to the rest of
adjectives. It means that the general subcategorisation of the class of
adjectives should be effected on the two levels: on the upper level the class
will be divided into the subclass of stative adjectives and common adjectives;
on the lower level the common adjectives fall into qualitative and relative,
which division has been discussed in the foregoing paragraph.
As we see, our
final conclusion about the lexico-grammatical nature of statives appears to
have returned them into the lexemic domain in which they were placed by
traditional grammar and from which they were alienated in the course of
subsequent linguistic investigations. A question then arises, whether these
investigations, as well as the discussions
accompanying thorn, have served any rational
purpose at all.
The answer to this
question, though, can only be given in the energetic affirmative. Indeed, all
the detailed studies of statives undertaken by quite a few scholars, all the
discussions concerning their systemic location and other related matters have
produced very useful results, both theoretical and practical.
The traditional
view of the stative was not supported by any special analysis, it was formed on
the grounds of mere surface analogies and outer correlations. The later study
of statives resulted in the exposition of their inner properties, in the discovery
of their historical productivity as a subclass, in their systemic description
on the lines of competent inter-class and inter-level comparisons. And it is
due to the undertaken investigations (which certainly will be continued) that
we are now in a position, though having rejected the fundamental separation of
the stative from the adjective, to name the subclass of statives as one of the
peculiar, idiomatic lexemic features of Modern English.
As is widely known,
adjectives display the ability to be easily substantivised by conversion, i.e.
by zero-derivation. Among the noun-converted adjectives we find both old units,
well-established in the system of lexicon, and also new ones, whose adjectival
etymology conveys to the lexeme the vivid colouring of a new coinage.
For instance, the
words a relative or a white or a dear bear an unquestionable mark of
established tradition, while such a noun as a sensitive used in the following
sentence features a distinct flavour of purposeful conversion: He was a
regional man, a man who wrote about sensitives who live away from the places
where things happen (M. Bradbury).
Compare this with
the noun a high in the following example: The weather report promises a new
high in heat and humidity (Ibid.).
From the purely
categorial point of view, however, there is no difference between the
adjectives cited in the examples and the ones given in the foregoing
enumeration, since both groups equally express constitutive categories of the
noun, i.e. the number, the case, the gender, the article determination, and
they likewise equally perform normal nounal functions.
On the other hand,
among the substantivised adjectives there
is a set characterised by hybrid lexico-grammatical features, as in the
following examples:
The new bill
concerning the wage-freeze introduced by the Labour Government cannot satisfy
either the poor, or the rich (Radio Broadcast). A monster. The word conveyed
the ultimate in infamy and debasement inconceivable to one not native to the
times (J. Vance). The train, indulging all his English nostalgia for the plushy
and the genteel, seemed to him a deceit (M. Bradbury).
The mixed
categorial nature of the exemplified words is evident from their incomplete presentation
of the part-of speech characteristics of either nouns or adjectives. Like
nouns, the words are used in the article form; like nouns, they express the
category of number (in a relational way); but their article and number forms
are rigid, being no subject to the regular structural change inherent in the
normal expression of these categories. Moreover, being categorially
unchangeable, the words convey the mixed adjectival-nounal semantics of
property.
The
adjectival-nounal words in question are very specific. They are distinguished
by a high productivity and, like statives, are idiomatically characteristic of
Modern English.
On the analogy of
verbids these words might be called "adjectivids", since they are
rather nounal forms of adjectives than nouns as such.
The adjectivids
fall into two main grammatical subgroups, namely, the subgroup pluralia tantum
(the English, the rich, the unemployed, the uninitiated, etc.), and the
subgroup singularia tantum (the invisible, the abstract, the tangible, etc.). Semantically,
the words of the first subgroup express sets of people (personal multitudes),
while the words of the second group express abstract ideas of various types and
connotations.
The category of
adjectival comparison expresses the quantitative characteristic of the quality
of a nounal referent, i.e. it gives a relative evaluation of the quantity of a
quality. The purely relative nature of the categorial semantics of comparison
is reflected in its name.
The category is
constituted by the opposition of the three forms known under the heading of
degrees of comparison; the basic form (positive degree), having no features of
comparison; the comparative degree form, having the feature of restricted
superiority (which limits the comparison to two elements only); the superlative
degree form, having the feature of unrestricted superiority.
It should be noted
that the meaning of unrestricted superiority is in-built in the superlative
degree as such, though in practice this form is used in collocations imposing certain
restrictions on the effected comparison; thus, the form in question may be used
to signify restricted superiority, namely, in cases where a limited number of
referents are compared. Cf.: Johnny was the strongest boy in the company.
As is evident from
the example, superiority restriction is shown here not by the native meaning of
the superlative, but by the particular contextual construction of comparison
where the physical strength of one boy is estimated in relation to that of his
companions.
Some linguists
approach the number of the degrees of comparison as problematic on the grounds
that the basic form of the adjective does not express any comparison by itself
and therefore should be excluded from the category. This exclusion would reduce
the category to two members only, i.e. the comparative and superlative degrees.
However, the
oppositional interpretation of grammatical categories underlying our
considerations does not admit of such an exclusion; on the contrary, the
non-expression of superiority by the basic form is understood in the
oppositional presentation of comparison as a pre-requisite for the expression
of the category as such. In this expression of the category the basic form is
the unmarked member, not distinguished by any comparison suffix or comparison
auxiliary, while the superiority forms (i.e. the comparative and superlative)
are the marked members, distinguished by the comparison suffixes or comparison
auxiliaries.
That the basic form
as the positive degree of comparison does express this categorial idea, being
included in one and the same categorial series with the superiority degrees, is
clearly shown by its actual uses in comparative syntactic constructions of
equality, as well as comparative syntactic constructions of negated equality.
Cf.: The remark was as bitter as could be. The Rockies are not so high as the
Caucasus.
These constructions
are directly correlative with comparative constructions of inequality built
around the comparative and superlative degree forms. Cf.: That was the
bitterest remark
I have ever heard from the man. The Caucasus is higher than the Rockies.
Thus, both formally
and semantically, the oppositional basis of the category of comparison displays
a binary nature. In terms of the three degrees of comparison, on the upper
level of presentation the superiority degrees as the marked member of the
opposition are contrasted against the positive degree as its unmarked member.
The superiority degrees, in their turn, form the opposition of the lower level
of presentation, where the comparative degree features the functionally weak
member, and the superlative degree, respectively, the strong member. The whole
of the double oppositional unity, considered from the semantic angle,
constitutes a gradual ternary opposition.
The synthetical
forms of comparison in -er and -(e)st coexist with the analytical forms of
comparison effected by the auxiliaries more and most. The analytical forms of
comparison perform a double function. On the one hand, they are used with the
evaluative adjectives that, due to their phonemic structure (two-syllable words
with the stress on the first syllable ending in other grapho-phonemic complexes
than -er, -y, -le, -ow or words of more than two-syllable composition) cannot
normally take the synthetical forms of comparison. In this respect, the
analytical comparison forms are in categorial complementary distribution with
the synthetical comparison forms. On the other hand, the analytical forms of
comparison, as different from the synthetical forms, are used to express
emphasis, thus complementing the synthetical forms in the sphere of this
important stylistic connotation. Cf.: The audience became more and more noisy,
and soon the speaker's words were drowned in the general hum of voices.
The structure of
the analytical degrees of comparison is meaningfully overt; these forms are
devoid of the feature of "semantic idiomatism" characteristic of some
other categorial analytical forms, such as, for instance, the forms of the
verbal perfect. For this reason the analytical degrees of comparison invite
some linguists to call in question their claim to a categorial status in
English grammar.
In particular,
scholars point out the following two factors in support of the view that the
combinations of more/most with the basic form of the adjective are not the
analytical expressions
of the morphological category of comparison, but free syntactic constructions:
first, the more/most-combinations are semantically analogous to combinations of
less/least with the adjective which, in the general opinion, are syntactic
combinations of notional words; second, the most-combination, unlike the
synthetic superlative, can take the indefinite article, expressing not the
superlative, but the elative meaning (i.e. a high, not the highest degree of
the respective quality).
The reasons
advanced, though claiming to be based on an analysis of actual lingual data,
can hardly be called convincing as regards their immediate negative purpose.
This combination is
a common means of expressing elative evaluations of substance properties. The
function of the elative most-construction in distinction to the function of the
superlative most-construction will be seen from the following examples:
The speaker
launched a most significant personal attack on the Prime Minister. The most
significant of the arguments in a dispute is not necessarily the most
spectacular one.
While the phrase
"a most significant (personal) attack" in the first of the two
examples gives the idea of rather a high degree of the quality expressed
irrespective of any directly introduced or implied comparison with other
attacks on the Prime Minister, the phrase "the most significant of the
arguments" expresses exactly the superlative degree of the quality in
relation to the immediately introduced comparison with all the rest of the
arguments in a dispute; the same holds true of the phrase "the most
spectacular one". It is this exclusion of the outwardly superlative
adjective from a comparison that makes it into a simple elative, with its
most-constituent turned from the superlative auxiliary into a kind of a lexical
intensifier.
The definite
article with the elative most-construction is also possible, if leaving the
elative function less distinctly recognisable (in oral speech the elative most
is commonly left unstressed, the absence of stress serving as a negative mark
of the elative). Cf.: I found myself in the most awkward situation, for I
couldn't give a satisfactory answer to any question asked by the visitors.
Now, the
synthetical superlative degree, as is known,
can be used in the elative function as well, the
distinguishing feature of the latter being its exclusion from a comparison.
Cf.:
Unfortunately, our
cooperation with Danny proved the worst experience for both of us. No doubt Mr.
Snider will show you his collection of minerals with the greatest pleasure.
And this fact gives
us a clue for understanding the expressive nature of the elative superlative as
such - the
nature that provides it with a permanent grammatico-stylistic status in the
language. Indeed, the expressive peculiarity of the form consists exactly in
the immediate combination of the two features which outwardly contradict each
other: the categorial form of the superlative on the one hand, and the absence
of a comparison on the other.
That the categorial
form of the superlative (i.e. the superlative with its general functional
specification) is essential also for the expression of the elative semantics
can, however paradoxical it might appear, be very well illustrated by the
elative use of the comparative degree. Indeed, the comparative combination
featuring the elative comparative degree is constructed in such a way as to
place it in the functional position of unrestricted superiority, i.e. in the
position specifically characteristic of the superlative. E.g.:
Nothing gives me
greater pleasure than to greet you as our guest of honour. There is nothing
more refreshing than a good swim.
The parallelism of
functions between the two forms of comparison (the comparative degree and the
superlative degree) in such and like examples is unquestionable.
As we see, the
elative superlative, though it is not the regular superlative in the
grammatical sense, is still a kind of a specific, grammatically featured
construction. This grammatical specification distinguishes it from common
elative constructions which may be generally defined as syntactic combinations
of an intensely high estimation. E.g.: an extremely important amendment; a
matter of exceeding urgency; quite an unparalleled beauty; etc.
Thus, from a
grammatical point of view, the elative superlative, though semantically it is
"elevated", is nothing else but a degraded superlative, and its
distinct featuring mark with the analytical superlative degree is the
indefinite article:
the two forms of the superlative of different functional purposes receive the two
different marks (if not quite rigorously separated in actual uses) by the
article determination treatment.
It follows from the
above that the possibility of the most-combination to be used with the
indefinite article cannot in any way be demonstrative of its non-grammatical
character, since the functions of the two superlative combinations in question,
the elative superlative and the genuine superlative, are different.
Moreover, the use
of the indefinite article with the synthetical superlative in the degraded,
elative function is not altogether impossible, though somehow such a
possibility is bluntly denied by certain grammatical manuals. Cf.: He made a
last lame effort to delay the experiment; but Basil was impervious to
suggestion (J. Vance).
But there is one
more possibility to formally differentiate the direct and elative functions of
the synthetical superlative, namely, by using the zero article with the
superlative. This latter possibility is noted in some grammar books [Ganshina,
Vasilevskaya, 85]. Cf.:
Suddenly I was seised with a sensation of deepest regret.
However, the
general tendency of expressing the superlative elative meaning is by using the
analytical form. Incidentally, in the Russian language the tendency of usage is
reverse: it is the synthetical form of the Russian superlative that is
preferred in rendering the elative function. Cf.: слушали с
живейшим интересом; повторялась скучнейшая история; попал в глупейшее положение
и т.д.
Let us examine now
the combinations of less/least with the basic form of the adjective.
As is well known,
the general view of these combinations definitely excludes them from any
connection with categorial analytical forms. Strangely enough, this
rejectionist view of the "negative degrees of comparison" is even taken
to support, not to reject the morphological interpretation of the
more/most-combinations.
The corresponding
argument in favour of the rejectionist interpretation consists in pointing out
the functional parallelism existing between the synthetical degrees of
comparison and the more/most-combinations accompanied by their complementary
distribution, if not rigorously pronounced (the different choice of the forms
by different syllabic-phonetical forms
of adjectives). The less/least-combinations, according to this view, are
absolutely incompatible with the synthetical degrees of comparison, since they
express not only different, but opposite meanings [Khaimovich, Rogovskaya, 77-78].
Now, it does not
require a profound analysis to see that, from the grammatical point of view,
the formula "opposite meaning" amounts to ascertaining the categorial
equality of the forms compared. Indeed, if two forms express the opposite
meanings, then they can only belong to units of the same general order. And we
cannot but agree with B. A. Ilyish's thesis that "there seems to be no
sufficient reason for treating the two sets of phrases in different ways,
saying that 'more difficult' is an analytical form, while 'less difficult' is
not" [Ilyish, 60]. True,
the cited author takes this fact rather as demonstration that both types of
constructions should equally be excluded from the domain of analytical forms,
but the problem of the categorial status of the more/most-combinations has been
analysed above.
Thus, the
less/least-combinations, similar to the morel most-combinations, constitute
specific forms of comparison, which may be called forms of "reverse
comparison". The two types of forms cannot be syntagmatically combined in
one and the same form of the word, which shows the unity of the category of
comparison. The whole category includes not three, but five different forms,
making up the two series - respectively,
direct and reverse. Of these, the reverse series of comparison (the reverse
superiority degrees) is of far lesser importance than the direct one, which
evidently can be explained by semantic reasons. As a matter of fact, it is more
natural to follow the direct model of comparison based on the principle of
addition of qualitative quantities than on the reverse model of comparison
based on the principle of subtraction of qualitative quantities, since
subtraction in general is a far more abstract process of mental activity than
addition. And, probably, exactly for the same reason the reverse comparatives
and superlatives are rivalled in speech by the corresponding negative syntactic
constructions.
Having considered
the characteristics of the category of comparison, we can see more clearly the
relation to this category of some usually non-comparable evaluative adjectives.
Outside the
immediate comparative grammatical change
of the adjective stand such evaluative
adjectives as contain certain comparative sememic elements in their semantic
structures. In particular, as we have mentioned above, here belong adjectives
that are themselves grading marks of evaluation. Another group of evaluative
non-comparables is formed by adjectives of indefinitely moderated quality, or,
tentatively, "moderating qualifiers", such as whitish, tepid,
half-ironical, semi-detached, etc. But the most peculiar lexemic group of
non-comparables is made up by adjectives expressing the highest degree of a
respective quality, which words can tentatively be called "adjectives of
extreme quality", or "extreme qualifiers", or simply "extremals".
The inherent superlative
semantics of extremals is emphasised by the definite article normally
introducing their nounal combinations, exactly similar to the definite article
used with regular collocations of the superlative degree. Cf.: The ultimate
outcome of the talks was encouraging. The final decision has not yet been made
public.
On the other hand,
due to the tendency of colloquial speech to contrastive variation, such extreme
qualifiers can sometimes be modified by intensifying elements. Thus, "the
final decision" becomes "a very final decision"; "the
ultimate rejection" turns into "rather an ultimate rejection";
"the crucial role" is made into "quite a crucial role",
etc. As a result of this kind of modification, the highest grade evaluative
force of these words is not strengthened, but, on the contrary, weakened; the
outwardly extreme qualifiers become degraded extreme qualifiers, even in this
status similar to the regular categorial superlatives degraded in their elative
use.
XIX. ADVERB
The adverb is
usually defined as a word expressing either property of an action, or property
of another property, or circumstances in which an action occurs. This
definition, though certainly informative and instructive, fails to directly
point out the relation between the adverb and the adjective as the primary
qualifying part of speech.
In an attempt to
overcome this drawback, let us define the adverb as a notional word expressing
a non-substantive property,
that is, a property of a non-substantive referent. This formula immediately
shows the actual correlation between the adverb and the adjective, since the
adjective is a word expressing a substantive property.
Properties may be
of a more particular, "organic" order, and a more general and
detached, "inorganic" order. Of the organic properties, the adverb
denotes those characterising processes and other properties. Of the inorganic
properties, the adverb denotes various circumstantial characteristics of
processes or whole situations built around processes.
The above
definition, approaching the adverb as a word of the secondary qualifying order,
presents the entire class of adverbial words as the least self-dependent of all
the four notional parts of speech. Indeed, as has been repeatedly pointed out,
the truly complete nominative value is inherent only in the noun, which is the
name of substances. The verb comes next in its self-dependent nominative force,
expressing processes as dynamic relations of substances, i.e. their dynamic
relational properties in the broad sense. After that follow qualifying parts of
speech -• first
the adjective denoting qualifications of substances, and then the adverb
denoting qualifications of non-substantive phenomena which find themselves
within the range of notional signification.
As we see, the
adverb is characterised by its own, specific nominative value, providing for
its inalienable status in the system of the parts of speech. Hence, the
complaints of some linguists that the adverb is not rigorously defined and in
fact presents something like a "dump" for those words which have been
rejected by other parts of speech can hardly be taken as fully justified. On
the other hand, since the adverb does denote qualifications of the second
order, not of the first one like the adjective, it includes a great number of
semantically weakened words which are in fact intermediate between notional and
functional lexemes by their status and often display features of pronominal
nature.
In accord with
their categorial meaning, adverbs are characterised by a combinability with
verbs, adjectives and words of adverbial nature. The functions of adverbs in
these combinations consist in expressing different adverbial modifiers. Adverbs
can also refer to whole situations; in this function they are considered under
the heading of situation-"determinants".
Cf.:
The woman was
crying hysterically. (an adverbial modifier of manner, in left-hand contact
combination with the verb-predicate) Wilson looked at him appraisingly. (an
adverbial modifier of manner, in left-hand distant combination with the
verb-predicate) Without undressing she sat down to the poems, nervously anxious
to like them... (an adverbial modifier of property qualification, in right-hand
combination with a post-positional stative attribute-adjective) You've gotten
awfully brave, awfully suddenly. (an adverbial modifier of intensity, in
right-hand combination with an adverb-aspective determinant of the situation)
Then he stamps his boots again and advances into the room. (two adverbial
determinants of the situation: the first -
of time, in right-hand combination with the
modified predicative construction; the second -
of recurrence, in left-hand combination with the
modified predicative construction)
Adverbs can also
combine with nouns acquiring in such cases a very peculiar
adverbial-attributive function, essentially in post-position, but in some cases
also in pre-position. E.g.:
The world today
presents a picture radically different from what it was before the Second World
War. Our vigil overnight was rewarded by good news: the operation seemed to
have succeeded. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the then President of the United States,
proclaimed the "New Deal" - a
new Government economic policy.
The use of adverbs
in outwardly attributive positions in such and like examples appears to be in
contradiction with the functional destination of the adverb -
a word that is intended to qualify a non-nounal
syntactic element by definition.
However, this
seeming inconsistence of the theoretical interpretation of adverbs with their
actual uses can be clarified and resolved in the light of the syntactic
principle of nominalisation elaborated within the framework of the theory of
paradigmatic syntax (see further). In accord with this principle, each
predicative syntactic construction paradigmatically correlates with a
noun-phrase displaying basically the same semantic relations between its
notional constituents. A predicative construction can be actually changed into
a noun-phrase, by which change the dynamic situation expressed by the
predicative construction receives a static
name. Now, adverbs-determinants modifying in
constructions of this kind the situation as a whole, are preserved in the corresponding
nominalised phrases without a change in their inherent functional status. Cf.:
The world that
exists today. → The
world today. We kept vigil overnight. → Our
vigil overnight. Then he was the President. →
The then President.
These paradigmatic
transformational correlations explain the type of connection between the noun
and its adverbial attribute even in cases where direct transformational changes
would not be quite consistent with the concrete contextual features of
constructions. What is important here, is the fact that the adverb used to
modify a noun actually relates to the whole corresponding situation underlying
the nounphrase.
In accord with
their word-building structure adverbs may be simple and derived.
Simple adverbs are
rather few, and nearly all of them display functional semantics, mostly of
pronominal character: here, there, now, then, so, quite, why, how, where, when.
The typical
adverbial affixes in affixal derivation are, first and foremost, the basic and
only productive adverbial suffix -ly (slowly, tiredly, rightly, firstly), and
then a couple of others of limited distribution, such as -ways (sideways,
crossways), -wise (clockwise), -ward(s) (homewards, seawards, afterwards). The
characteristic adverbial prefix is a- (away, ahead, apart, across).
Among the adverbs
there are also peculiar composite formations and phrasal formations of
prepositional, conjunctional and other types: sometimes, nowhere, anyhow; at
least, at most, at last; to and fro; upside down; etc.
Some authors include
in the word-building sets of adverbs also formations of the type from outside,
till now, before then, etc. However, it is not difficult to see that such
formations differ in principle from the ones cited above. The difference
consists in the fact that their parts are semantically not blended into an
indivisible lexemic unity and present combinations of a preposition with a
peculiar adverbial substantive - a
word occupying an intermediary lexico-grammatical status between the noun and
the adverb. This is most clearly seen on ready examples liberally offered by
English texts of every stylistic standing. E. g.:
The pale moon
looked at me from above. By now Sophie must have received the letter and very
soon we shall hear from her. The departure of the delegation is planned for
later this week.
The freely
converted adverbial substantives in prepositional collocations belong to one of
the idiomatic characteristics of English, and may be likened, with due
alteration of details, to partially substantivised adjectives of the adjectivid
type (see Ch. XVIII, §4). On
this analogy the adverbial substantives in question may be called
"adverbids".
Furthermore, there
are in English some other peculiar structural types of adverbs which are
derivationally connected with the words of non-adverbial lexemic classes by
conversion. To these belong both adverbs of full notional value and adverbs of
half-notional value.
A peculiar set of
converted notional adverbs is formed by adjective-stem conversives, such as
fast, late, hard, high, close, loud, tight, etc. The peculiar feature of these
adverbs consists in the fact that practically all of them have a parallel form
in -ly, the two component units of each pair often differentiated in meaning or
connotation. Cf.: to work hard - hardly
to work at all; to fall flat into the water -
to refuse flatly; to speak loud -
to criticise loudly; to fly high over the lake -
to raise a highly theoretical question; etc.
Among the
adjective-stem converted adverbs there are a few words with the non-specific
-ly originally in-built in the adjective: daily, weekly, lively, timely, etc.
The purely
positional nature of the conversion in question, i.e. its having no support in
any differentiated categorial paradigms, can be reflected by the term
"fluctuant conversives" which we propose to use as the name of such
formations.
As for the
fluctuant conversives of weakened pronominal semantics, very characteristic of
English are the adverbs that positionally interchange with prepositions and
conjunctive words: before, after, round, within, etc. Cf.: never before -
never before our meeting; somewhere round -
round the corner; not to be found within -
within a minute; etc.
Of quite a
different nature are preposition-adverb-like elements which, placed in
post-position to the verb, form a semantical blend with it. By combining with
these elements, verbs of broader meaning are subjected to a regular, systematic
multiplication of their semantic functions.
E. g.: to give -
to give up, to give in, to give out, to give away,
to give over, etc.; to set - to
set up, to set in, to set forth, to set off, to set down, etc.; to get -
to get on, to get off, to get up, to get
through, to get about, etc.; to work - to
work up, to work in, to work out, to work away,
to work over, etc.; to bring -
to bring about, to bring up, to bring through,
to bring forward, to bring down, etc.
The function of
these post-positional elements is either to impart an additional aspective
meaning to the verb-base, or to introduce a lexical modification to its
fundamental semantics. E.g.: to bring about -
to cause to happen; to reverse; to bring up -
to call attention to; to rear and educate; to
bring through - to
help overcome a difficulty or danger; to save (a sick person); to bring forward
- to introduce for
discussion; to carry to the next page (the sum of figures); to bring down -
to kill or wound; to destroy; to lower (as
prices, etc.).
The
lexico-grammatical standing of the elements in question has been interpreted in
different ways. Some scholars have treated them as a variety of adverbs (H.
Palmer, A. Smirnitsky); others, as preposition-like functional words (I.
Anichkov, N. Amosova);
still others, as peculiar prefix-like suffixes similar to the German separable
prefixes (Y. Zhluktenko); finally, some scholars have treated these words as a
special set of lexical elements functionally intermediate between words and
morphemes (B. A. Ilyish; B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya). The cited
variety of interpretations, naturally, testifies to the complexity of the
problem. Still, we can't fail to see that one fundamental idea is common to all
the various theories advanced, and that is, the idea of the functional
character of the analysed elements. Proceeding from this idea, we may class
these words as a special functional set of particles, i.e. words of
semi-morphemic nature, correlative with prepositions and conjunctions.
As for the name to
be given to the words for their descriptive identification, out of the variety
of the ones already existing ("postpositions", "adverbial
word-morphemes", "adverbial postpositions", etc.) we would
prefer the term "post-positives" introduced by N.
Amosova. While evading the confusion with
classical "postpositions" developed in some languages of
non-Indo-European types (i.e. post-nounal analogues of prepositions), this term
is fairly convenient for descriptive purposes and at the same time is neutral
categorially, i.e. it easily admits of additional specifications of
the nature of the units in question in the
course of their further linguistic study.
Adverbs are
commonly divided into qualitative, quantitative and circumstantial.
By qualitative such
adverbs are meant as express immediate, inherently non-graded qualities of
actions and other qualities. The typical adverbs of this kind are qualitative
adverbs in -ly. E. g.:
The little boy was
crying bitterly over his broken toy. The plainly embarrassed Department of
Industry confirmed the fact of the controversial deal.
The adverbs
interpreted as "quantitative" include words of degree. These are
specific lexical units of semi-functional nature expressing quality measure, or
gradational evaluation of qualities. They may be subdivided into several very
clearly pronounced sets.
The first set is
formed by adverbs of high degree. These adverbs are sometimes classed as
"intensifiers": very, quite, entirely, utterly, highly, greatly,
perfectly, absolutely, strongly, considerably, pretty, much. The second set
includes adverbs of excessive degree (direct and reverse) also belonging to the
broader subclass of intensifiers: too, awfully, tremendously, dreadfully,
terrifically. The third set is made up of adverbs of unexpected degree:
surprisingly, astonishingly, amazingly. The fourth set is formed by adverbs of
moderate degree: fairly, comparatively, relatively, moderately, rather. The
fifth set includes adverbs of low degree: slightly, a little, a bit. The sixth
set is constituted by adverbs of approximate degree: almost, nearly. The
seventh set includes adverbs of optimal degree: enough, sufficiently,
adequately. The eighth set is formed by adverbs of inadequate degree:
insufficiently, intolerably, unbearably, ridiculously. The ninth set is made up
of adverbs of under-degree: hardly, scarcely.
As we see, the
degree adverbs, though usually described under the heading of
"quantitative", in reality constitute a specific variety of
qualitative words, or rather some sort of intermediate qualitative-quantitative
words, in so far as they are used as quality evaluators. In this function they
are distinctly different from genuine quantitative adverbs which are directly
related to numerals and thereby form sets of words of pronominal order. Such
are numerical-pronominal adverbs
like twice, thrice, four times, etc.; twofold, threefold, many fold, etc.
Thus, we will agree
that the first general subclass of adverbs is formed by qualitative adverbs
which are subdivided into qualitative adverbs of full notional value and degree
adverbs - specific
functional words.
Circumstantial
adverbs are also divided into notional and functional.
The functional
circumstantial adverbs are words of pronominal nature. Besides quantitative
(numerical) adverbs mentioned above, they include adverbs of time, place,
manner, cause, consequence. Many of these words are used as syntactic
connectives and question-forming functionals. Here belong such words as now,
here, when, where, so, thus, how, why, etc.
As for
circumstantial adverbs of more self-dependent nature, they include two basic
sets: first, adverbs of time; second, adverbs of place: today, tomorrow,
already, ever, never, shortly, recently, seldom, early, late; homeward,
eastward, near, far, outside, ashore, etc. The two varieties express a general
idea of temporal and spatial orientation and essentially perform deictic
(indicative) functions in the broader sense. Bearing this in mind, we may unite
them under the general heading of "orientative" adverbs, reserving
the term "circumstantial" to syntactic analysis of utterances.
Thus, the whole
class of adverbs will be divided, first, into nominal and pronominal, and the
nominal adverbs will be subdivided into qualitative and orientative, the former
including genuine qualitative adverbs and degree adverbs, the latter falling
into temporal and local adverbs, with further possible subdivisions of more
detailed specifications.
As is the case with
adjectives, this lexemic subcategorisation of adverbs should be accompanied by
a more functional and flexible division into evaluative and specificative,
connected with the categorial expression of comparison. Each adverb subject to
evaluation grading by degree words expresses the category of comparison, much
in the same way as, mutatis mutandis, adjectives do. Thus, not only
qualitative, but also orientative adverbs, providing they come under the
heading of evaluative, are included into the categorial system of comparison.
Cf.: quickly - quicker
- quickest -
less quickly -
least quickly; frequently -
more frequently -
most frequently -
less frequently -
least frequently; ashore -
more ashore -
most ashore -
less ashore -
least ashore, etc.
Barring the
question of the uses of articles in comparative -
superlative collocations, all the problems
connected with the adjectival degrees of comparison retain their force for the
adverbial degrees of comparison, including the problem of elative superlative.
Among the various
types of adverbs, those formed from adjectives by means of the suffix -ly
occupy the most representative place and pose a special problem.
The problem is
introduced by the very regularity of their derivation, the rule of which can be
formulated quite simply: each qualitative adjective has a parallel adverb in
-ly. E. g.: silent - silently,
slow - slowly,
tolerable - tolerably,
pious - piously,
sufficient - sufficiently,
tired - tiredly,
explosive - explosively,
etc.
This regularity of
formation accompanied by the general qualitative character of semantics gave
cause to A. I. Smirnitsky to advance the view that both sets of words belong to
the same part of speech, the qualitative adverbs in -ly being in fact
adjectives of specific combinability [Смирницкий,
(2), 174-175].
The strong point of
the adjectival interpretation of qualitative adverbs in -ly is the
demonstration of the actual similarity between the two lexemic sets in their
broader evaluative function, which fact provides for the near-identity of the
adjectival and adverbial grammatical categories of comparison. On the whole,
however, the theory in question is hardly acceptable for the mere reason that
derivative relations in general are not at all relations of lexico-grammatical
identity; for that matter, they are rather relations of non-identity, since
they actually constitute a system of production of one type of lexical units
from another type of lexical units. As for the types of units belonging to the
same or different lexemic classes, this is a question of their actual status in
the system of lexicon, i. e. in the lexemic paradigm of nomination reflecting
the fundamental correlations between the lexemic sets of language (see Ch. IV, §
8). Since the English lexicon does
distinguish adjectives and adverbs; since adjectives are substantive-qualifying
words in distinction to adverbs, which are non-substantive qualifying words;
since, finally, adverbs in -ly do preserve this fundamental
nonsubstantive-qualification character -
there can't be any question of their being
"adjectives" in any rationally conceivable way. As for the regularity
or irregularity of derivation, it is absolutely irrelevant to the
identification of their class-lexemic nature.
Thus, the whole
problem is not a problem of part-of-speech identity; it is a problem of
inter-class connections, in particular, of inter-class systemic division of
functions, and, certainly, of the correlative status of the compared units in
the lexical paradigm of nomination.
But worthy of
attention is the relation of the adverbs in question to adverbs of other types
and varieties, i. e. their intra-class correlations. As a matter of fact, the
derivational features of other adverbs, in sharp contrast to the ly-adverbs,
are devoid of uniformity to such an extent that practically all of them fall
into a multitude of minor non-productive derivational groups. Besides, the bulk
of notional qualitative adverbs of other than ly-derivation have
ly-correlatives (both of similar and dissimilar meanings and connotations'».
These facts cannot but show that adverbs in -ly should be looked upon as the
standard type of the English adverb as a whole.
XX. SYNTAGMATIC
CONNECTIONS OF WORDS
Performing their
semantic functions, words in an utterance form various syntagmatic connections
with one another.
One should
distinguish between syntagmatic groupings of notional words alone, syntagmatic
groupings of notional words with functional words, and syntagmatic groupings of
functional words alone.
Different
combinations of notional words (notional phrases) have a clearly pronounced
self-dependent nominative destination, they denote complex phenomena and their
properties in their inter-connections, including dynamic interconnections
(semi-predicative combinations). Cf.: a sudden trembling; a soul in pain;
hurrying along the stream; to lead to a cross-road; strangely familiar; so sure
of their aims.
Combinations of a
notional word with a functional word are equivalent to separate words by their
nominative function. Since a functional word expresses some abstract relation,
such combinations, as a rule, are quite obviously non-self-dependent; they are,
as it were, stamped as artificially isolated from the context. Cf.: in a low
voice; with difficulty; must finish; but a moment; and Jimmy; too cold; so
unexpectedly.
We call these
combinations "formative" ones. Their contextual dependence
("synsemantism") is quite natural; functionally they may be compared
to separate notional words used in various marked grammatical forms (such as,
for instance, indirect cases of nouns). Cf.:
Eng. Mr. Snow's -
of Mr. Snow; him -
to him; Russ. Иванов
- к
Иванову;
лесом
- через
лес.
Expanding the cited
formative phrases with the corresponding notional words one can obtain notional
phrases of contextually self-dependent value ("autosemantic" on their
level of functioning). Cf.: Eng. Mr. Snow's considerations -
the considerations of Mr. Snow; gave it him -
gave it to him; Russ. позвонили
Иванову
- позвонили
к
Иванову;
шли
лесом
- шли
через
лес.
In this connection
we should remember that among the notional word-classes only the noun has a
full nominative force, for it directly names a substance. Similarly, we may
assert that among various phrase-types it is the noun-phrase that has a full
phrasal nominative force (see further).
As for syntagmatic
groupings of functional words, they are essentially analogous to separate
functional words and are used as connectors and specifiers of notional elements
of various status. Cf.: from out of; up to; so that; such as; must be able;
don't let's.
Functional phrases
of such and like character constitute limited groups supplementing the
corresponding subsets of regular one-item functional words, as different from
notional phrases which, as free combinations, form essentially open subsets of
various semantic destinations.
Groupings of
notional words fall into two mutually opposite types by their grammatical and
semantic properties.
Groupings of the
first type are constituted by words related to one another on an equal rank, so
that, for a case of a two-word combination, neither of them serves as a
modifier of the other. Depending on this feature, these combinations can be
called "equipotent".
Groupings of the
second type are formed by words which are syntactically unequal in the sense
that, for a case of a two-word
combination, one of them plays the role of a modifier of the other. Due to this
feature, combinations of the latter type can be called
"dominational".
Equipotent
connection in groupings of notional words is realised either with the help of
conjunctions (syndetically), or without the help of conjunctions
(asyndetically). Cf.: prose and poetry; came and went; on the beach or in the
water; quick but not careless; - no
sun, no moon; playing, chatting, laughing; silent, immovable, gloomy; Mary's,
not John's.
In the cited
examples, the constituents of the combinations form logically consecutive
connections that are classed as coordinative. Alongside of these, there exist
equipotent connections of a non-consecutive type, by which a sequential
element, although equal to the foregoing element by its formal introduction
(coordinative conjunction), is unequal to it as to the character of nomination.
The latter type of equipotent connections is classed as "cumulative".
The term
"cumulation" is commonly used to mean connections between separate
sentences. By way of restrictive indications, we may speak about "inner
cumulation", i. e. cumulation within the sentence, and, respectively,
"outer cumulation".
Cumulative
connection in writing is usually signalled by some intermediary punctuation
stop, such as a comma or a hyphen. Cf: Eng. agreed, but reluctantly; quick -
and careless; satisfied, or nearly so. Russ.
сыт, но не очень; согласен, или почти согласен; дал - да неохотно.
Syndetic connection
in a word-combination can alternate with asyndetic connection, as a result of
which the whole combination can undergo a semantically motivated sub-grouping.
Cf.: He is a little man with irregular features, soft dark eyes and a soft
voice, very shy, with a gift of mimicry and a love of music (S. Maugham).
In enumerative
combinations the last element, in distinction to the foregoing elements, can be
introduced by a conjunction, which underlines the close of the syntagmatic
series. Cf.: All about them happy persons were enjoying the good things of
life, talking, laughing, and making merry (S. Maugham).
The same is true
about combinations formed by repetition. E. g.: There were rows of books, books
and books everywhere.
Dominational
connection, as different from equipotent connection, is effected in such a way
that one of the constituents of the combination is principal (dominating) and
the other is subordinate (dominated). The principal element is commonly called
the "kernel", "kernel element", or "headword";
the subordinate element, respectively, the "adjunct",
"adjunct-word", "expansion".
Dominational
connection is achieved by different forms of the word (categorial agreement,
government), connective words (prepositions, i. e. prepositional government),
word-order.
Dominational
connection, like equipotent connection, can be both consecutive and cumulative.
Cf.: a careful observer an observer, seemingly careful; definitely out of
the
point -
- out of the point, definitely; will be helpful in
any case will be helpful - at
least, in some cases.
The two basic types
of dominational connection are bilateral (reciprocal, two-way) domination and
monolateral (one-way) domination. Bilateral domination is realised in
predicative connection of words, while monolateral domination is realised in
completive connection of words.
The predicative
connection of words, uniting the subject and the predicate, builds up the basis
of the sentence. The reciprocal nature of this connection consists in the fact
that the subject dominates the predicate determining the person of predication,
while the predicate dominates the subject, determining the event of
predication, i. e. ascribing to the predicative person some action, or state,
or quality. This difference in meaning between the elements of predication,
underlying the mutually opposite directions of domination, explains the seeming
paradox of the notion of reciprocal domination, exposing its dialectic essence.
Both directions of domination in a predicative group can be demonstrated by a
formal test.
The domination of the
subject over the predicate is exposed by the reflective character of the verbal
category of person and also the verbal category of number which is closely
connected with the former.
The English
grammatical forms of explicit subject-verb agreement (concord) are very scarce
(the inflexion marking the Third person singular present, and some special
forms of the verb be). Still, these scarce forms are dynamically correlated
with the other, grammatically non-agreed forms.
Cf.: he went - he
goes I went - I
go.
But apart from the
grammatical forms of agreement, the predicative person is directly reflected
upon the verb-predicate as such; the very semantics of the person determines
the subject reference of the predicative event (action, state, quality). Thus,
the subject unconditionally dominates over the predicate by its specific
substantive categories in both agreed, and non-agreed forms of predicative
connection.
As for the
predicate dominating the subject in its own sphere of grammatical functions,
this fact is clearly demonstrated by the correlation of the sentence and the
corresponding noun-phrase. Namely, the transformation of the sentence into the
noun-phrase places the predicate in the position of the head-word, and the
subject, in the position of the adjunct. Cf.: The train arrived. →
The arrival of the train.
Alongside of fully
predicative groupings of the subject and the finite verb-predicate, there exist
in language partially predicative groupings formed by a combination of a
non-finite verbal form (verbid) with a substantive element. Such are
infinitival, gerundial, and participial constructions.
The predicative
person is expressed in the infinitival construction by the prepositional
for-phrase, in the gerundial construction by the possessive or objective form
of the substantive, in the participial construction by the nominative (common)
form of the substantive. Cf.: The pupil understands his mistake -»
for the pupil to understand his mistake -»
the pupil('s) understanding his mistake -
the pupil understanding his mistake.
In the cited
semi-predicative (or potentially-predicative) combinations the
"event"-expressing element is devoid of the formal agreement with the
"person"-expressing element, but the two directions of domination
remain valid by virtue of the very predicative nature of the syntactic
connection in question (although presented in an incomplete form).
Thus, among the
syntagmatic connections of the reciprocal domination the two basic subtypes are
distinguished: first, complete predicative connections, second, incomplete
predicative connections (semi-predicative, potentially-predicative
connections).
The completive,
one-way connection of words (monolateral domination) is considered as
subordinative on the ground
that the outer syntactic status of the whole combination is determined by the
kernel element (head-word). Cf.:
She would be
reduced to a nervous wreck. → She
would be reduced to a wreck. → She
would be reduced. That woman was astonishingly beautiful. →
That woman was beautiful.
In the cited
examples the head-word can simply be isolated through the deletion of the
adjunct, the remaining construction being structurally complete, though
schematic. In other cases, the head-word cannot be directly isolated, and its
representative nature is to be exposed, for instance, by diagnostic questions.
Cf.: Larry greeted the girl heartily. -» Whom
did Larry greet? → How
did Larry greet the girl?
The questions help
demonstrate that the verb is presupposed as the kernel in its lines of
connections, i. e. objective and adverbial ones.
All the completive
connections fall into two main divisions: objective connections and qualifying
connections.
Objective
connections reflect the relation of the object to the process and are
characterised as, on the whole, very close. By their form these connections are
subdivided into non-prepositional (word-order, the objective form of the
adjunct substantive) and prepositional, while from the semantico-syntactic
point of view they are classed as direct (the immediate transition of the
action to the object) and indirect or oblique (the indirect relation of the
object to the process). Direct objective connections are non-prepositional, the
preposition serving as an intermediary of combining words by its functional
nature. Indirect objective connections may be both prepositional and
non-prepositional. Since, on the other hand, some prepositional objective
connections, in spite of their being indirect, still come very near to direct
ones in terms of closeness of the process-substance relation expressed, all the
objective connections may be divided into "narrow" and
"broader". Semantically, narrow prepositional objective connections
are then to be classed together with direct objective connections, the two
types forming the corresponding subclasses of non-prepositional (direct) and
prepositional (indirect) narrow objective connections of words. Cf.:
He remembered the
man. I won't stand any more nonsense. I sympathised with the child. They were
working on the problem. Etc.
Cf. examples of
broader indirect objective connections, both non-prepositional and
prepositional:
Will you show me
the picture? Whom did he buy it for? Tom peeped into the hall. Etc.
Further subdivision
of objective connections is realised on the basis of subcategorising the
elements of objective combinations, and first of all the verbs; thus, we
recognise objects of immediate action, of perception, of speaking, etc.
Objective connection
may also combine an adjunct substance word with a kernel word of non-verbal
semantics (such as a state or a property word), but the meaning of some
processual relation is still implied in the deep semantic base of such
combinations all the same. Cf.: aware of John's presence →
am aware; crazy about her →
got crazy about her; full of spite →
is full of spite; etc.
Qualifying
completive connections are divided into attributive and adverbial. Both are
expressed in English by word-order and prepositions.
Attributive
connection unites a substance with its attribute expressed by an adjective or a
noun. E. g.: an enormous appetite; an emerald ring; a woman of strong
character, the case for the prosecution; etc.
Adverbial
connection is subdivided into primary and secondary.
The primary
adverbial connection is established between the verb and its adverbial
modifiers of various standings. E.g.: to talk glibly, to come nowhere; to
receive (a letter) with surprise; to throw (one's arms) round a person's neck;
etc.
The secondary
adverbial connection is established between the non-verbal kernel expressing a
quality and its adverbial modifiers of various standings. E.g.: marvellously
becoming; very much at ease; strikingly alike; no longer oppressive;
unpleasantly querulous; etc.
Different
completive noun combinations are distinguished by a feature that makes them
into quite special units on the phrasemic level of language. Namely, in
distinction to all the other combinations' of words they are directly related
to whole sentences, i. e. predicative combinations of words. This fact was
illustrated above when we described the verbal domination over the subject in a
predicative grouping of words (see
§ 5). Compare some more examples given in the reverse order:
The arrival of the
train → The train arrived. The baked potatoes → The potatoes are
baked. The gifted pupil → The pupil has a gift.
Completive
combinations of adjectives and adverbs (adjective-phrases and adverb-phrases),
as different from noun combinations (noun-phrases), are related to predicative
constructions but indirectly, through the intermediary stage of the
corresponding noun-phrase. Cf.: utterly neglected - utter neglect - The neglect
is utter; very carefully - great carefulness - The carefulness is great; speechlessly
reproachful - speechless reproach - The reproach is speechless.
These distinctions
of completive word combinations are very important to understand for analysing
paradigmatic relations in syntax (see further).
CHAPTER XXI.
SENTENCE: GENERAL
sentence is the
immediate integral unit of speech built up of words according to a definite
syntactic pattern and distinguished by a contextually relevant communicative
purpose. Any coherent connection of words having an informative destination is
effected within the framework of the sentence. Therefore the sentence is the
main object of syntax as part of the grammatical theory.
The sentence, being
composed of words, may in certain cases include only one word of various
lexico-grammatical standing. Cf.: Night. Congratulations. Away! Why? Certainly.
The actual
existence of one-word sentences, however,
does not contradict
the general idea of the sentence as a special syntactic combination of words,
the same as the notion of one-element set in mathematics does not contradict
the general idea of the set as a combination of certain elements. Moreover,
this fact cannot lead even to the inference that under some circumstances the
sentence and the word may wholly coincide: a word-sentence as a unit of the
text is radically different from a word-lexeme as a unit of lexicon, the
differentiation being inherent in the respective places
occupied by the sentence and the word in the
hierarchy of language levels. While the word is a component element of the
word-stock and as such is a nominative unit of language, the sentence,
linguistically, is a predicative utterance-unit. It means that the sentence not
only names some referents with the help of its word-constituents, but also,
first, presents these referents as making up a certain situation, or, more
specifically, a situational event, and second, reflects the connection between
the nominal denotation of the event on the one hand, and objective reality on
the other, showing the time of the event, its being real or unreal, desirable
or undesirable, necessary or unnecessary, etc. Cf.:
I am satisfied, the
experiment has succeeded. I would have been satisfied if the experiment had
succeeded. The experiment seems to have succeeded - why then am I not
satisfied?
Thus, even one
uninflected word making up a sentence is thereby turned into an utterance-unit
expressing the said semantic complex through its concrete contextual and
consituational connections. By way of example, compare the different
connections of the word-sentence "night" in the following passages:
1) Night. Night and
the boundless sea, under the eternal star-eyes shining with promise. Was it a
dream of freedom coining true? 2) Night? Oh no. No night for me until 1 have
worked through the case. 3) Night. It pays all the day's debts. No cause for
worry now, I tell you.
Whereas the
utterance "night" in the first of the given passages refers the event
to the plane of reminiscences, the "night" of the second passage
presents a question in argument connected with the situation wherein the
interlocutors are immediately involved, while the latter passage features its
"night" in the form of a proposition of reason in the flow of
admonitions.
It follows from
this that there is another difference between the sentence and the word.
Namely, unlike the word, the sentence does not exist in the system of language
as a ready-made unit; with the exception of a limited number of utterances of
phraseological citation, it is created by the speaker in the course of
communication. Stressing this fact, linguists point out that the sentence, as
different from the word, is not a unit of language proper; it is a chunk of
text built
up as a result of speech-making process, out of different units of language,
first of all words, which are immediate means for making up contextually bound
sentences, i. e. complete units of speech.
It should be noted
that this approach to the sentence, very consistently exposed in the works of
the prominent Soviet scholar A. I. Smirnitsky, corresponds to the spirit of
traditional grammar from the early epoch of its development. Traditional
grammar has never regarded the sentence as part of the system of means of
expression; it has always interpreted the sentence not as an implement
for constructing speech, but as speech itself, i.
e. a portion of coherent flow of words of one speaker containing a complete
thought.
Being a unit of
speech, the sentence is intonationally delimited. Intonation separates one
sentence from another in the continual flow of uttered segments and, together with
various segmental means of expression, participates in rendering essential
communicative-predicative meanings (such as, for instance, the syntactic
meaning of interrogation in distinction to the meaning of declaration). The
role of intonation as a delimiting factor is especially important for sentences
which have more than one predicative centre, in particular more than one finite
verb. Cf.:
1) The class was
over, the noisy children fitted the corridors. 2) The class was over. The noisy
children filled the corridors.
Special intonation
contours, including pauses, represent the given speech sequence in the first
case as one compound sentence, in the second case as two different sentences
(though, certainly, connected both logically and syntactically).
On the other hand,
as we have stated elsewhere, the system of language proper taken separately,
and the immediate functioning of this system in the process of intercourse,
i.e. speech proper, present an actual unity and should be looked upon as the
two sides of one dialectically complicated substance - the human language in
the broad sense of the term. Within the framework of this unity the sentence
itself, as a unit of communication, also presents the two different sides,
inseparably connected with each other. Namely, within each sentence as an
immediate speech element of the communication process, definite standard
syntactic-semantic features are revealed which make up a typical model, a
generalised pattern repeated in an indefinite number of actual utterances.
This complicated
predicative pattern does enter the system of language. It exists on its own
level in the hierarchy of lingual segmental units in the capacity of a
"linguistic sentence" and as such is studied by grammatical theory,
Thus, the sentence
is characterised by its specific category of predication which establishes the
relation of the named phenomena to actual life. The general semantic category
of modality is also defined by linguists as exposing the connection between the
named objects and surrounding reality. However, modality, as different from
predication, is not specifically confined to the sentence; this is a broader
category revealed both in the grammatical elements of language and its lexical,
purely nominative elements. In this sense, every word expressing a definite
correlation between the named substance and objective reality should be
recognised as modal. Here belong such lexemes of full notional standing as
"probability", "desirability", "necessity" and
the like, together with all the derivationally relevant words making up the
corresponding series of the lexical paradigm of nomination; here belong
semi-functional words and phrases of probability and existential evaluation,
such as perhaps, may be, by all means, etc.; here belong further,
word-particles of specifying modal semantics, such as just, even, would-be,
etc.; here belong, finally, modal verbs expressing a broad range of modal
meanings which are actually turned into elements of predicative semantics in
concrete, contextually-bound utterances.
As for predication
proper, it embodies not any kind of modality, but only syntactic modality as
the fundamental distinguishing feature of the sentence. It is the feature of
predication, fully and explicitly expressed by a contextually relevant
grammatical complex, that identifies the sentence in distinction to any other
combination of words having a situational referent.
The centre of
predication in a sentence of verbal type (which is the predominant type of
sentence-structure in English) is a finite verb. The finite verb expresses
essential predicative meanings by its categorial forms, first of all, the
categories of tense and mood (the category of person, as we have seen before,
reflects the corresponding category of the subject). However, proceeding from
the principles of sentence analysis worked out in the Russian school of
theoretical syntax, in particular, in the classical treatises of V.V.
Vinogradov, we insist that predication is effected not only by the
forms of the finite verb connecting it with the
subject, but also by all the other forms and elements of the sentence
establishing the connection between the named objects and reality, including
such means of expression as intonation, word order, different functional words.
Besides the purely verbal categories, in the predicative semantics are included
such syntactic sentence meanings as purposes of communication (declaration -
interrogation - inducement), modal probability, affirmation and negation, and
others, which, taken together, provide for the sentence to be identified on its
own, proposemic level of lingual hierarchy.
From what has been
said about the category of predication, we see quite clearly that the general
semantic content of the sentence is not at all reduced to predicative meanings
only. Indeed, in order to establish the connection between some substance and
reality, it is first necessary to name the substance itself. This latter task
is effected in the sentence with the help of its nominative means. Hence, the
sentence as a lingual unit performs not one, but two essential signemic
(meaningful) functions: first, substance-naming, or nominative function; second,
reality-evaluating, or predicative function.
The terminological
definition of the sentence as a predicative unit gives prominence to the main
feature distinguishing the sentence from the word among the meaningful lingual
units (signernes). However, since every predication is effected upon a certain
nomination as its material semantic base, we gain a more profound insight into
the difference between the sentence and the word by pointing out the
two-aspective meaningful nature of the sentence. The semantics of the sentence
presents a unity of its nominative and predicative aspects, while the semantics
of the word, in this sense, is monoaspective.
Some linguists do
not accept the definition of the sentence through predication, considering it
to contain tautology, since, allegedly, it equates the sentence with
predication ("the sentence is predication, predication is the
sentence"). However, the identification of the two aspects of the sentence
pointed out above shows that this negative attitude is wholly unjustified; the
real content of the predicative interpretation of the sentence has nothing to
do with definitions of the "vicious circle" type. In point of fact»
as follows from the given exposition of predication, predicative meanings
do not exhaust the semantics of the sentence; on
the contrary, they presuppose the presence in the sentence of meanings of quite
another nature, which form its deeper nominative basis. Predicative functions
work upon this deep nominative basis, and as a result the actual utterance-sentence
is finally produced.
On the other hand,
we must also note a profound difference between the nominative function of the
sentence and the nominative function of the word. The nominative meaning of the
syntagmatically complete average sentence (an ordinary proposemic nomination)
reflects a processual situation or event that includes a certain process
(actional or statal) as its dynamic centre, the agent of the process, the
objects of the process, and also the various conditions and circumstances of
the realisation of the process. This content of the proposemic event, as is
known from school grammar, forms the basis of the traditional syntactic
division of the sentence into its functional parts. In other words, the
identification of traditional syntactic parts of the sentence is nothing else
than the nominative division of the sentence. Cf.:
The pilot was
steering the ship out of the harbour.
The old pilot was
carefully steering the heavily loaded ship through the narrow straits out of
the harbour.
As is easily seen,
no separate word, be it composed of so many stems, can express the described
situation-nominative semantics of the proposition. Even hyperbolically
complicated artificial words such as are sometimes coined for various
expressive purposes by authors of fiction cannot have means of organising their
root components analogous to the means of arranging the nominative elements of
the sentence.
Quite different in
this respect is a nominal phrase - a compound signemic unit made up of words
and denoting a complex phenomenon of reality analysable into its component
elements together with various relations between them. Comparative observations
of predicative and non-predicative combinations of words have unmistakably
shown that among the latter there are quite definite constructions which are
actually capable of realising nominations of proposemic situations. These are
word-combinations of full nominative value represented by expanded substantive
phrases. It is these combinations that, by their nominative potential, directly
correspond to sentences expressing typical proposemic situations. Cf.:
... → The
pilot's steering of the ship out of the harbour. ... → The old pilot's
careful steering of the heavily loaded ship through the narrow straits out of
the harbour.
In other words,
between the sentence and the substantive word-combination of the said full
nominative type, direct transformational relations are established: the
sentence, interpreted as an element of paradigmatics, is transformed into the
substantive phrase, or "nominalised", losing its
processual-predicative character. Thus, syntactic nominalisation, while
depriving the sentence of its predicative aspect (and thereby, naturally,
destroying the sentence as an immediate communicative unit), preserves its
nominative aspect intact.
The identification
of nominative aspect of the sentence effected on the lines of studying the
paradigmatic relations in syntax makes it possible to define more accurately
the very notion of predication as the specific function of the sentence.
The functional
essence of predication has hitherto been understood in linguistics as the
expression of the relation of the utterance (sentence) to reality, or, in more
explicit presentation, as the expression of the relation between the content of
the sentence and reality. This kind of understanding predication can be seen,
for instance, in the well-known "Grammar of the Russian Language"
published by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, where it is stated that
"the meaning and purpose of the general category of predication forming
the sentence consists in referring the content of the sentence to
reality".* Compare with this the definition advanced by A. I. Smirnitsky,
according to which predication is understood as "referring the utterance
to reality" [Смирницкий,
(1), 102].
The essential
principles of this interpretation of predication can be expressed even without
the term "predication" as such. The latter approach to the exposition
of the predicative meaning of the sentence can be seen, for instance, in the
course of English grammar by M. A. Ganshina and N. M. Vasilevskaya, who write:
"Every sentence shows the relation of the statement to reality from the
point of view of the speaker" [Ganshina, Vasilevskaya, 321].
Now, it is easily
noticed that the cited and similar definitions
of predication do not explicitly distinguish the two cardinal sides of the
sentence content, namely, the nominative side and the predicative side. We may
quite plausibly suppose that the non-discrimination of these two sides of
sentence meaning gave the ultimate cause to some scholars for their negative
attitude towards the notion of predication as the fundamental factor of
sentence forming.
Taking into
consideration the two-aspective character of the sentence as a signemic unit of
language, predication should now be interpreted not simply as referring the
content of the sentence to reality, but as referring the nominative content of
the sentence to reality. It is this interpretation of the semantic-functional
nature of predication that discloses, in one and the same generalised
presentation, both the unity of the two identified aspects of the sentence, and
also their different, though mutually complementary meaningful roles.
XXII. ACTUAL
DIVISION OF THE SENTENCE
notional parts of
the sentence referring to the basic elements of the reflected situation form,
taken together, the nominative meaning of the sentence. For the sake of
terminological consistency, the division of the sentence into notional parts
can be just so called - the "nominative division" (its existing names
are the "grammatical division" and the "syntactic division").
The discrimination of the nominative division of the sentence is traditional;
it is this type of division that can conveniently be shown by a syntagmatic
model, in particular, by a model of immediate constituents based on the
traditional syntactic analysis (see Ch. XXIV).
Alongside of the
nominative division of the sentence, the idea of the so-called "actual
division" of the sentence has been put forward in theoretical linguistics.
The purpose of the actual division of the sentence, called also the
"functional sentence perspective", is to reveal the correlative
significance of the sentence parts from the point of view of their actual
informative role in an utterance, i.e. from the point of view of the immediate
semantic contribution they make to the total information conveyed by the
sentence in the context of connected speech. In other words,
the actual division of the sentence in fact
exposes its informative perspective.
The main components
of the actual division of the sentence are the theme and the rheme. The theme
expresses the starting point of the communication, i.e. it denotes an object or
a phenomenon about which something is reported. The rheme expresses the basic
informative part of the communication, its contextually relevant centre.
Between the theme and the rheme are positioned intermediary, transitional parts
of the actual division of various degrees of informative value (these parts are
sometimes called "transition").
The theme of the
actual division of the sentence may or may not coincide with the subject of the
sentence. The rheme of the actual division, in its turn, may or may not
coincide with the predicate of the sentence - either with the whole predicate
group or its part, such as the predicative, the object, the adverbial.
Thus, in the
following sentences of various emotional character the theme is expressed by
the subject, while the rheme is expressed by the predicate:
Max bounded
forward. Again Charlie is being too clever! Her advice can't be of any help to
us.
In the first of the
above sentences the rheme coincides with the whole predicate group. In the
second sentence the adverbial introducer again can be characterised as a
transitional element, i.e. an element informationally intermediary between the
theme and the rheme, the latter being expressed by the rest of the predicate
group, The main part of the rheme - the "peak" of informative
perspective -- is rendered in this sentence by the intensified predicative too
clever. In the third sentence the addressee object to us is more or less
transitional, while the informative peak, as in the previous example, is
expressed by the predicative of any help.
In the following
sentences the correlation between the nominative and actual divisions is the
reverse: the theme is expressed by the predicate or its part, while the rheme
is rendered by the subject:
Through the open
window came the purr of an approaching motor car. Who is coming late but John!
There is a difference of opinion between the parties.
Historically the
theory of actual division of the sentence is connected with the logical
analysis of the proposition. The principal
parts of the proposition, as is known, are the logical subject and the logical
predicate. These, like the theme and the rheme, may or may not coincide,
respectively, with the subject and the predicate of the sentence. The logical
categories of subject and predicate are prototypes of the linguistic categories
of theme and rheme. However, if logic analyses its categories of subject and
predicate as the meaningful components of certain forms of thinking,
linguistics analyses the categories of theme and rheme as the corresponding
means of expression used by the speaker for the sake of rendering the
informative content of his communications.
The 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. This can be illustrated by the following example: Mary is fond of
poetry.
In the cited
sentence, if we approach it as a stylistically neutral construction devoid of
any specific connotations, the theme is expressed by the subject, and the
rheme, by the predicate. This kind of actual division is "direct". On
the other hand, a certain context may be built around the given sentence in the
conditions of which the order of actual division will be changed into the
reverse: the subject will turn into the exposer of the rheme, while the
predicate, accordingly, into the exposer of the theme. Cf.: "Isn't it
surprising that Tim is so fond of poetry?" - "But you are wrong. Mary
is fond of poetry, not Tim."
The actual division
in which the rheme is expressed by the subject is to be referred to as
"inverted".
The close
connection of the actual division of the sentence with the context in the
conditions of which it is possible to divide the informative parts of the
communication into those "already known" by the listener and those
"not yet known" by him, gave cause to the recognised founder of the
linguistic theory of actual division J. Mathesius to consider this kind of
sentence division as a purely semantic factor sharply opposed to the
"formally grammatical" or "purely syntactic" division of
the sentence (in our terminology called its "nominative" division).
One will agree that
the actual division of the sentence will really lose all connection with syntax
if its components are to be identified solely on the principle of their being
"known" or "unknown" to the
listener. However, we must bear in mind that the informative value of
developing speech consists not only in introducing new words that denote things
and phenomena not mentioned before; the informative value of communications
lies also in their disclosing various new relations between the elements of
reflected events, though the elements themselves may be quite familiar to the
listener. The expression of a certain aspect of these relations, namely, the
correlation of the said elements from the point of view of their immediate
significance in a given utterance produced as a predicative item of a continual
speech, does enter the structural plane of language. This expression becomes
part and parcel of the structural system of language by the mere fact that the
correlative informative significance of utterance components are rendered by
quite definite, generalised and standardised lingual constructions. The
functional purpose of such constructions is to reveal the meaningful centre of
the utterance (i.e. its rheme) in distinction to the starting point of its
content (i.e. its theme).
These constructions
do not present any "absolutely formal", "purely
differential" objects of language which are filled with semantic content
only in the act of speech communication. On the contrary, they are bilateral
signemic units in exactly the same sense as other meaningful constructions of
language, i.e. they are distinguished both by their material form and their
semantics. It follows from this that the constructional, or immediately
systemic side of the phenomenon which is called the "actual division of
the sentence" belongs to no other sphere of language than syntax. And the
crucial syntactic destination of the whole aspect of the actual division is its
rheme-identifying function, since an utterance is produced just for the sake of
conveying the meaningful content expressed by its central informative part,
i.e. by the rheme.
Among the formal
means of expressing the distinction between the theme and the rheme
investigators name such structural elements of language as word-order patterns,
intonation contours, constructions with introducers, syntactic patterns of
contrastive complexes, constructions with articles and other determiners,
constructions with intensifying particles.
The difference
between the actual division of sentences signalled by the difference in their
word-order patterns can be
most graphically illustrated by the simplest type of transformations. Cf.:
The winner of the
competition stood on the platform in the middle of the hall. → On the
platform in the middle of the hall stood the winner of the competition. Fred
didn't notice the flying balloon. → The one who didn't notice the flying
balloon was Fred. Helen should be the first to receive her diploma. → The
first to receive her diploma should be Helen.
In all the cited
examples, i.e. both base sentences and their transforms, the rheme (expressed
either by the subject or by an element of the predicate group) is placed
towards the end of the sentence, while the theme is positioned at the beginning
of it. This kind of positioning the components of the actual division
corresponds to the natural development of thought from the starting point of
communication to its semantic centre, or, in common parlance, from the
"known data" to the "unknown (new) data". Still, in other
contextual conditions, the reversed order of positioning the actual division
components is used, which can be shown by the following illustrative
transformations:
It was unbelievable
to all of them. → Utterly unbelievable it was to all of them. Now you are
speaking magic words, Nancy. → Magic words you are speaking now, Nancy.
You look so well! → How well you look!
It is easily seen
from the given examples that the reversed order of the actual division, i.e.
the positioning of the rheme at the beginning of the sentence, is connected
with emphatic speech.
Among constructions
with introducers, the there-pattern provides for the rhematic identification of
the subject without emotive connotations. Cf.:
Tall birches
surrounded the lake. → There were tall birches surrounding the lake. A
loud hoot came from the railroad. → There came a loud hoot from the
railroad.
Emphatic
discrimination of the rheme expressed by various parts of the sentence is
achieved by constructions with the anticipatory it. Cf.:
Grandma gave them a
moment's deep consideration. → It was a moment's deep consideration that
Grandma gave them.
She had just escaped something simply awful. ~* It was something simply awful
that she had just escaped. At that moment Laura joined them. → It was
Laura who joined them at that moment.
Syntactic patterns
of contrastive complexes are used to expose the rheme of the utterance in cases
when special accuracy of distinction is needed. This is explained by the fact
that the actual division as such is always based on some sort of antithesis or
"contraposition" (see further), which in an ordinary speech remains
implicit. Thus, a syntactic contrastive complex is employed to make explicative
the inner contrast inherent in the actual division by virtue of its functional
nature. This can be shown on pairs of nominatively cognate examples of
antithetic constructions where each member-construction will expose its own
contrastively presented element. Cf.:
The costume is
meant not for your cousin, but for you.
The costume, not
the frock, is meant for you, my dear.
The strain told not
so much on my visitor than on myself.
The strain of the
situation, not the relaxation of it, was
what surprised me.
Determiners, among
them the articles, used as means of forming certain patterns of actual
division, divide their functions so that the definite determiners serve as
identifiers of the theme while the indefinite determiners serve as identifiers
of the rheme. Cf.:
The man walked up
and down the platform. -- A man walked up and down the platform. The whole book
was devoted to the description of a tiny island on the Pacific.
A whole book is
needed to describe that tiny island on the Pacific. I'm sure Nora's knitting
needles will suit you. - I'm sure any knitting needles will suit you.
Intensifying
particles identify the rheme, commonly imparting emotional colouring to the
whole of the utterance. Cf.:
Mr. Stores had a
part in the general debate. → Even Mr. Stores had a part in the general
debate. Then he sat down in one of the armchairs. → Only then did he sit
down in one of the armchairs. We were impressed by what we heard and saw. →
We were so impressed by what we heard and saw.
As for intonation
as a means of realising the actual division, it might appear that its sphere is
relatively limited, being confined to oral speech only. On closer
consideration, however, this view of rheme-identifying role of intonation
proves inadequate. To appreciate the true status of intonation in the actual
division of the sentence, one should abstract oneself from "paper
syntax" (description of written texts) and remember that it is phonetical
speech, i.e. articulately pronounced utterances that form the basis of human language
as a whole. As soon as the phonetical nature of language is duly taken account
of, intonation with its accent-patterns presents itself not as a limited, but
as a universal and indisputable means of expressing the actual division in all
types and varieties of lingual contexts. This universal rheme-identifying
function of intonation has been described in treatises on logic, as well as in
traditional philological literature, in terms of "logical accent".
The "logical accent", which amounts linguistically to the "rhematic
accent", is inseparable from the other rheme-identifying means described
above, especially from the word-order patterns. Moreover, all such means in
written texts in fact represent the logical accent, i.e. they indicate its
position either directly or indirectly. This can be seen on all the examples
hitherto cited in the present chapter.
While recognising
the logical accent as a means of effecting the actual division, we must
strictly distinguish between the elements immediately placed under the phonetical,
"technical" stress, and the sentence segments which are identified as
the informative centre of communication in the true sense of the term.
Technically, not
only notional, but functional units as well can be phrasally stressed in an
utterance, which in modern printed texts is shown by special graphical ways of
identification, such as italics, bold type, etc. Cf.:
"I can't bring
along someone who isn't invited." - "But I am invited!" said
Miss Casement (I. Murdoch). Moreover, being a highly intelligent young woman,
she'd be careful not to be the only one affected (Л.
Christie).
However, it would
be utterly incorrect to think that in such instances only those word-units are
logically, i.e. rhematically, marked out as are stressed phonetically. As a matter
of fact, functional elements cannot express any self-dependent nomination; they
do not exist by themselves, but make up units of nomination together with the
notional elements of utterances whose meanings they specify. Thus, the phrasal
phonetical stress, technically making prominent some functional element,
thereby identifies as rhematic the corresponding notional part
("knot") of the utterance as a whole. It is such notional parts that
are real members of the opposition "theme - rheme", not their functional
constituents taken separately. As for the said functional constituents
themselves, these only set up specific semantic bases on which the relevant
rhematic antitheses are built up.
The actual
division, since it is effected upon the already produced nominative sentence
base providing for its contextually relevant manifestation, enters the
predicative aspect of the sentence. It makes up part of syntactic predication,
because it strictly meets the functional purpose of predication as such, which
is to relate the nominative content of the sentence to reality (see Ch. XXI).
This predicative role of the actual division shows that its contextual
relevance is not reduced to that of a passive, concomitant factor of
expression. On the contrary, the actual division is an active means of
expressing functional meanings, and, being organically connected with the
context, it is not so much context-governed as it is |context-governing: in
fact, it does build up concrete contexts out of constructional sentence-models
chosen to reflect different situations and events.
One of the most
important manifestations of the immediate contextual relevance of the actual
division is the regular deletion (ellipsis) of the thematic parts of utterances
in dialogue speech. By this syntactic process, the rheme of the utterance or
its most informative part (peak of informative perspective) is placed in
isolation, thereby being very graphically presented to the listener. Cf.:
"You've got
the letters?" - "In my bag" (G. W. Target). "How did you
receive him?" - "Coldly" (J. Galsworthy).
In other words, the
thematic reduction of sentences in the context, resulting in a constructional
economy of speech, performs an informative function in parallel with the
logical accent: it serves to accurately identify the rheme of the utterance.
XXIII.
COMMUNICATIVE TYPES OF SENTENCES
sentence is a
communicative unit, therefore the primary classification of sentences must be
based on the communicative principle. This principle is formulated in
traditional grammar as the "purpose of communication".
The purpose of
communication, by definition, refers to the sentence as a whole, and the
structural features connected with the expression of this sentential function
belong to the fundamental, constitutive qualities of the sentence as a lingual
unit.
In accord with the
purpose of communication three cardinal sentence-types have long been
recognised in linguistic tradition: first, the declarative sentence; second,
the imperative (inducive) sentence; third, the interrogative sentence. These
communicative sentence-types stand in strict opposition to one another, and
their inner properties of form and meaning are immediately correlated with the
corresponding features of the listener's responses.
Thus, the
declarative sentence expresses a statement, either affirmative or negative, and
as such stands in systemic syntagmatic correlation with the listener's
responding signals of attention, of appraisal (including agreement or
disagreement), of fellow-feeling. Cf.:
"I
think," he said, "that Mr. Desert should be asked to give us his
reasons for publishing that poem." - "Hear, hear!" said the К.
С.
(J. Galsworthy). "We live very quietly
here, indeed we do; my niece here will tell you the same." - "Oh,
come, I'm not such a fool as that," answered the squire (D. du Maurier).
The imperative
sentence expresses inducement, either affirmative or negative. That is, it
urges the listener, in the form of request or command, to perform or not to
perform a certain action. As such, the imperative sentence is situationally
connected with the corresponding "action response" (Ch. Fries), and
lingually is systemically correlated with a verbal response showing that the
inducement is either complied with, or else rejected. Cf.:
"Let's go and
sit down up there, Dinny." - "Very well" (J. Galsworthy).
"Then marry me." - "Really, Alan, I never met anyone with so few
ideas" (J. Galsworthy). "Send him back!" he said again. -
"Nonsense, old chap" (J. Aldridge).
Since the
communicative purpose of the imperative sentence is to make the listener act as
requested, silence on the part of the latter (when the request is fulfilled),
strictly speaking, is also linguistically relevant. This gap in speech, which
situationally is filled in by the listener's action, is set off in literary
narration by special comments and descriptions. Cf.:
"Knock on the
wood." - Retan's man leaned forward and knocked three times on the barrera
(E. Hemingway). "Shut the piano," whispered Dinny; "let's go
up." - Diana closed the piano without noise and rose (J. Galsworthy).
The interrogative
sentence expresses a question, i.e. a request for information wanted by the
speaker from the listener. By virtue of this communicative purpose, the
interrogative sentence is naturally connected with an answer, forming together
with it a question-answer dialogue unity. Cf.:
"What do you
suggest I should do, then?" said Mary helplessly. - "If I were you I
should play a waiting game," he replied (D. du Maurier).
Naturally, in the
process of actual communication the interrogative communicative purpose, like
any other communicative task, may sporadically not be fulfilled. In case it is
not fulfilled, the question-answer unity proves to be broken; instead of a
needed answer the speaker is faced by silence on the part of the listener, or
else he receives the latter's verbal rejection to answer. Cf.:
"Why can't you
lay off?" I said to her. But she didn't even notice me (R. P. Warren).
"Did he know about her?" - "You'd better ask him" (S.
Maugham).
Evidently, such and
like reactions to interrogative sentences are not immediately relevant in terms
of environmental syntactic featuring.
An attempt to
revise the traditional communicative classification of sentences was made by
the American scholar Ch. Fries who classed them, as a deliberate challenge to
the "accepted
routine", not in accord with the purposes of communication, but according
to the responses they elicit [Fries, 29-53].
In Fries's system,
as a universal speech unit subjected to communicative analysis was chosen not
immediately a sentence, but an utterance unit (a "free" utterance,
i.e. capable of isolation) understood as a continuous chunk of talk by one
speaker in a dialogue. The sentence was then defined as a minimum free
utterance.
Utterances
collected from the tape-recorded corpus of dialogues (mostly telephone
conversations) were first classed into "situation utterances"
(eliciting a response), and "response utterances". Situation single
free utterances (i.e. sentences) were further divided into three groups:
1) Utterances
that are regularly followed by oral responses only. These are greetings, calls,
questions. E.g.:
Hello! Good-bye!
See you soon! ... Dad! Say, dear! Colonel Howard! ... Have you got moved in?
What are you going to do for the summer? ...
2) Utterances
regularly eliciting action responses. These are requests or commands. E.g.:
Read that again,
will you? Oh, wait a minute! Please have him call Operator Six when he comes
in! Will you see just exactly what his status is?
3) Utterances
regularly eliciting conventional signals of attention to continuous discourse.
These are statements. E.g.:
I've been talking
with Mr. D - in the purchasing department about our type-writer. (-Yes?). That
order went in March seventh. However it seems that we are about eighth on the
list. (- I see). Etc.
Alongside of the
described "communicative" utterances, i.e. utterances directed to a
definite listener, another, minor type of utterances were recognised as not
directed to any listener but, as Ch. Fries puts it, "characteristic of
situations such as surprise, sudden pain, disgust, anger, laughter, sorrow"
[Fries, 53]. E.g.: Oh, oh! Goodness! My God! Darn! Gosh! Etc.
Such and like
interjectional units were classed by Ch. Fries as "noncommunicative"
utterances.
Observing the given
classification, it is not difficult to see
that, far from refuting or discarding the traditional classification of
sentences built up on the principle of the "purpose of
communication", it rather confirms and specifies it. Indeed, the very
purpose of communication inherent in the addressing sentence is reflected in
the listener's response. The second and third groups of Ch, Fries's
"communicative" sentences-utterances are just identical imperative
and declarative types both by the employed names and definition. As for the
first group, it is essentially heterogeneous, which is recognised by the
investigator himself, who distinguishes in its composition three
communicatively different subgroups. One of these ("C") is
constituted by "questions", i.e. classical interrogative sentences.
The other two, viz. greetings ("A") and calls ("B"), are
syntactically not cardinal, but, rather, minor intermediary types, making up
the periphery of declarative sentences (greetings - statements of conventional
goodwill at meeting and parting) and imperative sentences (calls - requests for
attention). As regards "non-communicative" utterances -
interjectional units, they are devoid of any immediately expressed intellective
semantics, which excludes them from the general category of sentence as such
(see further).
Thus, the
undertaken analysis should, in point of fact, be looked upon as an actual
application of the notions of communicative sentence-types to the study of oral
speech, resulting in further specifications and development of these notions.
Alongside of the
three cardinal communicative sentence-types, another type of sentences is
recognised in the theory of syntax, namely, the so-called exclamatory sentence.
In modern linguistics it has been demonstrated that exclamatory sentences do
not possess any complete set of qualities that could place them on one and the
same level with the three cardinal communicative types of sentences. The
property of exclamation should be considered as an accompanying feature which
is effected within the system of the three cardinal communicative types of
sentences.* In other words, each of the cardinal communicative sentence types
can be represented in the two variants, viz. non-exclamatory and exclamatory.
For instance, with the following exclamatory
sentences-statements it is easy to identify their non-exclamatory declarative
prototypes:
What a very small
cabin it was! (K. Mansfield) -
It was a very small cabin. How utterly she had lost count of events! (J.
Galsworthy) <- She had lost count of events. Why, if it isn't my lady! (J.
Erskine) «- It is my lady.
Similarly, exclamatory
questions are immediately related in the syntactic system to the corresponding
non-exclamatory interrogative sentences. E.g.:
Whatever do you
mean, Mr. Critchlow? (A. Bennett) «-What do you mean? Then why in God's name
did you come? (K. Mansfield) «- Why did you come?
Imperative
sentences, naturally, are characterised by a higher general degree of emotive
intensity than the other two cardinal communicative sentence-types. Still, they
form analogous pairs, whose constituent units are distinguished from each other
by no other feature than the presence or absence of exclamation as such. E.g.:
Francis, will you
please try to speak sensibly! (E. Hemingway) «- Try to speak sensibly. Don't
you dare to compare me to common people! (B. Shaw) <- Don't compare me to
common people. Never so long as you live say I made you do that! (J. Erskine)
<- Don't say I made you do that.
As is seen from the
given examples, all the three pairs of variant communicative types of sentences
(non-exclamatory - exclamatory for each cardinal division) make up distinct
semantico-syntactic oppositions effected by regular grammatical means of
language, such as intonation, word-order and special constructions with
functional-auxiliary lexemic elements. It follows from this that the functional-communicative
classification of sentences specially distinguishing emotive factor should
discriminate, on the lower level of analysis, between the six sentence-types
forming, respectively, three groups (pairs) of cardinal communicative quality.
The communicative
properties of sentences can further be exposed in the light of the theory of
actual division of the sentence.
The actual division
provides for the informative content of the utterance to be expressed with the
due gradation of its
parts according to the significance of their respective role in the context.
But any utterance is formed within the framework of the system of communicative
types of sentences. And as soon as we compare the communication-purpose aspect
of the utterance with its actual division aspect we shall find that each
communicative sentence type is distinguished by its specific actual division
features, which are revealed first and foremost in the nature of the rheme as
the meaningful nucleus of the utterance.
The strictly declarative
sentence immediately expresses a certain proposition. By virtue of this, the
actual division of the declarative sentence presents itself in the most
developed and complete form. The rheme of the declarative sentence makes up the
centre of some statement as such. This can be distinctly demonstrated by a
question-test directly revealing the rhematic part of an utterance. Cf.: The
next instant she had recognised him. → What had she done the next
instant?
The pronominal
what-question clearly exposes in the example the part "(had) recognised
him" as the declarative rheme, for this part is placed within the
interrogative-pronominal reference. In other words, the tested utterance with
its completed actual division is the only answer to the cited potential question;
the utterance has been produced by the speaker just to express the fact of
"his being recognised".
Another
transformational test for the declarative rheme is the logical superposition.
The logical superposition consists in transforming the tested construction into
the one where the rheme is placed in the position of the logically emphasised
predicate. By way of example let us take the second sentence in the following
sequence: And I was very uneasy. All sorts of forebodings assailed me.
The logical superposition
of the utterance is effected thus: → What assailed me was all sorts of
forebodings.
This test marks out
the subject of the utterance "all sorts of forebodings" as the rheme,
because it is just this part of the utterance that is placed in the emphatic
position of the predicate in the superpositional transform.
Similar diagnostic
procedures expose the layer-structure of the actual division in composite
syntactic constructions. For instance, in the following complex sentence
rhematic question-tests easily reveal the three declarative rhemes on the three
consecutive syntactic layers: I knew that Mr, Wade had been very excited by
something that he had found out.
Test for the first
syntactic layer: What did I know?
Test for the second
syntactic layer: What state was Mr. Wade in?
Test for the third
syntactic layer: What made him excited? (By what was he excited?)
The strictly
imperative sentence, as different from the strictly declarative sentence, does
not express by its immediate destination any statement of fact, i.e. any
proposition proper. It is only based on a proposition, without formulating it
directly. Namely, the proposition underlying the imperative sentence is
reversely contrasted against the content of the expressed inducement, since an
urge to do something (affirmative inducement) is founded on the premise that
something is not done or is otherwise not affected by the wanted action, and,
conversely, an urge not to do something (negative inducement) is founded on the
directly opposite premise. Cf.:
Let's go out at
once! (The premise: We are in.) Never again take that horrible woman into your
confidence, Jerry! (The premise: Jerry has taken that horrible woman into his
confidence.)
Thus, the rheme of
the imperative utterance expresses the informative nucleus not of an explicit
proposition, but of an inducement - a wanted (or unwanted) action together with
its referential attending elements (objects, qualities, circumstances).
Due to the
communicative nature of the inducement addressed to the listener, its thematic
subject is usually zeroed, though it can be represented in the form of direct
address. Cf.:
Don't try to
sidetrack me (J. Braine). Put that dam* dog down, Fleur; I can't see your face
(J. Galsworthy). Kindly tell me what you meant, Wilfrid (J. Galsworthy).
Inducements that
include in the address also the speaker himself, or are directed, through the
second person medium, to a third person (persons) present their thematic
subjects explicit in the construction. E.g.:
I say, Bob, let's
try to reconstruct the scene as it developed. Please don't let's quarrel over
the speeds now. Let her produce the document if she has it.
The whole
composition of an ordinary imperative utterance is usually characterised by a
high informative value, so
that the rheme proper, or the informative peak, may stand here not so distinctly
against the background information as in the declarative utterance. Still,
rhematic testing of imperative utterances does disclose the communicative
stratification of their constituents. Compare the question-tests of a couple of
the cited examples:
Put that dam' dog
down, Fleur. → What is Fleur to do with the dog? Kindly tell me what you
meant, Wilfrid. → What is Wilfrid to tell the speaker?
As for the
thematic, and especially the subrhematic (transitional) elements of the
imperative utterance, they often are functionally charged with the type-grading
of inducement itself,-i.e.-with making it into a command, prohibition, request,
admonition, entreaty, etc. Compare, in addition to the cited, some more
examples to this effect:
Let us at least
remember to admire each other (L. Hellman).
Oh, please stop it... Please, please stop it (E.
Hemingway). Get out before I break your dirty little neck (A. Hailey).
The second-person
inducement may include the explicit pronominal subject, but such kind of
constructions should be defined as of secondary derivation. They are connected
with a complicated informative content to be conveyed to the listener-performer,
expressing, on the one hand, the choice of the subject out of several
persons-participants of the situation, and on the other hand, appraisals
rendering various ethical connotations (in particular, the type-grading of
inducement mentioned above). Cf.:
"What about
me?" she asked. - "Nothing doing. You go to bed and sleep" (A.
Christie). Don't you
worry about me, sir. I shall be all right (B..K. Seymour).
At a further stage
of complication, the subject of the inducement may be shifted to the position
of the rheme. E.g.:
"...We have to
do everything we can." - "You do it," he said. "I'm
tired" (E. Hemingway).
The essentially
different identifications of the rheme in the two imperative utterances of the
cited example can be proved by transformational testing: ... → What we
have to do is (to do) everything we can. ... → The person who should do
it is you.
The inducement with
the rhematic subject of the latter type
may be classed as the "(informatively) shifted inducement".
As far as the
strictly interrogative sentence is concerned, its actual division is uniquely
different from the actual division of both the declarative and the imperative
sentence-types.
The unique quality
of the interrogative actual division is determined by the fact that the
interrogative sentence, instead of conveying some relatively self-dependent
content, expresses an inquiry about information which the speaker (as a
participant of a typical question-answer situation) does not possess. Therefore
the rheme of the interrogative sentence, as the nucleus of the inquiry, is
informationally open (gaping); its function consists only in marking the
rhematic position in the response sentence and programming the content of its
filler in accord with the nature of the inquiry.
Different types of
questions present different types of open rhemes.
In the pronominal
("special") question, the nucleus of inquiry is expressed by an
interrogative pronoun. The pronoun is immediately connected with the part of
the sentence denoting the object or phenomenon about which the inquiry
("condensed" in the pronoun) is made. The gaping pronominal meaning
is to be replaced in the answer by the wanted actual information. Thus, the
rheme of the answer is the reverse substitute of the interrogative pronoun: the
two make up a rhematic unity in the broader question-answer construction. As
for the thematic part of the answer, it is already expressed in the question,
therefore in common speech it is usually zeroed. E.g.:
"Why do you
think so?" - "Because mostly I keep my eyes open, miss, and I talk to
people" (A. Hailey).
The superpositional
rhematic test for the pronominal question may be effected in the following
periphrastic-definitional form: -» The question about your thinking so is: why?
For the sake of
analytical convenience this kind of superposition may be reduced as follows: →
You think so - why?
Compare some more
pronominal interrogative superpositions:
What happens to a
man like Hawk Harrap as the years go by? (W. Saroyan). → To a man like
Hawk Harrap, as the
years go by - what happens? How do you make that out, mother? (E. M. Forster) →
You make that out, mother, - how? How's the weather in the north? (D. du
Maurier) → The weather in the north - how is it? What's behind all this?
(A. Hailey) → Behind all this is - what?
The rheme of
non-pronominal questions is quite different from the one described. It is also
open, but its openness consists in at least two semantic suggestions presented
for choice to the listener. The choice is effected in the response; in other
words, the answer closes the suggested alternative according to the
interrogative-rhematic program inherent in it. This is clearly seen in the
structure of ordinary, explicit alternative questions. E.g.: Will you take it
away or open it here? (Th. Dreiser)
The superposition
of the utterance may be presented as follows: → You in relation to it -
will take (it) away, will open (it) here?
The alternative
question may have a pronominal introduction, emphasising the open character of
its rheme. Cf.: In which cave is the offence alleged, the Buddhist or the Jain?
(E. M. Forster)
The superposition: →
The offence is alleged - in the Buddhist cave, in the Jain cave?
Thus, in terms of
rhematic reverse substitution, the pronominal question is a question of
unlimited substitution choice, while the alternative question is a question of
a limited substitution choice, the substitution of the latter kind being, as a
rule, expressed implicitly. This can be demonstrated by a transformation applied
to the first of the two cited examples of alternative questions: Will you take
it away or open it here? → Where will you handle it - take it away or
open it here?
The non-pronominal
question requiring either confirmation or negation ("general"
question of yes-no response type) is thereby implicitly alternative, though the
inquiry inherent in it concerns not the choice between some suggested facts,
but the choice between the existence or non-existence of an indicated fact. In
other words, it is a question of realised rhematic substitution (or of "no
substitution choice"), but with an open existence factor (true to life or
not true to life?), which makes up its implicitly expressed alternative. This
can be easily shown by a superposition; Are they going to stay long? →
They are going to stay - long, not long?
The implicit
alternative question can be made into an explicit one, which as a rule is very
emphatic, i.e. stylistically "forced". The negation in the implied
alternative part is usually referred to the verb. Cf.: → Are they going
to stay long, or are they not going to stay long?
The cited relation
of this kind of question to interrogative reverse substitution (and, together
with it, the open character of its rheme) is best demonstrated by the
corresponding pronominal transformation: → How long are they going to
stay - long (or not long)?
As we see, the
essential difference between the two types of alternative questions, the
explicit one and the implicit one, remains valid even if the latter is changed
into an explicit alternative question (i.e. into a stylistically forced
explicit alternative question). This difference is determined by the difference
in the informative composition of the interrogative constructions compared.
In general terms of
meaning, the question of the first type (the normal explicit alternative
question) should be classed as the alternative question of fact, since a choice
between two or more facts is required by it; the question of the second type
(the implicit alternative question) should be classed as the alternative
question of truth, since it requires the statement of truth or non-truth of the
indicated fact. In terms of actual division, the question of the first type
should be classed as the polyperspective alternative question (biperspective,
triperspective, etc.), because it presents more than one informative
perspectives (more than one actual divisions) for the listener's choice; the
question of the second type, as opposed to the polyperspective, should be
classed as the monoperspective alternative question, because its both varieties
(implicit and explicit) express only one informative perspective, which is
presented to the listener for the existential yes-no appraisal.
§ 6. The exposition
of the fundamental role of actual division in the formation of the
communicative sentence types involves, among other things, the unequivocal
refutation of recognising by some linguists the would-be "purely
exclamatory sentence" that cannot be reduced to any of the three
demonstrated cardinal communicative types.*
Indeed, by
"purely exclamatory sentences" are meant no other things than
interjectional exclamations of ready-made order such as "Great
Heavens!", "Good Lord!", "For God's sake!"
"Fiddle-dee-dee!", "Oh, I say!" and the like, which, due to
various situational conditions, find themselves in self-dependent,
proposemically isolated positions in the text. Cf.:
"Oh, for God's
sake!" - "Oh, for God's sake!" the boy had repeated (W.
Saroyan). "Ah!" said Lady Mont. "That reminds me" (J.
Galsworthy).
As is seen from the
examples, the isolated positions of the interjectional utterances do not make
them into any meaningfully articulate, grammatically predicated sentences with
their own informative perspective (either explicit, or implicit). They remain
not signals of proposemically complete thoughts, not "communicative
utterances" (see above), but mere symptoms of emotions, consciously or
unconsciously produced shouts of strong feelings. Therefore the highest rank
that they deserve in any relevant linguistic classification of "single
free units of speech" is "non-sentential utterances" (which is
just another name for Ch. Fries's "noncommunicative utterances").
Of quite another
nature are exclamatory sentences with emphatic introducers derived on special
productive syntactic patterns. Cf.:
Oh, that Mr.
Thornspell hadn't been so reserved! How silly of you! If only I could raise the
necessary sum! Etc.
These constructions
also express emotions, but they are meaningfully articulate and proposemically
complete. They clearly display a definite nominative composition which is
predicated, i.e. related to reality according to the necessary grammatical
regularities. And they inevitably belong to quite a definite communicative type
of sentences, namely, to the declarative type.
The vast set of
constructional sentence models possessed by language is formed not only by
cardinal, mono-functional communicative types; besides these, it includes also
intermediary predicative constructions distinguished by mixed communicative
features. The true nature of such intermediary constructions can be disclosed
in the light of the actual
division theory combined with the general theory of paradigmatic oppositions.
Observations
conducted on the said principles show that intermediary communicative sentence
models may be identified between all the three cardinal communicative
correlations (viz., statement - question, statement - inducement, inducement -
question); they have grown and are sustained in language as a result of the
transference of certain characteristic features from one communicative type of
sentences to another.
In the following
dialogue sequence the utterance which is declarative by its formal features, at
the same time contains a distinct pronominal question:
"I wonder why
they come to me about it. That's your job, sweetheart." - I looked up from
Jasper, my face red as fire. "Darling," I said, "I meant to tell
you before, but - but I forgot" (D. du Maurier).
Semantic-syntactic
comparison of the two utterances produced by the participants of the cited
dialogue clearly shows in the initial utterance the features inherently
peculiar to the interrogative communicative type, namely, its open rhematic
part ("why they come to me about it") and the general programming character
of its actual division in relation to the required response.
Compare some more
examples of a similar nature:
"But surely I
may treat him as a human being." - "Most certainly not" (B.
Shaw), "I don't disturb you, I hope, Mr Cokane." - "By no
means" (B. Shaw). "Wait a second, you haven't told me your
address." - "Oh, I'm staying at the Hotel du Phare" (A.
Christie), "I should like to hear your views on that," replied
Utterson (R. L. Stevenson).
As is seen from the
examples, utterances intermediary between statements and questions convey
meanings and connotations that supplement the direct programming of the answer
effected by strictly monofunctional, cardinal interrogative constructions.
Namely, they render the connotation of insistency in asking for information,
they express a more definite or lass definite supposition of the nature of
information possessed by the listener, they present a suggestion to
the listener to perform a certain action or
imply a request for permission to perform an action, etc.
On the other hand,
in the structural framework of the interrogative sentence one can express a
statement. This type of utterance is classed as the "rhetorical
question" - an expressive construction that has been attracting the
closest attention of linguistic observers since ancient times.
A high intensity of
declarative functional meaning expressed by rhetorical questions is best seen
in various proverbs and maxims based on this specifically emphatic predicative
unit. Cf.:
Can a leopard
change his spots? Can man be free if woman be a slave? O shame! Where is thy
blush? Why ask the Bishop when the Pope's around? Who shall decide when the
doctors disagree?
Compare rhetorical
questions in stylistically freer, more common forms of speech:
That was my
mission, you imagined. It was not, but where was I to go? (O. Wilde) That was
all right; I meant what I said. Why should I feel guilty about it? (J. Braine)
How could I have ever thought I could get away with it! (J. Osborne)
It should be noted
that in living speech responses to rhetorical questions exactly correspond to
responses elicited by declarative sentences: they include signals of attention,
appraisals, expressions of fellow feeling, etc. Cf.:
"How can a
woman be expected to be happy with a man who insists on treating her as if she
were a perfectly rational being?" - "My dear!" (O. Wilde)
A rhetorical
question in principle can be followed by a direct answer, too. However, such an
answer does not fill up the rheme of the rhetorical question (which, as
different from the rheme of a genuine question, is not at all open), but
emphatically accentuates its intensely declarative semantic nature. An answer
to a rhetorical question also emphasises its affirmative or negative
implication which is opposite to the formal expression of affirmation or
negation in the outer structure of the question. Cf.: "What more can a
gentleman desire in this world?" - "Nothing more, I am quite
sure" (O. Wilde).
Due to these
connotations, the answer to a rhetorical
question can quite naturally be given by the
speaker himself: Who, being in love, is poor? Oh, no one (O. Wilde).
The declarative
nature of the rhetorical question is revealed also in the fact that it is not
infrequently used as an answer to a genuine question - namely, in cases when an
expressive, emphatic answer is needed. Cf.: "Do you expect to save the
country, Mr Mangan?" - "Well, who else will?" (B. Shaw)
Rhetorical
questions as constructions of intermediary communicative nature should be
distinguished from such genuine questions as are addressed by the speaker to
himself in the process of deliberation and reasoning. The genuine quality of
the latter kind of questions is easily exposed by observing the character of
their rhematic elements. E.g.: Had she had what was called a complex all this
time? Or was love always sudden like this? A wild flower seeding on a wild
wind? (J. Galsworthy)
The cited string of
questions belongs to the inner speech of a literary personage presented in the
form of non-personal direct speech. The rhemes of the questions are definitely
open, i.e. they are typical of ordinary questions in a dialogue produced by the
speaker with an aim to obtain information from his interlocutor. This is
clearly seen from the fact that the second question presents an alternative in
relation to the first question; as regards the third question, it is not a
self-dependent utterance, but a specification, cumulatively attached to the
foregoing construction.
Genuine questions
to oneself as part of monologue deliberations can quite naturally be followed
by corresponding responses, forming various kinds of dialogue within monologue.
Cf.:
Was she tipsy,
week-minded, or merely in love? Perhaps all three! (J. Galsworthy). My God!
What shall I do? I dare not tell her who this woman really is. The shame would
kill her (O. Wilde).
The next pair of
correlated communicative sentence types between which are identified
predicative constructions of intermediary nature are declarative and imperative
sentences.
The expression of
inducement within the framework of a declarative sentence is regularly achieved
by means of constructions with modal verbs. E.g.:
You ought to get
rid of it, you know (C. P. Snow). "You can't come in," he said.
"You mustn't get what I have" (E. Hemingway). Well, you must come to
me now for anything you want, or I shall be quite cut up (J. Galsworthy).
"You might as well sit down," said Javotte (J. Erskine).
Compare
semantically more complex constructions in which the meaning of inducement is
expressed as a result of interaction of different grammatical elements of an
utterance with its notional lexical elements:
"And if you'll
excuse me, Lady Eileen, I think it's time you were going back to bed." The
firmness of his tone admitted of no parley (A. Christie). If you have anything
to say to me, Dr Trench, I will listen to you patiently. You will then allow me
to say what I have to say on my part (B. Shaw).
Inducive
constructions, according to the described general tendency, can be used to
express a declarative meaning complicated by corresponding connotations. Such
utterances are distinguished by especially high expressiveness and intensity.
E.g.: The Forsyte in him said: "Think, feel, and you're done for!"
(J. Galsworthy)
Due to its
expressiveness this kind of declarative inducement, similar to rhetorical
questions, is used in maxims and proverbs. E.g.:
Talk of the devil
and he will appear. Roll my log and I will roll yours. Live and learn. Live and
let live.
Compare also
corresponding negative statements of the formal imperative order: Don't count
your chickens before they are hatched. Don't cross the bridge till you get to
it.
Imperative and
interrogative sentences make up the third pair of opposed cardinal
communicative sentence types serving as a frame for intermediary communicative
patterns.
Imperative
sentences performing the essential function of interrogative sentences are such
as induce the listener not to action, but to speech. They may contain indirect
questions. E.g.:
"Tell me about
your upbringing." - "I should like to hear about yours" (E. J.
Howard). "Please tell me what I can do. There must be something I can
do." - "You can take the leg off and that might stop it..." (E.
Hemingway).
The reverse
intermediary construction, i.e. inducement effected in the form of question, is
employed in order to convey such additional shades of meaning as request,
invitation, suggestion, softening of a command, etc. E.g.:
"Why don't you
get Aunt Em to sit instead, Uncle? She's younger than I am any day, aren't you,
Auntie?" (J. Galsworthy) "Would - would you like to come?" -
"I would," said Jimmy heartily. "Thanks ever so much, Lady Coote"
(A. Christie).
Additional
connotations in inducive utterances having the form of questions may be
expressed by various modal constructions. E.g.:
Can I take you home
in a cab? (W. Saroyan) "Could you tell me," said Dinny, "of any
place close by where I could get something to eat?" (J. Galsworthy) I am
really quite all right. Perhaps you will help me up the stairs? (A. Christie)
In common use is
the expression of inducement effected in the form of a disjunctive question.
The post-positional interrogative tag imparts to the whole inducive utterance a
more pronounced or less pronounced shade of a polite request or even makes it
into a pleading appeal. Cf.:
Find out tactfully
what he wants, will you? (J. Tey) And you will come too, Basil, won't you? (O.
Wilde)
The undertaken
survey of lingual facts shows that the combination of opposite cardinal
communicative features displayed by communicatively intermediary sentence
patterns is structurally systemic and functionally justified. It is justified
because it meets quite definite expressive requirements. And it is symmetrical
in so far as each cardinal communicative sentence type is characterised by the
same tendency of functional transposition in relation to the two other
communicative types opposing it. It means that within each of the three
cardinal communicative oppositions two different intermediary communicative
sentence models are established, so that at a further level of specification,
the communicative classification of sentences should be expanded by six
subtypes of sentences of mixed communicative features. These are, first, mixed
sentence patterns of declaration (interrogative-declarative,
imperative-declarative); second, mixed sentence patterns of interrogation
(declarative-interrogative, imperative-interrogative); third,
mixed sentence-patterns of inducement
(declarative-imperative, interrogative-imperative). All the cited intermediary
communicative types of sentences belong to living, productive syntactic means
of language and should find the due reflection both in theoretical linguistic
description and in practical language teaching.
XXIV. SIMPLE
SENTENCE: CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE
The basic
predicative meanings of the typical English sentence, as has already been
pointed out, are expressed by the finite verb which is immediately connected
with the subject of the sentence. This predicative connection is commonly
referred to as the "predicative line" of the sentence. Depending on
their predicative complexity, sentences can feature one predicative line or several
(more than one) predicative lines; in other words, sentences may be,
respectively, "monopredicative" and "polypredicative".
Using this distinction, we must say that the simple sentence is a sentence in
which only one predicative line is expressed. E.g.:
Bob has never left
the stadium. Opinions differ. This may happen any time. The offer might have
been quite fair. Etc.
According to this
definition, sentences with several predicates referring to one and the same
subject cannot be considered as simple. E.g.: I took the child in my arms and
held him.
It is quite evident
that the cited sentence, although it includes only one subject, expresses two
different predicative lines, since its two predicates are separately connected
with the subject. The content of the sentence reflects two closely connected
events that happened in immediate succession: the first -
"my taking the child in my arms"; the
second - "my
holding him".
Sentences having
one verb-predicate and more than one subject to it, if the subjects form
actually separate (though interdependent) predicative connections, cannot be
considered as simple, either. E.g.: The door was open, and also the front
window.
Thus, the syntactic
feature of strict monopredication should serve as the basic diagnostic
criterion for identifying the simple sentence in distinction to sentences of
composite structures of various systemic standings.
The simple
sentence, as any sentence in general, is organised as a system of
function-expressing positions, the content of the functions being the
reflection of a situational event. The nominative parts of the simple sentence,
each occupying a notional position in it, are subject, predicate, object,
adverbial, attribute, parenthetical enclosure, addressing enclosure; a special,
semi-notional position is occupied by an interjectional enclosure. The parts
are arranged in a hierarchy, wherein all of them perform some modifying role.
The ultimate and highest object of this integral modification is the sentence
as a whole, and through the sentence, the reflection of the situation
(situational event).
Thus, the subject
is a person-modifier of the predicate. The predicate is a process-modifier of
the subject-person. The object is a substance-modifier of a processual part
(actional or statal). The adverbial is a quality-modifier (in a broad sense) of
a processual part or the whole of the sentence (as expressing an integral
process inherent in the reflected event). The attribute is a quality-modifier
of a substantive part. The parenthetical enclosure is a detached speaker-bound
modifier of any sentence-part or the whole of the sentence. The addressing
enclosure (address) is a substantive modifier of the destination of the
sentence and hence, from its angle, a modifier of the sentence as a whole. The
interjectional enclosure is a speaker-bound emotional modifier of the sentence.
All the said
modifiers may be expressed either singly (single modifiers) or collectively,
i.e. in a coordinative combination (co-modifiers, in particular, homogeneous
ones).
By way of example,
let us take an ordinary English sentence featuring the basic modifier
connections, and see its traditional
parsing presentation (Fig. 3):
Fig. 3
The scheme clearly
shows the basic logical-grammatical connections of the notional constituents of
the sentence. If necessary, it can easily be supplemented with specifying
linguistic information, such as indications of lexico-grammatical features of
the sentence-parts the same as their syntactic sub-functions.
However, observing
the given scheme carefully, we must note its one serious flaw. As a matter of
fact, while distinctly exposing the subordination ranks of the parts of the
sentence, it fails to consistently present their genuine linear order in
speech.
This drawback is
overcome in another scheme of analysis called the "model of immediate
constituents" (contractedly, the "IC-model").
The model of
immediate constituents is based on the group-parsing of the sentence which has
been developed by traditional grammar together with the sentence-part parsing
scheme. It consists in dividing the whole of the sentence into two groups: that
of the subject and that of the predicate, which, in their turn, are divided
into their sub-group constituents according to the successive subordinative
order of the latter. Profiting by this type of analysis, the IC-model
explicitly exposes the binary hierarchical principle of subordinative
connections, showing the whole structure of the sentence as made up by binary
immediate constituents. As for equipotent (coordinative) connections, these
are, naturally, non-binary, but, being of a more primitive character than
subordinative connections, they are included in the
analysis as possible inner subdivisions of
subordinative connections.
Thus, structured by
the IC-model, the cited sentence on the upper level of analysis is looked upon
as a united whole (the accepted symbol S); on the next lower level it is
divided into two maximal constituents - the
subject noun-phrase (NP-subj) and the predicate verb-phrase (VP-pred); on the
next lower level the subject noun-phrase is divided into the determiner (det)
and the rest of the phrase to which it semantically refers (NP), while the
predicate noun-phrase is divided into the adverbial (DP, in this case simply D)
and the rest of the verb-phrase to which it semantically refers; the next
level-stages of analysis include the division of the first noun-phrase into its
adjective-attribute constituent (AP, in this case A) and the noun constituent
(N), and correspondingly, the division of the verb-phrase into its verb
constituent (V or Vf - finite
verb) and object noun-phrase constituent (NP-obj), the latter being, finally,
divided into the preposition constituent (prp) and noun constituent (N). As we
see, the process of syntactic IC-analysis continues until the word-level of the
sentence is reached, the words being looked upon as the "ultimate"
constituents of the sentence.
The described model
of immediate constituents has two basic versions. The first is known as the
"analytical IC-diagrarn", the second, as the "IС-derivation
tree". The analytical IC-diagram commonly shows the groupings of sentence
constituents by means of vertical and horizontal lines (see Fig. 4).
The IC-derivation tree shows the groupings of
THE
|
SMALL
|
LADY
|
LISTENED
|
TO prp
|
ME NP-pro
|
ATTENTIVELY.
|
|
A
|
N
|
V
|
NP
|
|
det
|
NP
|
VP
|
D
|
NP-subj
|
|
VP-pred
|
Fig. 4
constituents by
means of branching nodes: the nodes symbolise phrase-categories as unities,
while the branches mark their division into constituents of the corresponding
sub-categorial standings (see Fig. 5).
When analysing
sentences in terms of syntagmatic connections of their parts, two types of
subordinative relations are exposed: on the one hand, obligatory relations,
i.e. such as are indispensable for the existence of the syntactic unit as such;
on the other hand, optional relations, i.e. such as may or may not be actually
represented in the syntactic unit. These relations, as we have pointed out
elsewhere, are at present interpreted in terms of syntactic valency (combining
power of the word) and are of especial importance for the characteristic of the
verb as the central predicative organiser of the notional stock of sentence
constituents. Comparing the IC-representation of the sentence with the pattern
of obligatory syntactic positions directly determined by the valency of the
verb-predicate, it is easy to see that this pattern reveals the essential
generalised model of the sentence, its semantico-syntactic backbone. For
instance, in the cited sentence this pattern will be expressed by the string
"The lady listened to me", the attribute "small" and the
adverbial "attentively" being the optional parts of the sentence. The
IC-model of this key-string of the sentence is logically transparent and easily
grasped by the mind (see Fig. 6).
Thus, the idea of
verbal valency, answering the principle of dividing all the notional
sentence-parts into obligatory and optional, proves helpful in gaining a
further insight into the structure of the simple sentence; moreover, it is of
crucial importance for the modern definition of the simple sentence.
In terms of
valencies and obligatory positions first of all the category of
"elementary sentence" is to be recognised; this is a sentence all the
positions of which are obligatory. In other words, this is a sentence which,
besides the principal parts, includes only complementive modifiers; as for
supplementive modifiers, they find no place in this type of predicative
construction.
After that the
types of expansion should be determined which do not violate the syntactic
status of the simple sentence, i.e. do not change the simple sentence into a
composite one. Taking into consideration the strict monopredicative character
of the simple sentence as its basic identification predicative feature, we
infer that such expansions should not complicate the predicative line of the
sentence by any additional predicative positions.
Finally, bearing in
mind that the general identification of obligatory syntactic position affects
not only the principal parts of the sentence but is extended to the
complementive secondary parts, we define the unexpanded simple sentence as a
monopredicative sentence formed only by obligatory notional parts. The expanded
simple sentence will, accordingly, be defined as a monopredicative sentence
which includes, besides the obligatory parts, also some optional parts, i.e.
some supplementive modifiers which do not constitute a predicative enlargement
of the sentence.
Proceeding from the
given description of the elementary sentence, it must be stressed that the
pattern of this construction presents a workable means of semantico-syntactic
analysis of sentences in general. Since all the parts of the elementary
sentence are obligatory, each real sentence of speech should be considered as
categorially reducible to one or more elementary sentences, which expose in an
explicit form its logical scheme of formation. As for the simple sentence,
however intricate and expanded its structure might be, it is formed, of
necessity, upon a single-elementary sentence-base exposing its structural
key-model. E.g.: The tall trees by the island shore were shaking violently in
the gusty wind.
This is an expanded
simple sentence including a number of
optional parts, and its complete analysis in terms of a syntagmatic parsing is
rather intricate. On the other hand, applying the idea of the elementary
sentence, we immediately reveal that the sentence is built upon the key-string
"The trees were shaking", i.e. on the syntagmatic pattern of an
intransitive verb.
As we see, the
notions "elementary sentence" and "sentence model" do not
exclude each other, but, on the contrary, supplement each other: a model is
always an abstraction, whereas an elementary sentence can and should be taken
both as an abstract category (in the capacity of the "model of an
elementary sentence") and as an actual utterance of real speech.
§ 4. The
subject-group and the predicate-group of the sentence are its two constitutive
"members", or, to choose a somewhat more specific term, its
"axes" (in the Russian grammatical tradition -
«составы
предложения»).
According as both members are present in the
composition of the sentence or only one of them, sentences are classed into
"two-member" and "one-member" ones.
Scholars point out
that "genuine" one-member sentences are characterised not only as
expressing one member in their outer structure; in addition, as an essential
feature, they do not imply the other member on the contextual lines. In other
words, in accord with this view, elliptical sentences in which the subject or
the predicate is contextually omitted, are analysed as "two-member"
sentences [Ilyish, 190, 252].
We cannot accept
the cited approach because, in our opinion, it is based on an inadequate
presupposition that in the system of language there is a strictly defined,
"absolute" demarcation line between the two types of constructions.
In reality, though, each one-member sentence, however pure it might appear from
the point of view of non-association with an ellipsis, still, on closer observation,
does expose traits of this association.
For instance, the
sentence "Come on!" exemplifying one of the classical one-member
sentence varieties, implies a situational person (persons) stimulated to
perform an action, i.e. the subject of the event. Similarly, the construction
"All right!" rendering agreement on the part of the speaker, is a
representative unit standing for a normal two-member utterance in its
contextual-bound implication plane, otherwise it would be senseless.
Bearing in mind the
advanced objection, our approach to the syntactic category of axis part of the
sentence is as follows.
All simple
sentences of English should be divided into two-axis constructions and one-axis
constructions.
In a two-axis
sentence, the subject axis and the predicate axis are directly and explicitly
expressed in the outer structure. This concerns all the three cardinal
communicative types of sentences. E.g.:
The books come out
of the experiences. What has been happening here? You better go back to bed.
In a one-axis
sentence only one axis or its part is explicitly expressed, the other one being
non-presented in the outer structure of the sentence. Cf.:
"Who will meet
us at the airport?" - "Mary."
The response utterance is a one-axis sentence with the subject-axis expressed
and the predicate-axis implied: → *Mary
will meet us at the airport. Both the non-expression of the predicate and its
actual implication in the sub-text are obligatory, since the complete two-axis
construction renders its own connotations.
"And what is
your opinion of me?" - "Hard
as nails, absolutely ruthless, a born intriguer, and as self-centred as they
make 'em." The response utterance is a one-axis sentence with the
predicate-axis expressed (partially, by its predicative unit) and the
subject-axis (together with the link-verb of the predicate) implied: →
*You are hard as nails, etc.
"I thought he
might have said something to you about it." -
"Not a word." The response utterance
is a one-axis sentence with the predicate-axis partially expressed (by the
object) and the subject-axis together with the verbal part of the
predicate-axis implied: → *He
said not a word to me.
"Glad to see
you after all these years!" The sentence is a one-axis unit with the
predicate-axis expressed and the subject-axis implied as a form of familiarity:
→ *I
am glad to see you ...
All the cited
examples belong to "elliptical" types of utterances in so far as they
possess quite definite "vacant" positions or zero-positions capable
cf being supplied with the corresponding fillers implicit in the situational
contexts. Since the restoration of the absent axis in such sentences is,
So to speak, "free of avail", we class
them as “free” one-axis sentences. The term "elliptical" one-axis
sentences can also be used, though it is not very lucky here; indeed,
"ellipsis" as a sentence-curtailing process can in principle affect
both two-axis and one-axis sentences, so the term might be misleading.
Alongside of the
demonstrated free one-axis sentences, i.e. sentences with a direct contextual
axis-implication, there are one-axis sentences without a contextual implication
of this kind; in other words, their absent axis cannot be restored with the
same ease and, above all, semantic accuracy.
By way of example,
let us read the following passage from S. Maugham's short story
"Appearance and Reality";
Monsieur Le Sueur
was a man of action. He went straight up to Lisette and smacked her hard on her
right cheek with his left hand and then smacked her hard on the left cheek with
his right hand. "Brute," screamed Lisette.
The one-axis
sentence used by the heroine does imply the you-subject and can, by
association, be expanded into the two-axis one "You are a brute" or
"You brute", but then the spontaneous "scream-style" of the
utterance in the context (a cry of indignation and revolt) will be utterly
distorted.
Compare another
context, taken from R. Kipling's "The Light that Failed":
"...I'm quite
miserable enough already." - "Why?
Because you're going away from Mrs Jennett?" -
"No." -
"From me, then?" -
No answer for a long time. Dick dared not look
at her.
The one-axis
sentence "No answer for a long time" in the narrative is associated
by variant lingua! relations with the two-axis sentence "There was no
answer...". But on similar grounds the association can be extended to the
construction "He received no answer for a long time" or "No
answer was given for a long time" or some other sentence supplementing the
given utterance and rendering a like meaning. On the other hand, the peculiar
position in the text clearly makes all these associations into remote ones: the
two-axis version of the construction instead of the existing one-axis one would
destroy the expressive property of the remark conveying Dick's strain by means
of combining the author's line of narration with the hero's inner perception of
events.
Furthermore,
compare the psychologically tense description
of packing up before departure given in short,
deliberately disconnected nominative phrase-sentences exposing the heroine's
disillusions (from D. du Maurier's "Rebecca"):
Packing up. The
nagging worry of departure. Lost keys, unwritten labels, tissue paper lying on
the floor. I hate it all.
Associations
referring to the absent axes in the cited sentences are indeed very vague. The
only unquestionable fact about the relevant implications is that they should be
of demonstrative-introductory character making the presented nominals into
predicative names.
As we see, there is
a continuum between the one-axis sentences of the free type and the most rigid
ones exemplified above. Still, since all the constructions of the second order
differ from those of the first order just in that they are not free, we choose
to class them as "fixed" one-axis sentences.
Among the fixed
one-axis sentences quite a few subclasses are to be recognised, including
nominative (nominal) constructions, greeting formulas, introduction formulas,
incentives, excuses, etc. Many of such constructions are related to the
corresponding two-axis sentences not by the mentioned "vague"
implication, but by representation; indeed, such one-axis sentence-formulas as
affirmations, negations, certain ready-made excuses, etc., are by themselves not
word-sentences, but rather sentence-representatives that exist only in
combination with the full-sense antecedent predicative constructions. Cf.:
"You can't
move any farther back?" - "No."
(I.e. "I can't move any farther back"). "D'you want me to pay for
your drink?" - "Yes,
old boy." (I.e. "Yes, I want you to pay for my drink, old boy").
Etc.
As for the isolated
exclamations of interjectional type ("Good Lord!", "Dear
me!" and the like), these are not sentences by virtue of their not
possessing the inner structure of actual division even through associative
implications (see Ch. XXII).
Summing up what has
been said about the one-axis sentences we must stress the two things: first,
however varied, they form a minor set within the general system of English
sentence patterns; second, they all are related to two-axis sentences either by
direct or by indirect association.
The semantic
classification of simple sentences should be effected at least on the three
bases: first, on the basis of the subject categorial meanings; second, on the
basis of the predicate categorial meanings; third, on the basis of the
subject-object relation.
Reflecting the
categories of the subject, simple sentences are divided into personal and
impersonal. The further division of the personal sentences is into human and
non-human; human - into
definite and indefinite; non-human - into
animate and inanimate. The further essential division of impersonal sentences
is into factual (It rains, It is five o'clock) and perceptional (It smells of
hay here).
The differences in
subject categorial meanings are sustained by the obvious differences in
subject-predicate combinability.
Reflecting the
categories of the predicate, simple sentences are divided into
process-featuring ("verbal") and, in the broad sense,
substance-featuring (including substance as such and substantive quality -
"nominal"). Among the
process-featuring sentences actional and statal ones are to be discriminated
(The window is opening - The
window is glistening in the sun); among the substance-featuring sentences
factual and perceptional ones are to be discriminated (The sea is rough -
The place seems quiet).
Finally, reflecting
the subject-object relation, simple sentences should be divided into subjective
(John lives in London), objective (John reads a book) and neutral or
"potentially" objective (John reads), capable of implying both the
transitive action of the syntactic person and the syntactic person's
intransitive characteristic.
CHAPTER XXV. SIMPLE
SENTENCE: PARADIGMATIC STRUCTURE
grammar studied the
sentence from the point of view of its syntagmatic structure: the sentence was
approached as a string of certain parts fulfilling the corresponding syntactic
functions. As for paradigmatic relations, which, as we know, are inseparable
from syntagmatic relations, they were explicitly revealed only as part of
morphological descriptions, because, up to recent times, the idea of the
sentence-model with its functional variations was not
developed. Moreover, some representatives of
early modern linguistics, among them F. de Saussure, specially noted that it
was quite natural for morphology to develop paradigmatic (associative)
observations, while syntax "by its very essence" should concern
itself with the linear connections of words.
Thus, the sentence
was traditionally taken at its face value as a ready unit of speech, and
systemic connections between sentences were formulated in terms of
classifications. Sentences were studied and classified according to the purpose
of communication, according to the types of the subject and the predicate,
according to whether they are simple or composite, expanded or unexpanded,
compound or complex, etc.
In contemporary
modern linguistics paradigmatic structuring of lingual connections and
dependencies has penetrated into the would-be "purely syntagmatic"
sphere of the sentence. The paradigmatic approach to this element of rendering
communicative information, as we have mentioned before, marked a new stage in
the development of the science of language; indeed, it is nothing else than
paradigmatic approach that has provided a comprehensive theoretical ground for
treating the sentence not only as a ready unit of speech, but also and above
all as a meaningful lingual unit existing in a pattern form.
Paradigmatics finds
its essential expression in a system of oppositions making the corresponding
meaningful (functional) categories. Syntactic oppositions are realised by
correlated sentence patterns, the observable relations between which can be
described as "transformations", i.e, as transitions from one pattern
of certain notional parts to another pattern of the same notional parts. These
transitions, being oppositional, at the same time disclose derivational
connections of sentence-patterns. In other words, some of the patterns are to
be approached as base patterns, while others, as their transforms.
For instance, a
question can be described as transformationally produced from a statement; a
negation, likewise, can be presented as transformationally produced from an
affirmation. E.g.:
You are fond of the
kid. → Are
you fond of the kid? You are fond of the kid. →
You are not fond of the kid.
Why are the
directions of transitions given in this way
and not vice versa? -
Simply because the ordinary affirmative statement
presents a positive expression of a fact in its purest form, maximally free of
the speaker's connotative appraisals.
Similarly, a
composite sentence, for still more evident reasons, is to be presented as
derived from two or more simple sentences. E.g.:
He turned to the
waiter.+The waiter stood in the door. → He
turned to the waiter who stood in the door.
These transitional
relations are implicitly inherent in the syntagmatic classificational study of
sentences. But modern theory, exposing them explicitly, has made a cardinal
step forward in so far as it has interpreted them as regular derivation stages
comparable to categorial form-making processes in morphology and word-building.
And it is on these
lines that the initial, basic element of syntactic derivation has been found,
i.e. a syntactic unit serving as a "sentence-root" and providing an
objective ground for identifying syntactic categorial oppositions. This element
is known by different names, such as the "basic syntactic pattern",
the "structural sentence scheme", the "elementary sentence
model", the "base sentence", though as the handiest in
linguistic use should be considered the "kernel sentence" due to its
terminological flexibility combined with a natural individualising force.
Structurally the
kernel sentence coincides with the elementary sentence described in the
previous chapter. The difference is, that the pattern of the kernel sentence is
interpreted as forming the base of a paradigmatic derivation in the
corresponding sentence-pattern series.
Thus, syntactic
derivation should not be understood as an immediate change of one sentence into
another one; a pronounced or written sentence is a finished utterance that
thereby cannot undergo any changes. Syntactic derivation is to be understood as
paradigmatic production of more complex pattern-constructions out of kernel
pattern-constructions as their structural bases. The description of this
production ("generation") may be more detailed and less detailed,
i.e. it can be effected in more generalised and less generalised terms,
depending on the aim of the scholar. The most concrete presentation concerns a
given speech-utterance analysed into its derivation history on the level of the
word-forms.
By way of example
let us take the following English sentence: I saw him come.
This sentence is
described in school grammar as a sentence with a complex object, which is
syntagmatically adequate, though incomplete from the systemic point of view.
The syntagmatic description is supplemented and re-interpreted within the
framework of the paradigmatic description presenting the sentence in question
as produced from the two kernel sentences: I saw him. +
He came. →
I saw him come.
In a more
generalised, categorial-oriented paradigmatic presentation the sentence will be
shown as a transformational combination of the two kernel pattern-formulas:
bols can vary in
accord with the concrete needs of analysis and demonstration.
The derivation of
genuine sentences lying on the "surface" of speech out of kernel
sentences lying in the "deep base" of speech can be analysed as a
process falling into sets of elementary transformational steps or procedures.
These procedures make up six major classes.
The first class
includes steps of "morphological arrangement" of the sentence, i.e.
morphological changes expressing syntactically relevant categories, above all,
the predicative categories of the finite verb: tense, aspect, voice, mood. The
syntactic role of these forms of morphological change (systematised into
morphological paradigms) consists in the fact
that they make up parts of the more general
syntactico-paradigmatic series. E.g.:
John+start (the
kernel base string) → John
starts. John will be starting. John would be starting. John has started. Etc.
The second class of
the described procedures includes various uses of functional words (functional
expansion). From the syntactic point of view these words are transformers of
syntactic constructions in the same sense as the categorial morphemes {e.g.
inflexions) are transformers of lexemes, i.e. morphological constructions.
E.g.:
He understood my
request. → He
seemed to understand my request. Now they consider the suggestion. →
Now they do consider the suggestion.
The third class of
syntactic derivational procedures includes the processes of substitution. Among
the substitutes we find personal pronouns, demonstrative-substitute pronouns,
indefinite-substitute pronouns, as well as substitutive combinations of
half-notional words. Cf.:
The pupils ran out
of the classroom. → They
ran out of the classroom. I want another pen, please. →
I want another one, please.
The fourth class of
the procedures in question is formed by processes of deletion, i.e. elimination
of some elements of the sentence in various contextual conditions. As a result
of deletion the corresponding reduced constructions are produced. E.g.:
Would you like a
cup of tea? → A
cup of tea? It's a pleasure! → Pleasure!
The fifth class of
syntactic derivational procedures includes processes of positional arrangement,
in particular, permutations (changes of the word-order into the reverse
patterns). E.g.:
The man is here. →
Is the man here? Jim ran in with an excited cry.
-» In ran Jim
with an excited cry.
The sixth class of
syntactic derivational procedures is formed by processes of intonational
arrangement, i.e. application of various functional tones and accents. This
arrangement is represented in written and typed speech by punctuation marks,
the use of different varieties of print, the use of various modes of
underlining and other graphical means. E.g.:
We must go. →
We must go? We? Must go?? You care nothing about
what I feel. → You
care nothing about what I feel!
The described
procedures are all functionally relevant, i.e. they serve as syntactically
meaningful dynamic features of the sentence. For various expressive purposes
they may be applied either singly or, more often than not, in combination with
one another. E.g.: We finish the work. → We are not going to finish it.
For the production
of the cited sentence-transform the following procedures are used:
morphological change, introduction of functional words, substitution,
intonational arrangement. The functional (meaningful) outcome of the whole
process is the expression of the modal future combined with a negation in a
dialogue response. Cf.:
Are we ever going
to finish the work? → Anyway,
we are not going to finish it today!
The derivational
procedures applied to the kernel sentence introduce it into two types of
derivational relations in the sentential paradigmatic system: first, the
"constructional" relations; second, the "predicative"
relations. The constructional derivation effects the formation of more complex
clausal structures out of simpler ones; in other words, it provides for the
expression of the nominative-notional syntactic semantics of the sentence. The
predicative derivation realises the formation of predicatively different units
not affecting the constructional volume of the base; in other words, it is
responsible for the expression of the predicative syntactic semantics of the
sentence. Both types of derivational procedures form the two subsystems within
the general system of syntactic paradigmatics.
As part of the
constructional system of syntactic paradigmatics, kernel sentences, as well as
other, expanded base-sentences undergo derivational changes into clauses and
phrases.
The transformation
of a base sentence into a clause can „be called "clausalisation". By
way of clausalisation a sentence is changed into a subordinate or coordinate
clause in the process of subordinative or coordinative combination of
sentences. The main clausalising procedures involve the use of conjunctive
words - subordinators
and coordinators. Since a composite sentence is produced from minimum two base
sentences, the derivational processes of composite sentence production are
sometimes called "two-base transformations". For example, two kernel
sentences "They arrived" and "They relieved me of my fears"
(→ I
was relieved of my fears), combined by subordinative and coordinative
clausalising, produce the following constructions:
→ When
they arrived I was relieved of my fears. →
If they arrive, I shall be relieved of my fears.
→ Even
though they arrive, I shan't be relieved of my fears. Etc. →
They arrived, and I was relieved of my fears. →
They arrived, but I was not relieved of my
fears. Etc.
The transformation
of a base sentence into a phrase can be called "phrasalisation". By
phrasalisation a sentence is transformed either into a semi-predicative
construction (a semi-clause), or into a nominal phrase.
Nominal phrases are
produced by the process of nominalisation, i.e. nominalising phrasalisation
which we have analyzed before (see Ch. XX). Nominalisation may be complete,
consisting in completely depriving the sentence of its predicative aspect, or
partial, consisting in partially depriving the sentence of its predicative
aspect. Partial nominalisation in English produces infinitive and gerundial
phrases. By other types of phrasalisation such semi-clauses are derived as
complex objects of infinitive and participial types, various participial
constructions of adverbial status and some other, minor complexes. The
resulting constructions produced by the application of the cited phrasalising
procedures in the process of derivational combination of base sentences will be
both simple expanded sentences (in case of complete nominalisation) and
semi-composite sentences (in case of various partial nominalisations and other
phrasalisations). Cf.:
» On
their arrival I was relieved of my fears. -»
They arrived to relieve me of my fears. →
They arrived relieving me of my fears. →
Having arrived, they did relieve me of my fears.
Etc.
As is seen from the
examples, each variety of derivational combination of concrete sentences has
its own semantic purpose expressed by the procedures employed.
As part of the
predicative system of syntactic paradigmatics, kernel sentences, as well as
expanded base-sentences, undergo such structural modifications as immediately
express the predicative functions of the sentence, i.e. the functions relating
the nominative meanings of the sentence to reality. Of especial importance in
this respect is the expression of predicative functions by sentences which are
elementary as regards the set of their notional constituents: being elementary
from the point of view of nominative semantics, these sentences can be used as
genuine, ordinary utterances of speech. Bearing in mind the elementary
nominative nature of its constructional units, we call the system of sentences
so identified the "Primary Syntactic System" (Lat. "Prima
Systema Syntactica").
To recognise a
primary sentence in the text, one must use the criteria of elementary
sentence-structure identification applied to the notional constituents of the
sentence, irrespective of the functional meanings rendered by it. For instance,
the notionally minimal negative sentence should be classed as primary, though
not quite elementary (kernel) in the paradigmatic sense, negation being not a
notional, but a functional sentence factor. Cf.:
I have met the man.
→ I
have not met the man. → I
have never met the man.
Any composite (or
semi-composite) sentence is analysable into two or more primary sentences (i.e.
sentences elementary in the notional sense). E.g.:
Is it a matter of
no consequence that I should find you with a young man wearing my pyjamas? «-
Is it a matter of no consequence?+I should find
you with a (young) man.+ The (young) man is wearing my pyjamas.
The kernel sentence
can also have its representation in speech, being embodied by the simplest
sentential construction not only in the notional, but also in the functional
sense. In other words, it is an elementary sentence which is non-interrogative,
non-imperative, non-negative, non-modal, etc. In short, in terms of syntactic
oppositions, this is the "weakest"
construction in the predicative oppositional
space of the primary syntactic system.
The predicative
functions expressed by primary sentence patterns should be divided into the two
types: first, lower functions; second, higher functions. The lower functions
include the expression of such morphological categories as tenses and aspects;
these are of "factual", "truth-stating" semantic character.
The higher functions are "evaluative" in the broad sense of the word;
they immediately express the functional semantics of relating the nominative
content of the sentence to reality.
The principal predicative
functions expressed by syntactic categorial oppositions are the following.
First, question as
opposed to statement. Second, inducement as opposed to statement. Third,
negation as opposed to affirmation. Fourth, unreality as opposed to reality.
Fifth, probability as opposed to fact. Sixth, modal identity (seem to do,
happen to do, prove to do, etc.) as opposed to fact. Seventh, modal
subject-action relation as opposed to fact (can do, may do, etc.).
Eighth, specified actual subject-action relation
as opposed to fact. Ninth, phase of action as opposed to fact. Tenth, passive
action as opposed to active action. Eleventh, specialised actual division
(specialised perspective) as opposed to non-specialised actual division
(non-specialised perspective). Twelfth, emphasis (emotiveness) as opposed to
emotional neutrality (unemotiveness).
Each opposition of
the cited list forms a categorial set which is rather complex. For instance,
within the framework of the question-statement opposition, pronominal and alternative
questions are identified with their manifold varieties; within the system of
phase of action, specialised subsets are identified rendering the phase of
beginning, the phase of duration, the phase of end, etc. The total supersystem
of all the pattern-forms of a given sentence base constitutes its general
syntactic paradigm of predicative functions. This paradigm is, naturally,
extremely complicated so that it is hardly observable if presented on a
diagram. This fact shows that the volume of functional meanings rendered by a
sentence even on a very high level of syntactic generalisation is tremendous.
At the same time the derivation of each functional sentence-form in its
paradigmatically determined position in the system is simple enough in the sense
that it is quite explicit. This shows the dynamic essence of the paradigm
in question; the paradigm exactly answers the
needs of expression at every given juncture of actual communication.
All the cited
oppositions-categories may or may not be represented in a given utterance by
their strong function-members. In accord with this oppositional regularity, we
advance the notion of the "predicative load" of the sentence. The
predicative load is determined by the total volume of the strong members of
predicative oppositions (i.e. by the sum of positive values of the
corresponding differential features) actually represented in the sentence.
The sentence, by
definition, always expresses predication, being a predicative unit of language.
But, from the point of view of the comparative volume of the predicative
meanings actually expressed, the sentence may be predicatively
"loaded" or "non-loaded". If the sentence is predicatively
"non-loaded", it means that its construction is kernel elementary on
the accepted level of categorial generalisation. Consequently, such a sentence
will be characterised in oppositional terms as non-interrogative, non-inducive,
non-negative, non-real, non-probable, non-modal-identifying, etc., down to the
last of the recognised predicative oppositions. If, on the other hand, the
sentence is predicatively "loaded", it means that it renders at least
one of the strong oppositional meanings inherent in the described categorial
system. Textual observations show that predicative loads amounting to one or
two positive feature values (strong oppositional members) may be characterised
as more or less common; hence, we consider such a load as "light"
and, correspondingly, say that the sentence in this case is predicatively
"lightly" loaded. As for sentences whose predicative load exceeds two
positive feature values, they stand out of the common, their functional
semantics showing clear signs of intricacy. Accordingly, we consider such loads
as "heavy", and of sentences characterised by these loads we say that
they are "heavily" loaded. Predicative loads amounting to four
feature values occur but occasionally, they are too complicated to be naturally
grasped by the mind.
To exemplify the
cited theses, let us take as a derivation sentence-base the construction
"The thing bothers me". This sentence, in the above oppositional
sense, is predicatively "non-loaded", or has the "zero
predicative load". The predicative structure of the sentence can be
expanded by the expression of the modal subject-action relation, for instance,
the ability relation. The result is: →
"The thing can bother me"; the
predicative load of the sentence has grown to 1.
This construction, in its turn, can be used as a
derivation base for a sentence of a higher predicative complexity; for instance,
the feature of unreality can be added to it: →
"The thing could bother me (now)". The
predicative load of the sentence has grown to 2.
Though functionally not simple, the sentence
still presents a more or less ordinary English construction. To continue with
our complicating it, we may introduce in the sentence the feature of passivity:
→ "I
could be bothered (by the thing now)". The predicative semantics expressed
has quite clearly changed into something beyond the ordinary; the sentence
requires a special context to sound natural. Finally, to complicate the primary
construction still further, we may introduce a negation in it: →
"I could not be bothered (by the thing
now)". As a result we are faced by a construction that, in the contextual
conditions of real speech, expresses an intricate set of functional meanings
and stylistic connotations. Cf.:
"...Wilmet and
Henrietta Bentworth have agreed to differ already." -
"What about?" -
"Well, I couldn't be bothered, but I think
it was about the P.M., or was it Portulaca? -
they differ about everything" (J.
Galsworthy).
The construction is
indeed semantically complicated; but all its meaningful complexity is
linguistically resolved by the demonstrated semantico-syntactic oppositional
analysis showing the stage-to-stage growth of the total functional meaning of
the sentence in the course of its paradigmatic derivation.
XXVI.
COMPOSITE SENTENCE AS A POLYPREDICATIVE
CONSTRUCTION
The composite
sentence, as different from the simple sentence, is formed by two or more
predicative lines. Being a polypredicative construction, it expresses a
complicated act of thought, i.e. an act of mental activity which falls into two
or more intellectual efforts closely combined with one another. In terms of
situations and events this means that the composite sentence reflects two or
more elementary situational events viewed as making up a unity; the
constitutive connections of the events are expressed by the constitutive
connections of the predicative lines of the sentence, i.e. by the sentential
polypredication.
Each predicative
unit in a composite sentence makes up a clause in it, so that a clause as part
of a composite sentence corresponds to a separate sentence as part of a
contextual sequence. E.g.:
When I sat down to
dinner I looked for an opportunity to slip in casually the information that I
had by accident run across the Driffields; but news travelled fast in
Blackstable (S. Maugham).
The cited composite
sentence includes four clauses which are related to one another on different
semantic grounds. The sentences underlying the clauses are the following:
I sat down to
dinner. I looked for an opportunity to slip in casually the information. I had
by accident run across the Driffields. News travelled fast in Blackstable.
The correspondence
of a predicative clause to a separate sentence is self-evident. On the other
hand, the correspondence of a composite sentence to a genuine, logically
connected sequence of simple sentences (underlying its clauses) is not evident
at all; moreover, such kind of correspondence is in fact not obligatory, which
is the very cause of the existence of the composite sentence in a language.
Indeed, in the given example the independent sentences reconstructed from the
predicative clauses do not make up any coherently presented situational unity;
they are just so many utterances each expressing an event of self-sufficient
significance. By way of rearrangement and the use of semantic connectors we may
make them into a more or less explanatory situational sequence, but the
exposition of the genuine logic of events, i.e. their presentation as natural
parts of a unity, achieved by the composite sentence will not be, and is not to
be replaced in principle. Cf.:
I ran by accident
across the Driffields. At some time later on I sat down to dinner. While
participating in the general conversation, I looked for an opportunity to slip
in casually the information about my meeting them. But news travelled fast in
Blackstable.
The logical
difference between the given composite sentence and its contextually coherent
de-compositional presentation is, that whereas the composite sentence exposes
as its logical centre, i.e. the core of its purpose of communication, the
intention of the speaker to inform his table-companions of a certain fact
(which turns out to be already known to them), the sentential sequence
expresses the events in their natural temporal succession, which actually
destroys the original purpose of communication. Any formation of a sentential
sequence more equivalent to the given composite sentence by its semantic status
than the one shown above has to be expanded by additional elucidative
prop-utterances with back-references; and all the same, the resulting contextual
string, if it is intended as a real informational substitute for the initial
composite, will hardly be effected without the help of some kind of essentially
composite sentence constructions included in it (let the reader himself try to
construct an equivalent textual sequence meeting the described semantic
requirements).
As we see, the
composite sentence in its quality of a structural unit of language is
indispensable for language by its own purely semantic merits, let alone its
terseness, as well as intellectual elegance of expression.
As is well known,
the use of composite sentences, especially long and logically intricate ones,
is characteristic of literary written speech rather than colloquial oral
speech. This unquestionable fact is explained by the three reasons: one
relating to the actual needs of expression; one relating to the possibilities
of production; and one relating to the conditions of perception.
That the composite
sentence structure answers the special needs of written mode of lingual expression
is quite evident. It is this type of speech that deals with lengthy reasonings,
descriptions, narrations, all presenting abundant details of intricate
correlations of logical premises and inferences, of situational foreground and
background, of sequences of events interrupted by cross-references and
parenthetical comments. Only a composite sentence can adequately and within
reasonable bounds of textual space fulfil these semantic requirements.
Now, the said
requirements, fortunately, go together with the fact that in writing it is
actually possible to produce long composite sentences of complicated, but
logically flawless structure (the second of the advanced reasons). This is
possible here because the written sentence, while in the process of being
produced, is open to various alterations: it
allows corrections of slips and errors; it can be subjected to curtailing or
expanding; it admits of rearranging and reformulating one's ideas; in short, it
can be prepared. This latter factor is of crucial importance, so that when
considering the properties of literary written speech we must always bear it in
mind. Indeed, from the linguistic point of view written speech is above all
prepared, or "edited" speech: it is due to no other quality than being
prepared before its presentation to the addressee that this mode of speech is
structurally so tellingly different from colloquial oral speech. Employing the
words in their broader sense, we may say that literary written speech is not
just uttered and gone, but is always more carefully or less carefully composed
in advance, being meant for a future use of the reader, often for his repeated
use. In distinction to this, genuine colloquial oral speech is uttered each
time in an irretrievably complete and final form, each time for one immediate
and fleeting occasion.
We have covered the
first two reasons explaining the composite sentence of increased complexity as
a specific feature of written speech. The third reason, referring to the
conditions of perception, is inseparable from the former two. Namely, if
written text provides for the possibility for its producer to return to the
beginning of each sentence with the aim of assessing its form and content, of
rearranging or re-composing it altogether, it also enables the reader, after he
has run through the text for the first time, to go back to its starting line
and re-read it with as much care as will be required for the final
understanding of each item and logical connection expressed by its wording or
implied by its construction. Thus, the length limit imposed on the sentence by
the recipient's immediate (operative) memory can in writing be practically
neglected; the volume of the written sentence is regulated not by memory
limitations as such, but by the considerations of optimum logical -balance and
stylistic well-formedness.
Logic and style
being the true limiters of the written sentence volume, two dialectically
contrasted active tendencies can be observed in the sentence-construction of
modern printed texts. According to the first tendency, a given unity of reasons
in meditation, a natural sequence of descriptive situations or narrative events
is to be reflected in one composite sentence, however long and structurally
complicated it
might prove. According to the second, directly opposite tendency, for a given
unity of reflected events or reasons, each of them is to be presented by one
separate simple sentence, the whole complex of reflections forming a
multisentential paragraph. The two tendencies are always in a state of
confrontation, and which of them will take an upper hand in this or that
concrete case of text production has to be decided out of various
considerations of form and meaning relating to both contextual and
con-situational conditions (including, among other things, the general purpose
of the work in question, as well as the preferences and idiosyncrasies of its
users).
Observe, for
instance, the following complex sentence of mixed narrative-reasoning nature:
Once Mary waved her
hand as she recognised her driver, but he took no notice of her, only whipping
his horses the harder, and she realised with a rather helpless sense of
futility that so far as other people were concerned she must be considered in
the same light as her uncle, and that even if she tried to walk to Boduin or
Launceston no one would receive her, and the door would be shut in her face (D.
du Maurier).
The sentence has
its established status in the expressive context of the novel, and in this sense
it is unrearrangeable. On the other hand, its referential plane can be rendered
by a multisentential paragraph, plainer in form, but somewhat more natural to
the unsophisticated perceptions:
Once Mary
recognised her driver. She waved her hand to him. But he took no notice of her.
He only whipped his horses the harder. And she realised that so far as other
people were concerned she must be considered in the same light as her uncle.
This gave her a rather helpless sense of futility. Even if she tried to walk to
Boduin or Launceston no one would receive her. Quite the contrary, the door
would be shut in her face.
One long composite
sentence has been divided into eight short sentences. Characteristically,
though, in our simplification we could not do without the composite sentence
structure as such: two of the sentential units in the adaptation (respectively,
the fourth and the sixth) have retained their compositive features, and these
structural properties seem to
be indispensable for the functional adequacy of the rearranged passage.
The cited example
of syntactic re-formation of text will help us formulate the following
composition rule of good non-fiction (neutral) prose style: in neutral written
speech each sentence construction should be as simple as can be permitted by
the semantic context.
§ 4. We
have emphatically pointed out in due course (see Ch. I) the oral basis of human
language: the primary lingual matter is phonetical, so that each and every
lingual utterance given in a graphic form has essentially a representative
character, its speech referent being constructed of so many phones organised in
a rhythmo-melodical sequence. On the other hand, and this has also been noted
before, writing in a literary language acquires a relatively self-sufficient
status in so far as a tremendous proportion of what is actually written in
society is not meant for an oral reproduction at all: though read and re-read
by those to whom it has been addressed, it is destined to remain
"silent" for ever. The "silent" nature of written speech
with all its peculiarities leads to the development of specifically written
features of language, among which, as we have just seen, the composite sentence
of increased complexity occupies one of the most prominent places. Now, as a natural
consequence of this development, the peculiar features of written speech begin
to influence oral speech, whose syntax becomes liable to display ever more
syntactic properties directly borrowed from writing.
Moreover, as a
result of active interaction between oral and written forms of language, a new
variety of speech has arisen that has an intermediary status. This type of
speech, being explicitly oral, is at the same time prepared and edited, and
more often than not it is directly reproduced from the written text, or else
from its epitomised version (theses). This intermediary written-oral speech
should be given a special linguistic name, for which we suggest the term
"scripted speech", i.e. speech read from the script. Here belong such
forms of lingual communication as public report speech, lecturer speech,
preacher speech, radio- and television-broadcast speech, each of them existing
in a variety of subtypes.
By way of example
let us take the following passage from President Woodrow Wilson's address to
the Congress urging it to authorise the United States' entering the World War (1917):
But the right is
more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have
always carried nearest our hearts, - for
democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in
their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a
universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring
peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.
The text presents a
typical case of political scripted speech with a clear tinge of solemnity, its
five predicative units being complicated by parallel constructions of
homogeneous objects (for-phrases) adding to its high style emphasis.
Compare the above
with a passage from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's second inaugural address (1937):
In this nation I
see tens of millions of its citizens - a
substantial part of its whole population -
who at this very moment are denied the greater
part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities of life.
The sentence is not
a long one, but its bookish background, although meant for oral uttering before
an audience, is most evident: a detached appositional phrase, consecutive
subordination, the very nature of the last appositional clausal complex of
commenting type, all these features being carefully prepared to give the
necessary emphasis to the social content of the utterance aimed at a public
success.
Compare one more
example - a
passage from Bernard Shaw's paper read before the Medico-Legal Society in
London (1909):
Nevertheless, trade
in medical advice has never been formally recognised, and never will be; for
you must realise that, whereas competition in ordinary trade and business is founded
on an elaborate theoretic demonstration of its benefits, there has never been
anyone from Adam Smith to our own time who has attempted such a demonstration
with regard to the medical profession. The idea of a doctor being a tradesman
with a pecuniary interest in your being ill is abhorrent to every thoughtful
person.
The scripted nature
of the cited sentential sequence is clearly seen from its arrangement as an
expressive climax built upon a carefully balanced contrastive composite
construction.
We have hitherto
defended the thesis of the composite sentence of increased complexity being
specifically characteristic of literary written speech. On the other hand, we
must clearly understand that the composite sentence as such is part and parcel
of the general syntactic system of language, and its use is an inalienable
feature of any normal expression of human thought in intercourse. This is
demonstrated by cases of composite sentences that could not be adequately
reduced to the corresponding sets of separate simple sentences in their natural
contexts (see above). Fictional literature, presenting in its works a
reflection of language as it is spoken by the people, gives us abundant
illustrations of the broad use of composite sentences in genuine colloquial speech
both of dialogue and monologue character.
Composite sentences
display two principal types of construction: hypotaxis (subordination) and
parataxis (coordination). Both types are equally representative of colloquial
speech, be it refined by education or not. In this connection it should be
noted that the initial rise of hypotaxis and parataxis as forms of composite
sentences can be traced back to the early stages of language development, i. e.
to the times when language had no writing. Profuse illustrations of the said
types of syntactic relations are contained, for instance, in the Old English
epic "Beowulf" (dated presumably from the VII с
A. D.). As is known, the text of the poem shows
all the basic forms of sentential composition including the grammatically
completed presentation of reported speech, connection of clauses on various
nominal principles (objective, subjective, predicative, attributive),
connection of clauses on various adverbial principles (temporal, local,
conditional, causal, etc.). E. g.:
Compare the
tentative prose translation of the cited text into Modern English (with the
corresponding re-arrangements of the word-order patterns):
Truly I say onto
thee, oh Son Egglaf, that never would Grendel, the abominable monster, have
done so many terrible deeds to your chief, (so many) humiliating acts in
Heorot, if thy soul (and) heart had been as bold as thou thyself declarest; but
he has found that he need not much fear the hostile sword-attack of your people,
the Victorious Skildings.
Needless to say,
the forms of composite sentences in prewriting periods of language history
cannot be taken as a proof that the structure of the sentence does not develop
historically in terms of perfecting its expressive qualities. On the contrary,
the known samples of Old English compared with their modern rendering are quite
demonstrative of the fact that the sentence does develop throughout the history
of language; moreover, they show that the nature and scope of the historical
structural change of the sentence is not at all a negligible matter. Namely,
from the existing lingual materials we see that the primitive, not clearly
identified forms of subordination and coordination, without distinct border
points between separate sentences, have been succeeded by such constructions of
syntactic composition as are distinguished first and foremost by the clear-cut
logic of connections between their clausal predicative parts. However, these
materials, and among them the cited passage, show us at the same time that the
composite sentence, far from being extraneous to colloquial speech, takes its
origin just in the oral colloquial element of human speech as such: it is
inherent in the very oral nature of developing language.
The two main types
of the connection of clauses in a composite sentence, as has been stated above,
are subordination and coordination. By coordination the clauses are arranged as
units of syntactically equal rank, i. с
equipotently; by subordination, as units of
unequal rank, one being categorially dominated by the other. In terms of the
positional structure of the sentence it means that by subordination one of the
clauses (subordinate) is placed in a notional position of the other
(principal). This latter characteristic has an essential semantic implication
clarifying the difference between
the two types of polypredication in question. As a matter of fact, a
subordinate clause, however important the information rendered by it might be
for the whole communication, presents it as naturally supplementing the
information of the principal clause, i.e. as something completely premeditated
and prepared even before its explicit expression in the utterance. This is of
especial importance for post-positional subordinate clauses of circumstantial
semantic nature. Such clauses may often shift their position without a change
in semantico-syntactic status. Cf.:
I could not help
blushing with embarrassment when I looked at him. →
When I looked at him I could not help blushing
with embarrassment. The board accepted the decision, though it didn't quite
meet their plans. → Though
the decision didn't quite meet their plans, the board accepted it.
The same criterion
is valid for subordinate clauses with a fixed position in the sentence. To
prove the subordinate quality of the clause in the light of this consideration,
we have to place it in isolation - and
see that the isolation is semantically false. E.g.:
But all the books
were so neatly arranged, they were so clean, that I had the impression they
were very seldom read.→ *But all the books were so neatly arranged, they
were so clean. That I had the impression they were very seldom read. I fancy
that life is more amusing now than it was forty years ago. →
*I fancy that life is more amusing now. Than it
was forty years ago.
As for coordinated
clauses, their equality in rank is expressed above all in each sequential
clause explicitly corresponding to a new effort of thought, without an
obligatory feature of premeditation. In accord with the said quality, a
sequential clause in a compound sentence refers to the whole of the leading
clause, whereas a subordinate clause in a complex sentence, as a rule, refers
to one notional constituent (expressed by a word or a phrase) in a principal clause
[Khaimovich, Rogovskaya, 278]. It
is due to these facts that the position of a coordinate clause is rigidly fixed
in all cases, which can be used as one of the criteria of coordination in
distinction to subordination. Another probe of rank equality of clauses in
coordination is a potential possibility for any •coordinate sequential clause
to take either the copulative conjunction
and or the adversative conjunction but as introducers. Cf.:
That sort of game
gave me horrors, so I never could play it. →
That sort of game gave me horrors, and I never
could play it. The excuse was plausible, only it was not good enough for us. →
The excuse was plausible, but it was not good
enough for us.
The means of
combining clauses into a polypredicative sentence are divided into syndetic, i.
e. conjunctional, and asyndetic, i. e. non-conjunctional. The great controversy
going on among linguists about this division concerns the status of syndeton
and asyndeton versus coordination and subordination. Namely, the question under
consideration is whether or not syndeton and asyndeton equally express the two
types of syntactic relations between clauses in a composite sentence.
According to the
traditional view, all composite sentences are to be classed into compound
sentences (coordinating their clauses) and complex sentences (subordinating
their clauses), syndetic or asyndetic types of clause connection being
specifically displayed with both classes. However, this view has of late been
subjected to energetic criticism; the new thesis formulated by its critics is
as follows: the "formal" division of clause connection based on the
choice of connective means should be placed higher in the hierarchy than the
"semantic" division of clause connection based on the criterion of
syntactic rank. That is, on the higher level of classification all the
composite sentences should be divided into syndetic and asyndetic, while on the
lower level the syndetic composite sentences (and only these) should be divided
into compound and complex ones in accord with the types of the connective words
used. The cited principle was put forward by N.
S. Pospelov as part of his syntactic analysis of
Russian, and it was further developed by some other linguists.
But the new
approach to coordination and subordination has not been left unchallenged. In
particular, B. A. Ilyish with his characteristic discretion in formulating
final decisions has pointed out serious flaws in the non-traditional reasoning
resulting first of all from mixing up strictly grammatical criteria of
classification with general semantic considerations [Ilyish, 318
ff.].
Indeed, if we
compare the following asyndetic composite
sentences with their compound syndetic
counterparts on the basis of paradigmatic approach, we shall immediately expose
unquestionable equality in their semantico-syntactic status. E. g.:
My uncle was going
to refuse, but we didn't understand why.→ My uncle was going to refuse,
we didn't understand why. She hesitated a moment, and then she answered him. →
She hesitated a moment, then she answered him.
The equality of the
compound status of both types of sentences is emphatically endorsed when
compared with the corresponding complex sentences in transformational
constructional paradigmatics. Cf.:
... → We
didn't understand why my uncle was going to refuse. ...
→ After she hesitated a moment she
answered him.
On the other hand,
bearing in mind the in-positional nature of a subordinate clause expounded
above, it would be altogether irrational to deny a subordinate status to the asyndetic
attributive, objective or predicative clauses of the commonest order. Cf.:
They've given me a
position I could never have got without them. →
They've given me a position which I could never
have got without them. We saw at once it was all wrong. →
We saw at once that it was all wrong The fact is
he did accept the invitation. → The
fact is that he did accept the invitation.
Now, one might say,
as is done in some older grammatical treatises, that the asyndetic introduction
of a subordinate clause amounts to the omission of the conjunctive word joining
it to the principal clause. However, in the light of the above paradigmatic
considerations, the invalidity of this statement in the context of the
discussion appears to be quite obvious: as regards the "omission" or
"non-omission" of the conjunctive introducer the compound asyndetic
sentence should be treated on an equal basis with the complex asyndetic
sentence. In other words, if we defend the idea of the omission of the
conjunction with asyndetic subordinate clauses, we must apply this principle
also to asyndetic coordinate clauses. But the idea of the omission of the
conjunction expounded in its purest, classical form has already been
demonstrated in linguistics as fallacious, since asyndetic connection of
clauses is indisputably characterised by its own functional value; it is this
specific value that vindicates and supports the very existence of asyndetic
polypredication in the system of language. Moreover, many true functions of
asyndetic polypredication in distinction to the functions of syndetic
polypredication were aptly disclosed in the course of investigations conducted
by the scholars who sought to refute the adequacy of coordinate or subordinate
interpretation of clausal asyndeton. So, the linguistic effort of these
scholars, though not convincing in terms of classification, has, on the whole,
not been in vain; in the long run, it has contributed to the deeper insight
into the nature of the composite sentence as a polypredicative combination of
words.
Besides the
classical types of coordination and subordination of clauses, we find another
case of the construction of composite sentence, namely, when the connection
between the clauses combined in a polypredicative unit is expressly loose,
placing the sequential clause in a syntactically detached position. In this
loosely connected composite, the sequential clause information is presented
rather as an afterthought, an idea that has come to the mind of the speaker
after the completion of the foregoing utterance, which latter, by this new
utterance-forming effort, is forcibly made into the clausal fore-part of a
composite sentence. This kind of syntactic connection, the traces of which we
saw when treating the syntagmatic bonds of the word, comes under the heading of
cumulation. Its formal sign is often the tone of sentential completion followed
by a shorter pause than an inter-sentential one, which intonational complex is
represented in writing by a semi-final punctuation mark, such as a semicolon, a
dash, sometimes a series of periods. Cf.-.
It was just the
time that my aunt and uncle would be coming home from their daily walk down the
town and I did not like to run the risk of being seen with people whom they
would not at all approve of; so I asked them to go on first, as they would go
more quickly than I (S. Maugham).
Cumulation as here
presented forms a type of syntactic connection intermediary between clausal
connection and sentential connection. Thus, the very composite sentence
(loose composite) formed by it is in fact a
unit intermediary between one polypredicative sentence and a group of separate
sentences making up a contextual sequence.
There is good
reason to interpret different parenthetical clauses as specific cumulative
constructions, because the basic semantico-syntactic principle of joining them
to the initially planned sentence is the same, i. e. presenting them as a
detached communication, here - of
an introductory or commenting-deviational nature. E.g.:
He was sent for
very suddenly this morning, as I have told you already, and he only gave me the
barest details before his horse was saddled and he was gone (D. du Maurier).
Unprecedented in scale and lavishly financed (£
100,000 was collected in 1843
and 9,000,000 leaflets
distributed) this agitation had all the advantages that the railways, cheap
newspapers and the penny post could give (A. L. Morton).
If this
interpretation is accepted, then the whole domain of cumulation should be
divided into two parts: first, the continuative cumulation, placing the
cumulated clause in post-position to the expanded predicative construction;
second, the" parenthetical cumulation, placing the cumulated clause in
inter-position to the expanded predicative construction. The inter-position may
be made even into a pre-position as its minor particular case (here belong
mostly constructions introduced by the conjunction as: as we have seen, as I
have said, etc.). This paradox is easily explained by the type of relation
between the clauses: the parenthetical clause (i. e. parenthetically cumulated)
only gives a background to the essential information of the expanded original
clause. And, which is very important, it can shift its position in the sentence
without causing any change in the information rendered by the utterance as a
whole. Cf.:
He was sent for
very suddenly this morning, as I have told you already. →
He was sent for, as I have told you already,
very suddenly this morning. → As
I have told you already, he was sent for very suddenly this morning.
In the composite
sentences hitherto surveyed the constitutive predicative lines are expressed
separately and explicitly: the described sentence types are formed by minimum
two clauses each having a subject and a predicate of „its own. Alongside of
these "completely" composite sentences,
there exist constructions in which one explicit
predicative line is combined with another one, the latter being not explicitly
or completely expressed. To such constructions belong, for instance, sentences with
homogeneous predicates, as wall as sentences with verbid complexes. Cf.:
Philip ignored the
question and remained silent. I have never before heard her sing. She followed
him in, bending her head under the low door.
That the cited
utterances do not represent classical, explicitly constructed composite
sentence-models admits of no argument. At the same time, as we pointed out
elsewhere (see Ch. XXIV), they cannot be analysed as genuine simple sentences,
because they contain not one, but more than one predicative lines, though
presented in fusion with one another. This can be demonstrated by explanatory
expanding transformations. Cf.:
... → Philip
ignored the question, (and) he remained silent. ...
→ I have never before heard how she
sings. ... → As
she followed him in, she bent her head under the low door.
The performed test
clearly shows that the sentences in question are derived each from two base
sentences, so that the systemic status of the resulting constructions is in
fact intermediary between the simple sentence and the composite sentence.
Therefore these predicative constructions should by right be analysed under the
heading of semi-composite sentences.
It is easy to see
that functionally semi-composite sentences are directly opposed to composite-cumulative
sentences: while the latter are over-expanded, the former are under-expanded,
i. e. they are concisely deployed. The result of the predicative blend is
terseness of expression, which makes semi-composite constructions of especial
preference in colloquial speech.
Thus, composite
sentences as polypredicative constructions exist in the two type varieties as
regards the degree of their predicative explicitness: first, composite
sentences of complete composition; second, composite sentences of concise
composition. Each of these types is distinguished by its own functional
specification, occupies a permanent place in the syntactic system of language
and so deserves a separate consideration in a grammatical description.
CHAPTER XXVII.
COMPLEX SENTENCE
The complex
sentence is a polypredicative construction built up on the principle of
subordination. It is derived from two or more base sentences one of which
performs the role of a matrix in relation to the others, the insert sentences.
The matrix function of the corresponding base sentence may be more rigorously
and less rigorously pronounced, depending on the type of subordinative
connection realised.
When joined into
one complex sentence, the matrix base sentence becomes the principal clause of
it and the insert sentences, its subordinate clauses.
The complex
sentence of minimal composition includes two clauses -
a principal one and a subordinate one. Although
the principal clause positionally dominates the subordinate clause, the two
form a semantico-syntactic unity within the framework of which they are in fact
interconnected, so that the very existence of either of them is supported by
the existence of the other.
The subordinate
clause is joined to the principal clause either by a subordinating connector
(subordinator), or, with some types of clauses, asyndetically. The functional
character of the subordinative connector is so explicit that even in
traditional grammatical descriptions of complex sentences this connector was
approached as a transformer of an independent sentence into a subordinate
clause. Cf.:
Moyra left the
room. → (I
do remember quite well) that Moyra left the room. →
(He went on with his story) after Moyra left the
room. → (Fred
remained in his place) though Moyra left the room. →
(The party was spoilt) because Moyra left the
room. → (It
was a surprise to us all) that Moyra left the room...
This paradigmatic
scheme of the production of the subordinate clause vindicates the possible
interpretation of contact-clauses in asyndetic connection as being joined to
the principal clause by means of the "zero"-connector. Cf.: -»
(How do you know) 0
Moyra left the room?
Needless to say,
the idea of the zero-subordinator simply stresses the fact of the meaningful
(functional) character of the asyndetic connection of clauses, not denying the
actual absence of connector in the asyndetic complex sentence.
The minimal,
two-clause complex sentence is the main volume type of complex sentences. It is
the most important type, first, in terms of frequency, since its textual
occurrence by far exceeds that of multi-clause complex sentences; second, in
terms of its paradigmatic status, because a complex sentence of any volume is
analysable into a combination of two-clause complex sentence units.
The structural
features of the principal clause differ with different types of subordinate
clauses. In particular, various types of subordinate clauses specifically
affect the principal clause from the point of view of the degree of its
completeness. As is well known from elementary grammatical descriptions, the
principal clause is markedly incomplete in complex sentences with the subject
and predicative subordinate clauses. E.g.:
And why we descend
to their level is a mystery to me. (The gaping principal part outside the
subject clause: " - is
a mystery to me".) Your statement was just what you were expected to say.
(The gaping principal part outside the predicative clause: "Your statement
was just - ")
Of absolutely
deficient character is the principal clause of the complex sentence that
includes both subject and predicative subordinate clauses: its proper segment,
i. e. the word-string standing apart from the subordinate clauses is usually
reduced to a sheer finite link-verb. Cf.: How he managed to pull through is what
baffles me. (The principal clause representation: "
- is - ")
A question arises
whether the treatment of the subject and predicative clauses as genuinely
subordinate ones is rational at all. Indeed, how can the principal clause be
looked upon as syntactically (positionally) dominating such clauses as perform
the functions of its main syntactic parts, in particular, that of the subject?
How can the link-verb, itself just a little more than an auxiliary element, be
taken as the "governing predicative construction" of a complex
sentence?
However, this
seeming paradox is to be definitely settled on the principles of paradigmatic
theory. Namely, to understand the status of the "deficiently incomplete
and gaping" principal clause we must take into consideration the matrix
nature of the principal clause in the sentence: the matrix presents the
upper-level positional scheme which is to be completed by predicative
constructions on the lower level.
In case of such
clauses as subject and predicative, these are all the same subordinated to the
matrix by way of being its embedded elements, i. e. the fillers of the open
clausal positions introduced by it. Since, on the other hand, the proper
segment of the principal clause, i. e. its "nucleus", is predicatively
deficient, the whole of the clause should be looked upon as merged with the
corresponding filler-subordinate clauses. Thus, among the principal clauses
there should be distinguished merger principal clauses and non-merger principal
clauses, the former characterising complex sentences with clausal deployment of
their main parts, the latter characterising complex sentences with clausal
deployment of their secondary parts.
The principal
clause dominates the subordinate clause positionally, but it doesn't mean that
by its syntactic status it must express the central informative part of the
communication. The information perspective in the simple sentence does not
repeat the division of its constituents into primary and secondary, and
likewise the information perspective of the complex sentence is not bound to
duplicate the division of its clauses into principal and subordinate. The
actual division of any construction, be it simple or otherwise, is effected in
the context, so it is as part of a continual text that the complex sentence
makes its clauses into rheme-rendering and theme-rendering on the
complex-sentence information level.
When we discussed
the problem of the actual division of the sentence, we pointed out that in a
neutral context the rhematic part of the sentence tends to be placed somewhere
near the end of it (see Ch. XXII, § 4). This
holds true both for the simple and complex sentences, so that the order of
clauses plays an important role in distributing primary and secondary
information among them. Cf.: The boy was friendly with me because I allowed him
to keep the fishing line.
In this sentence
approached as part of stylistically neutral text the principal clause placed in
the front position evidently expresses the starting point of the information
delivered, while the subordinate clause of cause renders the main sentential
idea, namely, the speaker's explanation of the boy's attitude. The
"contraposition" presupposed by the actual division of the whole
sentence is then like this: "Otherwise the boy wouldn't have been
friendly". Should the clause-order of the utterance
be reversed, the informative roles of the
clauses will be re-shaped accordingly: As I allowed the boy to keep the fishing
line, he was friendly with me.
Of course, the
clause-order, the same as word-order in general, is not the only means of
indicating the correlative informative value of clauses in complex sentences;
intonation plays here also a crucial role, and it goes together with various
lexical and constructional rheme-forming elements, such as emphatic particles,
constructions of meaningful antithesis, patterns of logical accents of
different kinds.
Speaking of the
information status of the principal clause, it should be noted that even in
unemphatic speech this predicative unit is often reduced to a sheer introducer
of the subordinate clause, the latter expressing practically all the essential
information envisaged by the communicative purpose of the whole of the
sentence. Cf.:
You see that mine
is by far the most miserable lot. Just fancy that James has proposed to Mary!
You know, kind sir, that I am bound to fasting and abstinence.
The principal
clause-introducer in sentences like these performs also the function of keeping
up the conversation, i.e. of maintaining the immediate communicative connection
with the listener. This function is referred to as "phatic". Verbs of
speech and especially thought are commonly used in phatic principals to specify
"in passing" the speaker's attitude to the information rendered by
their rhematic subordinates:
I
think there's much truth in what we hear about
the matter. I'т sure
I can't remember her name now.
Many of these
introducer principals can be re-shaped into parenthetical clauses on a strictly
equivalent basis by a mere change of position:
I can't remember
her name now, I'т sure.
There's much truth, I think,
in what we hear about the matter.
Of the problems
discussed in linguistic literature in connection with the complex sentence, the
central one concerns the principles of classification of subordinate clauses.
Namely, the two different bases of classification are considered as competitive
in this domain: the first is functional, the second is categorial.
In accord with the
functional principle, subordinate clauses are to be classed on the analogy of
the positional parts of the simple sentence, since it is the structure of the
simple sentence that underlies the essential structure of the complex sentence
(located on a higher level). In particular, most types of subordinate clauses
meet the same functional question-tests as the parts of the simple sentence.
The said analogy, certainly, is far from being absolute, because no subordinate
clause can exactly repeat the specific character of the corresponding
non-clausal part of the sentence; moreover, there is a deep difference in the
functional status even between different categorial types of the same parts of
the sentence, one being expressed by a word-unit, another by a word-group,
still another by a substitute. Cf.:
You can see my
state. → You
can see my wretched state. → You
can see my state being wretched. → You
can see that my state is wretched. → You
can see that. -»What
can you see?
Evidently, the very
variety of syntactic forms united by a central function and separated by
specific sub-functions is brought about in language by the communicative need
of expressing not only rough and plain ideas, but also innumerable variations
of thought reflecting the ever developing reality.
Furthermore, there
are certain (and not at all casual) clauses that do not find ready
correspondences among the non-clausal parts of the sentence at all. This
concerns, in particular, quite a number of adverbial clauses.
Still, a general
functional analogy (though not identity) between clausal and lexemic parts of
the sentence does exist, and, which is very important, it reflects the
underlying general similarity of their semantic purpose. So, the functional
classification of subordinate clauses on the simple sentence-part analogy does
reflect the essential properties of the studied syntactic units and has been
proved useful and practicable throughout many years of application to language
teaching.
Now, in accord with
the categorial principle, subordinate clauses аre
to be classed by their inherent nominative properties irrespective of their
immediate positional relations in the sentence. The nominative properties of
notional words are reflected in their part-of-speech classification. A question
arises, can there be any analogy between types
of subordinate clauses and parts of speech?
One need not go
into either a detailed research or heated argument to see that no direct analogy
is possible here. This is made clear by the mere reason that a clause is a
predicative unit expressing an event, while a lexeme is a pure naming unit used
only as material for the formation of predicative units, both independent and
dependent.
On the other hand,
if we approach the categorial principle of the characterisation of clauses on a
broader basis than drawing plain part-of-speech analogies, we shall find it
both plausible and helpful.
As a matter of
fact, from the point of view of their general nominative features all the
subordinate clauses can be divided into three categorial-semantic groups. The
first group includes clauses that name an event as a certain fact. These pure
fact-clauses may be terminologically defined as "substantive-nominal".
Their substantive-nominal nature is easily checked by a substitute test:
That his letters
remained unanswered annoyed him very much. →
That fact annoyed him very much. The woman knew
only too well what was right and what was wrong. →
The woman knew those matters well.
The second group of
clauses also name an event-fact, but, as different from the first group, this
event-fact is referred to as giving a characteristic to some substantive entity
(which, in its turn, may be represented by a clause or a phrase or a
substantive lexeme). Such clauses, in compliance with our principle of choosing
explanatory terminology, can be tentatively called
"qualification-nominal"'. The
qualification-nominal nature of the clauses in question, as is the case with
the first group of clauses, is proved through the corresponding replacement
patterns:
The man who came in
the morning left a message. → That
man left a message. Did you find a place where we could make a fire? →
Did you find such kind of place?
Finally, the third
group of clauses make their event-nomination into a dynamic relation
characteristic of another, event or a process or a quality of various
descriptions. In keeping with the existing practices, it will be quite natural
to call these clauses "adverbial".
Adverbial clauses are best
tested not by a replacement, but by a definitive
transformation. Cf.:
Describe the
picture as you see it. → Describe
the picture in the manner you see it. All will be well if we arrive in time. →
All will be well on condition that we arrive in
time.
When comparing the
two classifications in the light of the systemic principles, it is easy to see
that only by a very superficial observation they could be interpreted as
alternative (i. e. contradicting each other). In reality they are mutually
complementary, their respective bases being valid on different levels of
analysis. The categorial features of clauses go together with their functional
sentence-part features similar to the categorial features of lexemes going together
with their functional characteristics as parts of the simple sentence.
Subordinate clauses
are introduced by functional connective words which effect their derivation
from base sentences. Categorially these sentence subordinators (or
subordinating clausalisers) fall into the two basic types: those that occupy a
notional position in the derived clause, and those that do not occupy such a
position. The non-positional subordinators are referred to as pure
conjunctions. Here belong such words as since, before, until, if, in case,
because, so that, in order that, though, however, than, as if, etc. The
positional subordinators are in fact conjunctive substitutes. The main
positional subordinators are the pronominal words who, what, whose, which,
that, where, when, why, as. Some of these words are double-functional
(bifunctional), entering also the first set of subordinators; such are the
words where, when, that, as, used both as conjunctive substitutes and
conjunctions. Together with these the zero subordinator should be named, whose
polyfunctional status is similar to the status of the subordinator that. The
substitute status of positional subordinators is disclosed in their function as
"relative" pronominals, i. e. pronominals referring to syntagmatic
antecedents. Cf.:
That was the day
when she was wearing her pink dress. Sally put on her pink dress when she
decided to join the party downstairs.
The relative
pronominal "when" in the first of the cited sentences syntagmatically
replaces the antecedent "the day",
while the conjunction "when" in the
second sentence has no relative pronominal status. From the point of view of
paradigmatics, though, even the second "when" cannot be understood as
wholly devoid of substitute force, since it remains associated systemically
with the adverb "then", another abstract indicator of time. So, on
the whole the non-substitute use of the double-functional subordinators should
be described not as utterly "non-positional", but rather as
"semi-positional".
On the other hand,
there is another aspect of categorial difference between the subordinators, and
this directly corresponds to the nature of clauses they introduce. Namely,
nominal clauses, being clauses of fact, are introduced by subordinators of fact
(conjunctions and conjunctive subordinators), while adverbial clauses, being
clauses of adverbial relations, are introduced by subordinators of relational
semantic characteristics (conjunctions). This difference holds true both for
monofunctional subordinators and bifunctional subordinators. Indeed, the
subordinate clauses expressing time and place and, correspondingly, introduced
by the subordinators when and where may be used both as nominal nominators and
adverbial nominators. The said difference is quite essential, though outwardly
it remains but slightly featured. Cf.:
I can't find the
record where you put it yesterday. I forget where I put the record yesterday.
It is easy to see
that the first place-clause indicates the place of action, giving it a
situational periphrastic definition, while the second place-clause expresses
the object of a mental effort. Accordingly, the subordinator "where"
in the first sentence introduces a place description as a background of an
action, while the subordinator "where" in the second sentence
introduces a place description as a fact to be considered. The first
"where" and the second "where" differ by the force of
accent (the first is unstressed, the second is stressed), but the main marking
difference between them lies in the difference between the patterns of their
use, which difference is noted by the chosen terms "nominal" and
"adverbial". This can easily be illustrated by a question-replacement
test: ... → Where
can't I find the record? ...→ What
do I forget?
Likewise, the
corresponding subdivision of the nominal
subordinators and the clauses they introduce can
be checked and proved on the same lines. Cf.:
The day when we met
is unforgettable. → Which
day is unforgettable? When we met is of no consequence now. →
What is of no consequence now?
The first when-раttеrn
is clearly disclosed by the test as a
qualification-nominal, while the second, as a substantive-nominal.
Thus, the categorial
classification of clauses is sustained by the semantic division of the
subordinators which are distinguished as substantive-nominal clausalisers,
qualification-nominal clausalisers and adverbial clausalisers. Since, on the
other hand, substantive nomination is primary in categorial rank, while
qualification nomination is secondary, in terms of syntactic positions all the
subordinate clauses are to be divided into three groups: first, clauses of
primary nominal positions to which belong subject, predicative and object
clauses; second, clauses of secondary nominal positions to which belong
attributive clauses; third, clauses of adverbial positions.
Clauses of primary
nominal positions - subject,
predicative, object - are
interchangeable with one another in easy reshufflings of sentence constituents.
Cf.:
What you saw at the
exhibition is just what I want to know. →
What I want to know is just what you saw at the
exhibition. → I
just want to know what you saw at the exhibition.
However, the
specific semantic functions of the three respective clausal positions are
strictly preserved with all such interchanges, so that there is no ground to
interpret positional rearrangements like the ones shown above as equivalent.
The subject clause,
in accord with its functional position, regularly expresses the theme on the
upper level of the actual division of the complex sentence. The thematic
property of the clause is well exposed" in its characteristic uses with
passive constructions, as well as constructions in which the voice opposition
is neutralised. E.g.:
Why he rejected the
offer has never been accounted for. • What
small reputation the town does possess derives from two things.
It should be noted
that in modern colloquial English the formal position of the subject clause in
a complex sentence is open to specific contaminations (syntactic confusions on
the clausal level). Here is one of the typical examples: Just because you say I
wouldn't have (seen a white elephant- M.
B.) doesn't prove anything (E.Hemingway).
The contamination
here consists in pressing into one construction the clausal expression of cause
and the expression of the genuine theme-subject to which the predicate of the
sentence refers. The logical implication of the statement is, that the event in
question cannot be taken as impossible by the mere reason of the interlocutor's
considering it as such. Thus, what can be exposed of the speaker's idea by way
of "de-contaminating" the utterance is approximately like this: Your
saying that I wouldn't have doesn't prove anything.
Another
characteristic type of syntactic contamination of the subject-clause pattern is
its use as a frame for an independent sentence. E. g.: You just get yourselves
into trouble is what happens (M. Bradbury).
The cited contamination
presents a feature of highly emotional speech. The utterance, as it were,
proves to be a living illustration of the fact that where strong feelings are
concerned the logic of lingual construction is liable to be trespassed upon.
The logic in question can be rehabilitated by a substitution pattern: You just
get yourselves into trouble, this is what happens.
As is known, the
equivalent subject-clausal function can be expressed by the construction with
an anticipatory pronoun (mostly the anticipatory it). This form of expression,
emphasising the rheme-clause of the sentence, at the same time presents the
information of the subject clause in a semantically stronger position than the
one before the verb. Therefore the anticipatory construction is preferred in
cases when the content of the subject clause is not to be wholly overbalanced
or suppressed by the predicate of the sentence. E. g.: How he managed to pull
through is a miracle. -» It
is a miracle how he managed to pull through.
Some scholars
analyse the clause introduced by the anticipatory construction as presenting
two possibilities of interpretation which stand in opposition to each other.
Accord-ing to the first and more traditional view, this is just a subject
clause introduced by the anticipatory it, while in the light of the second, the
clause introduced by it is appositive, In
our opinion, the latter explanation is quite rational; however, it cannot be
understood as contrary to the "anticipatory" theory. Indeed, the
appositive type of connection between the introducer it and the introduced
clause is proved by the very equivalent transformation of the non-anticipatory
construction into the anticipatory one; but the exposition of the appositive
character of the clause does not make the antecedent it into something
different from an introductory pronominal element. Thus, the interpretation of
the subject clause referring to the introducer it as appositive, in fact,
simply explains the type of syntactic connection underlying the anticipatory
formula.
The predicative
clause, in conformity with the predicative position as such, performs the
function of the nominal part of the predicate, i. e. the part adjoining the
link-verb. The link-verb is mostly expressed by the pure link be, not
infrequently we find here also the specifying links seem and look; the use of
other specifying links is occasional. E. g.:
The trouble is that
I don't know Fanny personally. The question is why the decision on the
suggested innovation is still delayed. The difficulty seems how we shall get in
touch with the chief before the conference. After all those years of travelling
abroad, John has become what you would call a man of will and experience.
Besides the
conjunctive substitutes, the predicative clause, the same as other nominal
clauses, can be introduced by some conjunctions (that, whether, as if, as
though). The predicative clause introduced by the conjunctions as if, as though
has an adverbial force, which is easily shown by contrast: She looks as though
she has never met him. → She
behaves as though she has never met him.
While considering
subordinate clauses relating to the finite be in the principal clause, care
should be taken to strictly discriminate between the linking and non-linking
(notional) representations of the verb. Indeed, the linking be is naturally
followed by a predicative clause, while the notional be, featuring verbal
semantics of existence, cannot join a predicative. Cf.:
It's because he's
weak that he needs me. This was because, he had just arrived.
The cited sentences
have been shown by B. A. Ilyish as examples of predicative clauses having a
non-conventional nominal-clause
conjunction (Ilyish, 276-2771. However,
the analysis suggested by the scholar is hardly acceptable, since the introducing
be in both examples does not belong to the class of links.
The predicative
clause in a minimal complex sentence regularly expresses its rheme. Therefore
there is an essential informative difference between the two functional uses of
a categorially similar nominal clause: that of the predicative and that of the
subject. Cf.:
The impression is
that he is quite competent. That he is quite competent is the impression.
The second sentence
(of an occasional status, with a sentence-stress on the link-verb), as
different from the first, suggests an implication of a situational antithesis:
the impression may be called in question, or it may be contrasted against
another trait of the person not so agreeable as the one mentioned, etc.
The same holds true
of complex sentences featuring subordinate clauses in both subject and
predicative positions. Cf.:
How she gets there
is what's troubling me (→ I
am troubled). What's troubling me is how she gets there (→
How is she to get there?).
The peculiar
structure of this type of sentence, where two nominal clauses are connected by
a short link making up all the outer composition of the principal clause,
suggests the scheme of a balance. For the sake of convenient terminological
discrimination, the sentence may be so called -
a "complex balance".
The third type of
clauses considered under the heading of clauses of primary nominal positions
are object clauses.
The object clause
denotes an object-situation of the process expressed by the verbal constituent
of the principal clause.
The object position
is a strong substantive position in the sentence. In terms of clausal relations
it means that the substantivising force of the genuine object-clause derivation
is a strongly pronounced nominal clause-type derivation. This is revealed, in
particular, by the fact that object clauses can be introduced not only
non-prepositionally, but also, if not so freely, prepositionally. Cf.;
They will accept
with grace whatever he may offer. She stared at what seemed a faded photo of
Uncle Jo taken half a century before. I am simply puzzled by what you are
telling me about the Car fairs.
On the other hand,
the semantic content of the object clause discriminates three types of
backgrounds: first, an immediately substantive background; second, an adverbial
background; third, an uncharacterised background of general event. This
differentiation depends on the functional status of the clause-connector, that
is on the sentence-part role it performs in the clause. Cf.:
We couldn't decide
whom we should address. The friends couldn't decide where they should spend
their vacation.
The object clause
in the first of the cited sentences is of a substantive background (We should
address - whom),
whereas the object clause in the second sentence is of adverbial-local
background (They should spend their vacation -
where).
The plot of the
novel centred on what might be called a far-fetched, artificial situation. The
conversation centred on why that clearly formulated provision of international
law had been violated.
The first object
clause in the above two sentences is of substantive background, while the
second one is of an adverbial-causal background.
Object clauses of
general event background are introduced by conjunctions: Now he could prove
that the many years he had spent away from home had not been in vain.
The considered
background features of subordinate clauses, certainly, refer to their inner
status and therefore concern all the nominal clauses, not only object ones. But
with object clauses they are of especial contrastive prominence, which is due
to immediate dependence of the object clause on the valency of the introducing
(subordinating) verb.
An extremely
important set of clause-types usually included into the vast system of object
clauses is formed by clauses presenting chunks of speech and mental-activity
processes. These clauses are introduced by the verbs of speech and mental
activity (Lat. "verba sentiendi et declarandi"), whose contextual
content they actually expose. Cf.:
Who says the yacht
hasn't been properly prepared for the voyage? She wondered why on earth she was
worrying so much, when obviously the time had come to end the incident and put
it out of mind.
The two sentences
render by their subordinate clauses speech of the non-author (non-agent) plane:
in the first one actual words of some third person are cited, in the second one
a stream of thought is presented which is another form of the existence of
speech (i. e. inner speech). The chunk of talk rendered by this kind of
presentation may not necessarily be actually pronounced or mentally produced by
a denoted person; it may only be suggested or imagined by the speaker; still,
even in the latter case we are faced by lingually (grammatically) the same kind
of non-author speech-featuring complex construction. Cf.:
Do you mean to say that the story has a moral?
Not all the clauses
introduced by the verbs in question belong to this type. In principle, these
clauses are divided into the ones exposing the content of a mental action (as
shown above) and the ones describing the content of a mental action, such as
the following: You may tell me whatever you like. Will you tell me what the
matter is?
The object clauses
in the cited sentences, as different from the foregoing examples, describe the
information allowed by the speaker-author (the first sentence) or wanted by the
speaker-author (the second sentence), thereby not differing much from
non-speech-rendering clauses. As for the speech-rendering object clauses, they
are quite special, and it is by right that, as a rule, they are treated in
grammar books under the separate heading of "rules of reported
speech". Due to their semantic nature, they may be referred to as
"reportive" clauses, and the same term will helpfully apply to the
corresponding sentences as wholes. Indeed, it is in reportive sentences that
the principal clause is more often than not reduced to an introductory phrase
akin to a parenthesis of additionally specifying semantics, so that the
formally subordinate clause practically absorbs all the essential information
rendered by the sentence. Cf.:
Wainright said that
Eastin would periodically report to him. → Periodically, Wainright said,
Eastin would report to him (A. Hailey),
Subordinate clauses
of secondary nominal positions include attributive clauses of various syntactic
functions. They fall into two major classes: "descriptive"
attributive clauses and "restrictive" ("limiting")
attributive clauses.
The descriptive
attributive clause exposes some characteristic of the antecedent (i. e., its
substantive referent) as such, while the restrictive attributive clause
performs a purely identifying role, singling out the referent of the antecedent
in the given situation. The basis of this classification, naturally, has
nothing to do with the artistic properties of the classified units: a
descriptive clause may or may not possess a special expressive force depending
on the purpose and mastery of the respective text production. Moreover, of the
two attributive clause classes contrasted, the restrictive class is
distinguished as the more concretely definable one, admitting of the
oppositional interpretation as the "marked element": the descriptive
class then will be oppositionally interpreted as the "non-restrictive"
one, which precisely explains the correlative status of the two types of
subordinate clauses.
It should be noted
that, since the difference between descriptive and restrictive clauses lies in
their functions, there is a possibility of one and the same clausal unit being
used in both capacities, depending on the differences of the contexts. Cf.:
At last we found a
place where we could make a fire. The place where we could make a fire was not
a lucky one.
The subordinate
clause in the first of the cited examples informs the listener of the quality
of the place (→ We
found such a place) thereby being descriptive, while the same clause in the
second example refers to the quality in question as a mere mark of identification
(→ The
place was not a lucky one) and so is restrictive.
Descriptive
clauses, in their turn, distinguish two major subtypes: first,
"ordinary" descriptive clauses; second, "continuative"
descriptive clauses.
The ordinary
descriptive attributive clause expresses various situational qualifications of
nounal antecedents. The qualifications may present a constant situational
feature or a temporary situational feature of different contextual relations
and implications. Cf.:
It gave me a
strange sensation to see a lit up window in a big house that was not lived in.
He wore a blue shirt the collar
of which was open at the throat. They were playing such a game as could only
puzzle us.
The continuative
attributive clause presents a situation on an equal domination basis with its
principal clause, and so is attributive only in form, but not in meaning. It
expresses a new predicative event (connected with the antecedent) which somehow
continues the chain of situations reflected by the sentence as a whole. Cf.:
In turn, the girls
came singly before Brett, who frowned, blinked, bit his pencil, and scratched
his head with it, getting no help from the audience, who applauded each girl
impartially and hooted at every swim suit, as if they could not see hundreds
any day round the swimming pool (M. Dickens).
It has been noted
in linguistic literature that such clauses are essentially not subordinate, but
coordinate, and hence they make up with their principal clause not a complex,
but a compound sentence. As a matter of fact, for the most part such clauses
are equal to coordinate clauses of the copulative type, and their effective
test is the replacement of the relative subordinator by the combination and +
substitute. Cf.:
I phoned to Mr. Smith,
who recognised me at once and invited me to his office. →
I phoned to Mr. Smith, and he recognised me at
once...
Still, the form of
the subordinate clause is preserved by the continuative clause, the contrast
between a dependent form and an independent content constituting the
distinguishing feature of this syntactic unit as such. Thus, what we do see in
continuative clauses is a case of syntactic transposition, i. e. the
transference of a subordinate clause into the functional sphere of a coordinate
clause, with the aim of achieving an expressive effect. This transpositional
property is especially prominent in the which-continuative clause that refers
not to a single nounal antecedent, but to the whole principal clause. E. g.:
The tower clock
struck the hour, which changed the train of his thoughts. His pictures were an
immediate success on the varnishing day, which was nothing to wonder.
The construction is
conveniently used in descriptions and reasonings.
To attributive
clauses belongs also a vast set of appositive
clauses which
perform an important role in the formation of complex sentences. The appositive
clause, in keeping with the general nature of apposition, does not simply give
some sort of qualification to its antecedent, but defines or elucidates its
very meaning in the context. Due to this specialisation, appositive clauses
refer to substantive antecedents of abstract semantics. Since the role of
appositive clauses consists in bringing about contextual limitations of the
meaning of the antecedent, the status of appositive clauses in the general
system of attributive clauses is intermediary between restrictive and
descriptive.
In accord with the
type of the governing antecedent, all the appositive clauses fall into three
groups: first, appositive clauses of nounal relation; second, appositive
clauses of pronominal relation; third, appositive clauses of anticipatory
relation.
Appositive clauses
of nounal relation are functionally nearer to restrictive attributive clauses
than the rest. They can introduce information of a widely variable categorial
nature, both nominal and adverbial. The categorial features of the rendered
information are defined by the type of the antecedent.
The characteristic
antecedents of nominal apposition are abstract nouns like fact, idea, question,
plan, suggestion, news, information, etc. Cf.:
The news that Dr.
Blare had refused to join the Antarctic expedition was sensational. We are not
prepared to discuss the question who will chair the next session of the
Surgical Society.
The nominal
appositive clauses can be tested by transforming them into the corresponding
clauses of primary nominal positions through the omission of the
noun-antecedent or translating it into a predicative complement. Cf.:
... → That
Dr. Blare had refused to join the Antarctic expedition was sensational. -»
That Dr. Blare had refused to join the Antarctic
expedition was sensational news.
The characteristic
antecedents of adverbial apposition are abstract names of adverbial relations,
such as time, moment, place, condition, purpose, etc. Cf.:
We saw him at the
moment he was opening the door of his Cadillac. They did it with the purpose
that no one else might share the responsibility for the outcome of the venture.
As is seen from the
examples, these appositive clauses serve a mixed or double function, i. e. a
function constituting a mixture of nominal and adverbial properties. They may
be tested by transforming them into the corresponding adverbial clauses through
the omission of the noun-antecedent and, if necessary, the introduction of
conjunctive adverbialisers. Cf.:
... → We
saw him as he was opening the door of his Cadillac. ...
→ They did it so that no one else
might share the responsibility for the outcome of the venture.
Appositive clauses
of pronominal relation refer to an antecedent expressed by an indefinite or
demonstrative pronoun. The constructions serve as informatively limiting and
attention-focusing means in contrast to the parallel non-appositive
constructions. Cf.:
I couldn't agree
with all that she was saying in her irritation. →
I couldn't agree with what she was saying in her
irritation. (Limitation is expressed.) That which did strike us was the
inspector's utter ignorance of the details of the case. →
What did strike us was the inspector's utter
ignorance of the details of the case. (The utterances are practically
equivalent, the one with a clausal apposition being somewhat more intense in
its delimitation of the desired focus of attention.)
Appositive clauses
of anticipatory relation are used in constructions with the anticipatory
pronoun (namely, the anticipatory it, occasionally the demonstratives this,
that). There are two varieties of these constructions -
subjective and objective. The subjective clausal
apposition is by far the basic one, both in terms of occurrence (it affects all
the notional verbs of the vocabulary, not only transitive) and functional range
(it possesses a universal sentence-transforming force). Thus, the objective
anticipatory apposition is always interchangeable with the subjective
anticipatory apposition, but not vice versa. Cf.:
I would consider it
(this) a personal offence if they didn't accept the forwarded invitation. →
It would be a personal offence (to me) if they
didn't accept the forwarded invitation. You may depend on it that the letters
won't be left unanswered. → It
may be depended on that the letters won't be left unanswered.
The anticipatory
appositive constructions, as is widely known, constitute one of the most
peculiar typological features of English syntax. Viewed as part of the general
appositive clausal system here presented, it is quite clear that the exposure
of their appositive nature does not at all contradict their anticipatory
interpretation, nor does it mar or diminish their "idiomatically
English" property so emphatically pointed out in grammar books.
The unique role of
the subjective anticipatory appositive construction, as has been stated
elsewhere, consists in the fact that it is used as a universal means of rheme
identification in the actual division of the sentence.
Clauses of
adverbial positions constitute a vast domain of syntax which falls into many
subdivisions each distinguishing its own field of specifications,
complications, and difficulties of analysis. The structural peculiarities and
idiosyncrasies characterising the numerous particular clause models making up
the domain are treated at length in grammatical manuals of various practical
purposes; here our concern will be to discuss some principal issues of their
functional semantics and classification.
Speaking of the
semantics of these clauses, it should be stressed that as far as the level of
generalised clausal meanings is concerned, semantics in question is of absolute
syntactic relevance; accordingly, the traditional identification of major
adverbial clause models based on "semantic considerations" is
linguistically rational, practically helpful, and the many attempts to refute
it in the light of the "newly advanced, objective, consistently
scientific" criteria have not resulted in creating a comprehensive system
capable of competing with the traditional one in its application to textual
materials.
On the other hand,
it would be a mistake to call in question the usefulness of the data obtained
by the latest investigations. Indeed, if their original negative purpose has
failed, the very positive contribution of the said research efforts to
theoretical linguistics is not to be overlooked: it consists in having studied
the actual properties of the complicated clausal system of the sentence, above
all the many-sided correlation between structural forms and functional meanings
in the making of the systemic status of each clausal entity that admits of a description
as a separate unit subtype.
Proceeding from the
said insights, the whole system of adverbial clauses is to be divided into four
groups.
The first group
includes clauses of time and clauses of place. Their common semantic basis is
to be defined as "localisation" -
respectively, temporal and spatial. Both types
of clauses are subject to two major subdivisions, one concerning the local
identification, the other concerning the range of functions.
Local
identification is essentially determined by subordinators. According to the
choice of connector, clauses of time and place are divided into general and
particularising. The general local identification is expressed by the
non-marking conjunctions when and where. Taken by themselves, they do not introduce
any further specifications in the time or place correlations between the two
local clausal events (i.e. principal and subordinate). As for the
particularising local identification, it specifies the time and place
correlations of the two events localising the subordinate one before the
principal, parallel with the principal, after the principal, and possibly
expressing further subgradations of these correspondences.
With subordinate
clauses of time the particularising localisation is expressed by such conjunctions
as while, as, since, before, after, until, as soon as, now that, no sooner
than, etc. E.g.:
We lived here in
London when the war ended. While the war was going on we lived in London. We
had lived in London all through the war until it ended. After the war ended our
family moved to Glasgow. Etc.
With clauses of
place proper the particularising localisation is expressed but occasionally,
mostly by the prepositional conjunctive combinations from where (bookish
equivalent - whence)
and to where. E.g.:
The swimmers
gathered where the beach formed a small promontory. The swimmers kept abreast
of one another from where they started.
For the most part,
however, spatial specifications in the complex sentence are rendered not by
place-clauses proper, but by adverbial-appositive clauses. Cf.: We decided not
to go back to the place from where we started on our journey.
From the functional
point of view, clauses of localisation should
be divided into "direct" (all the above ones) and
"transferred", the latter mostly touching on matters of reasoning.
E.g.:
When you speak of
the plain facts there can't be any question of argument. But I can't agree with
you where the principles of logic are concerned.
A special variety
of complex sentence with a time clause is presented by a construction in which
the main predicative information is expressed in the subordinate clause, the
actual meaning of temporal localisation being rendered by the principal clause
of the sentence. E.g.:
Alice was resting
in bed when Humphrey returned. He brought his small charge into the room and
presented her to her "aunt" (D. E. Stevenson).
The context clearly
shows that the genuine semantic accents in the first sentence of the cited
passage is to be exposed by the reverse arrangement of subordination: it is
Humphrey's actions that are relevant to the developing situation, not Alice's
resting in bed: → Humphrey
returned when Alice was resting in bed...
This type of
complex sentence is known in linguistics as "inversive"; what is
meant by the term, is semantics taken against the syntactic structure. The
construction is a helpful stylistic means of literary narration employed to
mark a transition from one chain of related events to another one.
The second group of
adverbial clauses includes clauses of manner and comparison. The common
semantic basis of their functions can be defined as "qualification",
since they give a qualification to the action or event rendered by the
principal clause. The identification of these clauses can be achieved by
applying the traditional question-transformation test of the how-type, with the
corresponding variations of specifying character (for different kinds of
qualification clauses). Cf.:
He spent the
Saturday night as was his wont. → How
did he spend the Saturday night? You talk to people as if they were a group. →
How do you talk to people? I planned to give my
mother a length of silk for a dress, as thick and heavy as it was possible to
buy. → How
thick and heavy the length of silk was intended to be?
All the adverbial
qualification clauses are to be divided into "factual" and
"speculative", depending on the real or unreal propositional event
described by them.
The discrimination
between manner and comparison clauses is based on the actual comparison which
may or may not be expressed by the considered clausal construction of adverbial
qualification. The semantics of comparison is inherent in the subordinators as
if, as though, than, which are specific introducers of comparison clauses. On
the other hand, the subordinator as, both single and in the combinations as ...
as, not so ...
as, is unspecific in this sense, and so invites
for a discrimination test to be applied in dubious cases. It should be noted
that more often than not a clausally expressed manner in a complex sentence is
rendered by an appositive construction introduced by phrases with the
broad-meaning words way and manner. E.g.: Mr. Smith looked at me in a way that
put me on the alert.
Herein lies one of
the needed procedures of discrimination, which is to be formulated as the
transformation of the tested clause into an appositive that- or which-clause:
the possibility of the transformation marks the clause of manner, while the
impossibility of the transformation (i.e. the preservation of the original
as-clause) marks the clause of comparison. Cf.:
Mary received the
guests as nicely as Aunt Emma had taught her →
... in a (very) nice way that Aunt Emma
had taught her. (The test marks the clause as that of manner.) Mary received
the guests as nicely as Aunt Emma would have done. →
... in as nice a way as Aunt Emma would
have done. (The test marks the clause as comparative.)
Clauses of
comparison are subdivided into those of equality (subordinators as, as ...
as, as if, as though) and those of inequality
(subordinators not so ... as,
than). The discontinuous introducers mark, respectively, a more intense
rendering of the comparison in question. Cf.:
That summer he took
a longer holiday than he had done for many years. For many years he hadn't
taken so long a holiday as he was offered that summer.
With clauses of
comparison it is very important to distinguish the contracted expression of
predication, i.e. predicative zeroing, especially for cases where a clause of
comparison as such is combined with a clause of time. Here predicative zeroing
may lead to the rise of peculiarly fused constructions which may be wrongly
understood. By way of example, let us take the sentence cited in B. Ilyish's
book: Do you find Bath as agreeable as when I had the honour of making the enquiry
before? (J. Austen)
B. Ilyish analyses
the construction as follows: "The when-clause as such is a temporal
clause: it indicates the time when an action ("his earlier enquiry")
took place. However, being introduced by the conjunction as, which has its
correlative, another as, in the main clause, it is at the same time a clause of
comparison" [Ilyish, 299].
The applied
principle of analysis of contamination time-comparison clauses for its part
supports the zero-conception of other outwardly non-predicative comparative
constructions, in particular those introduced by than. Cf.: Nobody could find the
answer quicker than John. → Nobody
could find the answer quicker than John did (could do).
The third and most
numerous group of adverbial clauses includes "classical" clauses of
different circumstantial semantics, i.e. semantics connected with the meaning
of the principal clause by various circumstantial associations; here belong
clauses of attendant event, condition, cause, reason, result (consequence),
concession, purpose. Thus, the common semantic basis of all these clauses can
be defined as "circumstance". The whole group should be divided into
two subgroups, the first being composed by clauses of "attendant
circumstance"; the second, by clauses of "immediate
circumstance".
Clauses of
attendant circumstance are not much varied in structure or semantics and come
near to clauses of time. The difference lies in the fact that, unlike clauses
of time, the event described by a clause of attendant circumstance
is presented as some sort of background in
relation to the event described by the principal clause. Clauses of attendant
circumstance are introduced by the conjunctions while and as. E.g.: As (while)
the reception was going on, Mr. Smiles was engaged in a lively conversation
with the pretty niece of the hostess.
The construction of
attendant circumstance may be taken to render contrast; so all the clauses of
attendant circumstance can be classed into "contrastive" (clauses of
contrast) and "non-contrastive". The non-contrastive clause of
circumstance has been exemplified above. Here is an example of contrastive
attendant circumstance expressed clausally:
Indeed, there is
but this difference between us - that
he wears fine clothes while I go in rags, and that while I am weak from hunger
he suffers not a little from overfeeding (O. Wilde).
As is clear from
the example, a complex sentence with a contrastive clause of attendant
circumstance is semantically close to a compound sentence, i.e. a composite
sentence based on coordination.
Clauses of
immediate circumstance present a vast and complicated system of constructions
expressing different explanations of events, reasonings and speculations in
connection with them. The system should relevantly be divided into "factual"
clauses of circumstance and "speculative" clauses of circumstance
depending on the real or unreal predicative denotations expressed. This
division is of especial significance for complex sentences with conditional
clauses (real condition, problematic condition, unreal condition). Other types
of circumstantial clauses express opposition between factual and speculative
semantics with a potential relation to some kind of condition inherent in the
deep associations of the syntactic constructions. E.g.:
Though she
disapproved of their endless discussions, she had to put up with them. (Real
concession) → Though
she may disapprove of their discussions, she will have to put up with them.
(Speculative concession) -» If
she disapproved (had disapproved) of their discussions, why would she put up
(have put up) with them? (Speculative condition)
The argument was so
unexpected that for a moment Jack lost his ability to speak. (Real consequence)
→ The
argument was so unexpected that it would have frustrated Jack's
ability to speak if he had understood the deep
meaning of it. (Speculative consequence, based on the speculative condition)
Each type of
clauses of circumstance presents its own problems of analysis. On the other
hand, it must be pointed out that all the types of these clauses are
inter-related both semantically and paradigmatically, which may easily be shown
by the corresponding transformations and correlations. Some of such
correlations have been shown on the examples above. Compare also:
He opened the window
wide that he might hear the conversation below. (Purpose) → Unless he
wanted to hear the conversation below he wouldn't open the window. (Condition) →
As he wanted to hear the conversation below, he
opened the window wide and listened. (Cause) →
Though he couldn't hear properly the
conversation below, he opened the window and listened. (Concession) →
The voices were so low that he couldn't hear the
conversation through the open window. (Consequence) →
If he hadn't opened the window wide he couldn't
have heard the conversation. (Condition)
Certain clausal
types of circumstance are closely related to non-circumstantial clausal types.
In particular, this kind of connection is observed between conditional clauses
and time clauses and finds its specifically English expression in the rise of
the contaminated if- and when-clauses: If and when the discussion of the issue
is renewed, both parties will greatly benefit by it.
Another important
variety of clauses of mixed syntactic semantics is formed by concessive clauses
introduced by the connectors ending in -ever. E.g.:
Whoever calls, I'm
not at home. However tempting the offer might be, Jim is not in a position to
accept it.
Clauses of mixed
adverbial semantics present an interesting field of paradigmatic study.
The fourth group of
adverbial clauses is formed by parenthetical or insertive constructions.
Parenthetical clauses, as has been stated elsewhere, are joined to the
principal clause on a looser basis than the other adverbial clauses; still,
they do form with the principal clause a syntactic sentential unity, which is
easily proved by the procedure of diagnostic elimination. Cf.:
Jack has called
here twice this morning, if I am not mistaken. →
(*) Jack has called here twice this
morning.
As is seen from the
example, the elimination of the parenthesis changes the meaning of the whole
sentence from problematic to assertive: the original sense of the utterance is
lost, and this shows that the parenthesis, though inserted in the construction
by a loose connection, still forms an integral part of it.
As to the
subordinative quality of the connection, it is expressed by the type of the
connector used. In other words, parenthetical predicative insertions can be
either subordinative or coordinative, which is determined by the contextual
content of the utterance and exposed by the connective introducer of the
clause. Cf. a coordinate parenthetical clause: Jim said, and I quite agree with
him, that it would be in vain to appeal to the common sense of the organisers.
Cf. the subordinate
correlative of the cited clause: Jim said, though I don't quite agree with him,
that it would be in vain to appeal to the common sense of the organisers.
Parenthetical
clauses distinguish two semantic subtypes. Clauses of the first subtype,
illustrated by the first example in this paragraph, are
"introductory", they express different modal meanings. Clauses of the
second subtype, illustrated by the latter example, are "deviational",
they express commenting insertions of various semantic character. Deviational
parenthesis marks the loosest possible syntactic connection of clauses combined
into a composite sentence.
§ 9. Clauses
in a complex sentence may be connected with one another more closely and less
closely, similar to the parts of a simple sentence. The intensity of connection
between the clauses directly reflects the degree of their proposemic
self-dependence and is therefore an essential characteristic of the complex
sentence as a whole. For instance, a predicative clause or a direct object
clause are connected with the principal clause so closely that the latter
cannot exist without them as a complete syntactic unit. Thus, this kind of
clausal connection is obligatory. Cf.:
The matter is, we
haven't received all the necessary instructions yet. →
(*) The matter is -
I don't know what Mike is going to do about his
damaged bike. → (*)I
don't know - As
different from this, an ordinary adverbial clause is connected with the
principal clause on a looser basis, it can be deleted without destroying the
principal clause as an autonomous unit of information. This kind of clausal
connection is optional. Cf.:
The girl gazed at
him as though she was struck by something extraordinary in his appearance. →
The girl gazed at him.
The division of
subordinative clausal connections into obligatory and optional was employed by
the Russian linguist N. S.
Pospelov (1950) for
the introduction of a new classification of complex sentences. In accord with
his views, all the complex sentences of minimal structure (i.e. consisting of
one principal clause and one subordinate clause) should be classed as
"one-member" complex sentences and "two-member" complex
sentences. One-member complex sentences are distinguished by an obligatory
subordinative connection, while two-member complex sentences are distinguished
by an optional subordinative connection. The obligatory connection is
determined both by the type of the subordinate clause (subject, predicative,
object clauses) and the type of the introduction of the clause (demonstrative
correlation). The optional connection characterises adverbial clauses of
diverse functions and attributive clauses of descriptive type. Semantically,
one-member complex sentences are understood as reflecting one complex logical
proposition, and two-member complex sentences as reflecting two logical
propositions connected with each other on the subordinative principle.
The rational
character of the advanced conception is quite obvious. Its strong point is the
fact that it consistently demonstrates the correlation between form and meaning
in the complex sentence structure. Far from rejecting the traditional teaching
of complex sentences, the "member conception" is based on its
categories and develops them further, disclosing such properties of
subordinative connections which were not known to the linguistic science
before.
Speaking not only
of the complex sentence of minimal composition, but in terms of complex
sentences in general, it would be appropriate to introduce the notions of
"monolythic" and "segregative" sentence structures.
Obligatory subordinative connections underlie monolythic complexes, while
optional subordinative connections underlie segregative complexes.
Monolithic complex
sentences fall into four basic types.
The first of them
is formed by merger complex sentences, i.e. sentences with subject and
predicative subordinate clauses. The subordinate clausal part of the merger
monolythic complex, as has been shown above (see §
2), is fused with its principal clause.
The corresponding construction of syntactic anticipation should also be
considered under this heading. Cf.: It was at this point that Bill had come
bustling into the room. → (*) It
was at this point -
The second subtype of
complex sentences in question is formed by constructions whose subordinate
clauses are dependent on the obligatory right-hand valency of the verb in the
principal clause. We can tentatively call these constructions
"valency" monolith complexes. Here belong complexes with object
clauses and valency-determined adverbial clauses: from the point of view of
subordinative cohesion they are alike. Cf.:
I don't know when
I'm beaten. -» (*) I
don't know - Put
the book where you've taken it from. → (*) Put
the book - Her
first shock was when she came down. → (*) Her
first shock was -
The third subtype
of monolythic complex sentences is formed by constructions based on
subordinative correlations - "correlation"
monolith complexes. E.g.:
His nose was as
unkindly short as his upper lip was long. You will enjoy such a sight as you
are not likely to see again. The more I think of it, the more I'm convinced of
his innocence.
Restrictive
attributive clauses should be included into this subtype of correlation
monoliths irrespective of whether or not their correlation scheme is explicitly
expressed. Cf.:
This is the same
report as was submitted last week. This is the report that was submitted last
week.
Finally, the fourth
subtype of monolithic complex sentences is formed by constructions whose
obligatory connection between the principal and subordinate clauses is
determined only by the linear order of clausal positions. Cf.: If he comes,
tell him to wait. →(*) If
he comes -
As is easily seen,
such "arrangement" monolith complexes are not "organically"
monolithic, as different from the first three monolith subtypes; positional
re-arrangement deprives them
of this quality, changing the clausal connection from obligatory into optional:
Tell him to wait if he comes. → Tell
him to wait.
The rest of the
complex sentences are characterised by segregative structure, the maximum
degree of syntactic option being characteristic of subordinative parenthetical
connection.
Complex sentences
which have two or more subordinate clauses discriminate two basic types of
subordination arrangement: parallel and consecutive.
Subordinate clauses
immediately referring to one and the same principal clause are said to be
subordinated "in parallel" or "co-subordinated". Parallel
subordination may be both homogeneous and heterogeneous. For instance, the two
clauses of time in the following complex sentence, being embedded on the
principle of parallel subordination, are homogeneous -
they depend on the same element (the principal
clause as a whole), are connected with each other coordinatively and perform
the same function: When he agrees to hear me, and when we have spoken the
matter over, I'll tell you the result.
Homogeneous
arrangement is very typical of object clauses expressing reported speech. E.g.:
Mrs. Lewin had warned her that Cadover was an extraordinary place, and that one
must never be astonished by anything (A. Huxley).
By heterogeneous
parallel subordination, co-subordinate clauses mostly refer to different
elements in the principal clause. E.g.: The speakers who represented different
nations and social strata were unanimous in their call for peace which is so
ardently desired by the common people of the world.
As different from
parallel subordination, consecutive subordination presents a hierarchy of
clausal levels. In this hierarchy one subordinate clause is commonly
subordinated to another, making up an uninterrupted gradation. This kind of
clausal arrangement may be called "direct" consecutive subordination.
E.g.: I've no idea why she said she couldn't call on us at the time I had
suggested.
Alongside of direct
consecutive subordination there is another form of clausal hierarchy which is
formed without an immediate domination of one subordinate clause over another.
For instance, this is the case when the principal clause of a complex
multi-level sentence is built up on a merger basis, i.e. includes a subject or
predicative clause.
E.g.: What he saw
made him wince as though he had been struck.
In the cited
sentence the comparative subordinate clause is dominated by the whole of the
principal clause which includes a subordinate propositional unit in its
syntactic position of the subject. Thus, the subordinative structure of the
sentence is in fact consecutive, though not directly consecutive. This type of
hierarchical clausal arrangement may be called "oblique" consecutive
subordination; it is of minor importance for the system of subordination
perspective as a whole.
The number of
consecutive levels of subordination gives the evaluation of the "depth"
of subordination perspective - one
of the essential syntactic characteristics of the complex sentence. In the
first three examples cited in the current paragraph this depth is estimated as 1;
in the fourth example (direct consecutive
subordination) it equals 3; in
the fifth example (oblique consecutive subordination) it equals 2.
The subordination perspective of complex
sentences used in ordinary colloquial speech seldom exceeds three consecutive
clausal levels.
XXVIII. COMPOUND
SENTENCE
The compound sentence
is a composite sentence built on the principle of coordination. Coordination,
the same as subordination, can be expressed either syndetically (by means of
coordinative connectors) or asyndetically.
The main semantic
relations between the clauses connected coordinatively are copulative,
adversative, disjunctive, causal, consequential, resultative. Similar semantic
types of relations are to be found between independent, separate sentences
forming a continual text. As is known, this fact has given cause to some
scholars to deny the existence of the compound sentence as a special, regular
form of the composite sentence.*
The advanced thesis
to this effect states that the so-called "compound sentence" is a
fictitious notion developed under the
school influence of written presentation of speech; what is fallaciously termed
the "compound sentence" constitutes in reality a sequence of
semantically related independent sentences not separated by full stops in writing
because of an arbitrary school convention.
To support this
analysis, the following reasons are put forward: first, the possibility of a
falling, finalising tone between the coordinated predicative units; second, the
existence, in written speech, of independently presented sentences introduced
by the same conjunctions as the would-be "coordinate clauses"; third,
the possibility of a full stop-separation of the said "coordinate
clauses" with the preservation of the same semantic relations between
them.
We must admit that,
linguistically, the cited reasons are not devoid of a rational aspect, and,
which is very important, they appeal to the actual properties of the sentence
in the text. However, the conception taken as a whole gives a false
presentation of the essential facts under analysis and is fallacious in
principle.
As a matter of
fact, there is a substantial semantico-syntactic difference between the
compound sentence and the corresponding textual sequence of independent
sentences. This difference can escape the attention of the observer when
tackling isolated sentences, but it is explicitly exposed in the contexts of
continual speech. Namely, by means of differences in syntactic distributions of
predicative units, different distributions of the expressed ideas is achieved,
which is just the coordinative syntactic functions in action; by means of
combining or non-combining predicative units into a coordinative
polypredicative sequence the corresponding closeness or looseness of
connections between the reflected events is shown, which is another aspect of
coordinative syntactic functions. It is due to these functions that the
compound sentence does not only exist in the syntactic system of language, but
occupies in it one of the constitutive places.
By way of example,
let us take a textual sequence of independent monopredicative units:
Jane adored that
actor. Hockins could not stand the sight of him. Each was convinced of the
infallibility of one's artistic judgment. That aroused prolonged arguments.
Given the
"negative" theory of the compound sentence is correct, any
coordinative-sentential re-arrangements of the cited sentences must be
indifferent as regards the sense rendered by the text. In practice, though, it
is not so. In particular, the following arrangement of the predicative units
into two successive compound sentences is quite justified from the
semantico-syntactic point of view:
→ Jane
adored that actor, but Hockins could not stand the sight of him. Each was
convinced of the infallibility of one's judgment, and that aroused prolonged
arguments.
As different from
this, the version of arranging the same material given below cannot be justified
in any syntactic or semantic sense:
→ *Jane
adored that actor. But Hockins could not stand the sight of him, each was
convinced of the infallibility of one's judgment. And that aroused prolonged
arguments.
On the other hand,
some subordinate clauses of a complex sentence can also be separated in the
text, thus being changed into specific independent sentences. Still, no one
would seek to deny the existence of complex sentence patterns based on optional
subordinative connections. Cf.:
Suddenly Laura
paused as if she was arrested by something invisible from here. →
Suddenly Laura paused. As if she was arrested by
something invisible from here.
As for the factor
of intonation, it should indeed be invariably taken into account when
considering general problems of sentence identification. The propositional
intonation contour with its final delimitation pause is one of the constitutive
means of the creation and existence of the sentence as a lingual phenomenon. In
particular, the developing intonation pattern in the process of speech sustains
the semantic sentence strain from the beginning of the sentence up to the end
of it. And there is a profound difference between the intonation patterns of
the sentence and those of the clause, no matter how many traits of similarity
they may possess, including finalising features. Moreover, as is known, the
tone of a coordinate clause, far from being rigorously falling, can be rising
as well. The core of the matter is that the speaker has intonation at his
disposal as a means of forming sentences, combining sentences, and separating
sentences. He actively uses this means, grouping the same syntactic strings of
words now as one composite sentence, now as so many simple sentences, with the
corresponding more essential
or less essential changes in meanings, of his own choice, which is determined
by concrete semantic and contextual conditions.
Thus, the idea of
the non-existence of the compound sentence in English should be rejected
unconditionally. On the other hand, it should be made clear that the
formulation of this negative idea as such has served us a positive cause, after
all: its objective scientific merit, similar to some other inadequate ideas
advanced in linguistics at different times, consists in the very fact that it
can be used as a means of counter-argumentation in the course of research work,
as a starting point for new insights into the deep nature of lingual phenomena
in the process of theoretical analysis sustained by observation.
The compound
sentence is derived from two or more base sentences which, as we have already
stated above, are connected on the principle of coordination either
syndetically or asyndetically. The base sentences joined into one compound
sentence lose their independent status and become coordinate clauses -
parts of a composite unity. The first clause is
"leading" (the "leader" clause), the successive clauses are
"sequential". This division is essential not only from the point of
view of outer structure (clause-order), but also in the light of the
semantico-syntactic content: it is the sequential clause that includes the
connector in its composition, thus being turned into some kind of dependent
clause, although the type of its dependence is not subordinative. Indeed, what
does such a predicative unit signify without its syntactic leader?
The coordinating
connectors, or coordinators, are divided into conjunctions proper and
semi-functional clausal connectors of adverbial character. The main
coordinating conjunctions, both simple and discontinuous, are: and, but, or,
nor, neither, for, either ... or,
neither ... nor,
etc. The main adverbial coordinators are: then, yet, so, thus, consequently,
nevertheless, however, etc. The adverbial coordinators, unlike pure
conjunctions, as a rule can shift their position in the sentence (the
exceptions are the connectors yet and so). Cf.:
Mrs. Dyre stepped
into the room, however the host took no notice of it. →
Mrs. Dyre stepped into the room, the host,
however, took no notice of it.
The intensity of
cohesion between the coordinate clauses can become loose, and in this case the
construction is changed into a cumulative one (see Ch. XXVI). E.g.: Nobody ever
disturbed him while he was at work; it was one of the unwritten laws.
As has been stated
elsewhere, such cases of cumulation mark the intermediary status of the
construction, i.e. its place in syntax between a composite sentence and a
sequence of independent sentences.
When approached
from the semantico-syntactic point of view, the connection between the clauses
in a compound sentence should be analysed into two basic types: first, the
unmarked coordinative connection; second, the marked coordinative connection.
The unmarked
coordinative connection is realised by the coordinative conjunction and and
also asyndetically. The unmarked semantic nature of this type of connection is
seen from the fact that it is not specified in any way and requires a
diagnostic exposition through the marked connection. The exposition properly
effected shows that each of the two series of compound predicative
constructions falls into two principal subdivisions. Namely, the syndetic
and-constructions discriminate, first, simple copulative relations and, second,
broader, non-copulative relations. The asyndetic constructions discriminate,
first, simple enumerative relations and, second, broader, non-enumerative
relations. Cf. examples of the primary connective meanings of the constructions
in question:
You will have a
great deal to say to her, and she will have a great deal to thank you for. She
was tall and slender, her hair was light chestnut, her eyes had a dreamy
expression.
The broader
connective meanings of the considered constructions can be exposed by
equivalent substitutions:
The money kept
coming in every week, and the offensive gossip about his wife began to be
replaced by predictions of sensational success. →
The money kept coming in every week, so the
offensive gossip about his wife began to be replaced by predictions of
sensational success. The boy obeyed, the request was imperative. →
The boy obeyed, for the request was imperative.
The marked
coordinative connection is effected by the pure and adverbial coordinators
mentioned above. Each semantic type of connection is inherent in the marking
semantics of the connector. In particular, the connectors but, yet, stilt,
however, etc. express different varieties of adversative relations of clauses;
the discontinuous connectors both ... and,
neither ... nor
express, correspondingly, positive and negative (exclusive) copulative relations
of events; the connectors so, therefore, consequently express various subtypes
of clausal consequence, etc.
In order to give a
specification to the semantics of clausal relations, the coordinative
conjunction can be used together with an accompanying functional particle-like
or adverb-like word. As a result, the marked connection, as it were, becomes
doubly marked. In particular, the conjunction but forms the conjunctive
specifying combinations but merely, but instead, but also and the like; the
conjunction or forms the characteristic coordinative combinations or else, or
rather, or even, etc. Cf.:
The workers were
not prepared to accept the conditions of the administration, but instead they
were considering a mass demonstration. She was frank with him, or rather she
told him everything concerning the mere facts of the incident.
The coordinative
specifiers combine also with the conjunction and, thus turning the unmarked
coordinative connection into a marked one. Among the specifiers here used are
included the adverbial coordinators so, yet, consequently and some others.
E.g.: The two friends didn't dispute over the issue afterwards, and yet there
seemed a hidden discord growing between them.
It should be
specially noted that in the described semantic classification of the types of
coordinative relations, the asyndetic connection is not included in the upper
division of the system, which is due to its non-specific functional meaning.
This fact serves to sustain the thesis that asyndetic connection of clauses is
not to be given such a special status in syntax as would raise it above the
discrimination between coordination and subordination.
It is easily seen
that coordinative connections are correlated semantically with subordinative
connections so that a compound sentence can often be transformed into
a complex one with the preservation of the
essential relational semantics between the clauses. The coordinative
connections, as different from subordinative, besides the basic opposition to
the latter by their ranking quality, are more general, they are semantically
less discriminatory, less "refined". That is why the subordinative
connection is regularly used as a diagnostic model for the coordinative
connection, while the reverse is an exception rather than a rule. Cf.:
Our host had rung
the bell on our entrance and now a Chinese cook came in with more glasses and
several bottles of soda. → On
our entrance, as our host had rung the bell, a Chinese cook came in with more
glasses and several bottles of soda. There was nothing else to do, so Alice
soon began talking again. → Alice
soon began talking again because there was nothing else to do.
Speaking of the
diagnostic role of subordinative constructions in relation to coordinative
ones, it should be understood that this is of especial importance for the
unmarked constructions, in particular for those realised by the conjunction
and.
On the other hand,
the coordinative connection of clauses is in principle not reducible to the
subordinative connection, which fact, as in other similar cases of
correlations, explains the separate and parallel existence of both types of
clausal connection in language. This can be illustrated by the following
example: I invited
Mike to join us, but he refused.
It would appear at
first sight that the subordinative diagnostic-specifying exposition of the
semantic relations between the clauses of the cited sentence can be achieved by
the concessive construction: "Though I invited Mike to join us, he
refused". But the proper observation of the corresponding materials shows
that this diagnosis is only valid for part of the possible contexts. Suffice it
to give the following two contextual expansions to the sentence in question, of
which only one corresponds to the cited diagnosis.
The first
expansion: You are mistaken if you think that Mike was eager to receive an
invitation to join us. I invited
him, but he refused.
The given
concessive reading of the sentence is justified by the context: the tested
compound sentence is to be replaced here by the above complex one on a clear
basis of equivalence.
The second
expansion: It was decided to invite either Mike or Jesse to help us with our
work. First I invited Mike, but he refused. Then we asked Jesse to join us.
It is quite clear
that the devised concessive diagnosis is not at all justified by this context:
what the analysed construction does render here, is a stage in a succession of
events, for which the use of a concessive model would be absurd.
The length of the
compound sentence in terms of the number of its clausal parts (its predicative
volume), the same as with the complex sentence, is in principle unlimited; it
is determined by the informative purpose of the speaker. The commonest type of
the compound sentence in this respect is a two-clause construction.
On the other hand,
predicatively longer sentences than two-clause ones, from the point of view of
semantic correlation between the clauses, are divided into "open" and
"closed" constructions. Copulative and enumerative types of
connection, if they are not varied in the final sequential clause, form
"open" coordinations. These are used as descriptive and narrative
means in a literary text. Cf.:
They visited house
after house. They went over them thoroughly, examining them from the cellars in
the basement to the attics under the roof. Sometimes they were too large and
sometimes they were too small; sometimes they were too far from the center of
things and sometimes they were too close; sometimes they were too expensive and
sometimes they wanted too many repairs; sometimes they were too stuffy and sometimes
they were too airy; sometimes they were too dark and sometimes they were too
bleak. Roger always found a fault that made the house unsuitable (S. Maugham).
In the multi-clause
compound sentence of a closed type the final part is joined on an unequal basis
with the previous ones (or one), whereby a finalisation of the expressed chain
of ideas is achieved. The same as open compound sentences, closed compound
constructions are very important from the point of view of a general text
arrangement. The most typical closures in such compound sentences are those
effected by the conjunctions and (for an asyndetic preceding construction) and
but (both for an asyndetic and copulative syndetic preceding construction).
Cf., respectively:
His fingernails had
been cleaned, his teeth brushed, his hair combed, his nostrils cleared and
dried, and he had been dressed in formal black by somebody or other (W.
Saroyan).
Pleasure may turn a
heart to stone, riches may make it callous, but sorrow -
oh, sorrow cannot break it (O. Wilde).
The structure of
the closed coordinative construction is most convenient for the formation of
expressive climax.
language
grammatical word categorial
CHAPTER XXIX.
SEMI-COMPLEX SENTENCE
In accord with the
principles laid down in the introductory description of composite sentences
(Ch. XXVI), the semi-composite sentence is to be defined as a sentence with
more than one predicative lines which are expressed in fusion. For the most
part, one of these lines can be identified as the leading or dominant, the
others making the semi-predicative expansion of the sentence. The expanding
semi-predicative line in the minimal semi-composite sentence is either wholly
fused with the dominant (complete) predicative line of the construction, or
partially fused with it, being weakened as a result of the fusing derivational
transformation.
The semi-composite
sentence displays an intermediary syntactic character between the composite
sentence and the simple sentence. Its immediate syntagmatic structure
("surface" structure) is analogous to that of an expanded simple
sentence, since it possesses only one completely expressed predicative unit.
Its derivational structure ("deep" structure), on the other hand, is
analogous to that of a composite sentence, because it is derived from two or
more completely predicative units - its
base sentences.
There are two
different causes of the existence of the semi-composite sentence in language,
each of them being essentially important in itself.
The first cause is
the tendency of speech to be economical. As a result of this tendency,
reductional processes are developed which bring about semi-blending of
sentences. The second cause is that, apart from being economical, the
semi-composite sentence fulfils its own purely semantic function, different
from the function of the composite sentence proper (and so supplementing it).
Namely, it is used to show that the events described in the corresponding
sentence parts are more closely connected than the events described in the
parts of the composite sentence of complete
composition. This function is inherent in the structure -
it reflects the speaker's view of reality, his
presentation of it. Thus, for different reasons and purposes the same two or
several events can be reflected now by one type of structure, now by another
type of structure, the corresponding "pleni"- and semi-constructions
existing in the syntactic system of language as pairs of related and, for that
matter, synonymically related functions. E.g.:
The sergeant gave a
quick salute to me, and then he put his squad in motion. →
Giving a quick salute to me, the sergeant put
his squad in motion. → With
a quick salute to me, the sergeant put his squad in motion.
The two connected
events described by the cited sentences are, first, the sergeant's giving a
salute to the speaker, and, second, the sergeant's putting his squad in motion.
The first sentence, of the pleni-composite type, presents these situationally
connected events in separate processual descriptions as they happened one after
the other, the successive order being accentuated by the structural features of
the construction, in particular, its sequential coordinate clause. The second
sentence, of the semi-composite participial-expanded type, expresses a semantic
ranking of the events in the situational blend, one of them standing out as a
dominant event, the other as a by-event. In the presentation of the third
construction, belonging to the primitivised type of semi-composition (maximum degree
of blending), the fusion of the events is shown as constituting a unity in
which the attendant action (the sergeant's salute) forms simply a background
detail in relation to the immediately reflected occurrence (the sergeant's
putting the squad in motion).
According to the
ranking structure of the semi-composite sentences, they should be divided into
semi-complex and semi-compound ones. These constructions correspond to the
complex and compound sentences of complete composition (i.e., respectively,
pleni-complex and pleni-compound sentences).
The semi-complex
sentence is a semi-composite sentence built up on the principle of
subordination. It is derived from minimum two base sentences, one matrix and
one insert. In the process of semi-complexing, the insert sentence is
transformed into a partially depredicated construction which is embedded in one
of the syntactic positions of the matrix
sentence. In the resulting construction, the matrix sentence becomes its
dominant part and the insert sentence, its subordinate semi-clause.
The semi-complex
sentences fall into a number of subtypes. Their basic division is dependent on
the character of predicative fusion: this may be effected either by the process
of position-sharing (word-sharing), or by the process of direct linear
expansion. The sentences based on position-sharing fall into those of
subject-sharing and those of object-sharing. The sentences based on
semi-predicative linear expansion fall into those of attributive complication,
adverbial complication, and nominal-phrase complication. Each subtype is
related to a definite complex sentence (pleni-complex sentence) as its explicit
structural prototype.
Semi-complex
sentences of subject-sharing are built up by means of the two base sentences
overlapping round the common subject. E.g.:
The man stood. +
The man was silent. → The man stood silent. The moon rose. + The moon was
red. → The moon rose red.
From the
syntagmatic point of view, the predicate of these sentences forms the structure
of the "double predicate" because it expresses two essential
functions at once: first, the function of a verbal type (the verb component of
the predicate); second, the function of a nominal type (the whole combination
of the verb with the nominal component). The paradigmatic analysis shows that
the verb of the double predicate, being on the surface a notional link-verb, is
in fact a quasi-link.
In the position of
the predicative of the construction different categorial classes of words are
used with their respective specific meanings and implications: nouns,
adjectives, participles both present and past. Cf.:
Sam returned from
the polar expedition a grown-up man. They waited breathless. She stood bending
over the child's bed. We stared at the picture bewildered.
Observing the semantic,
content of the given constructions, we sec that, within the bounds of their
functional differences, they express two simultaneous events - or, rather, the
simultaneity of the event described by the complicalor expansion with that
described by the dominant part. At the same
time the construction gives informative prominence not to its dominant, but to
the complicator, and corresponds to the pleni-complex sentence featuring the
complicator event in the principal clause placed in post-position. Cf.:
The moon rose red. →
As the moon rose it was red. She stood bending over the child's bed. → As
she stood she was bending over the child's bed.
In the
subject-sharing semi-composites with reflexivised dominant verbs of intense
action the idea of change is rendered. E.g.:
He spoke himself
hoarse. → As he spoke he became hoarse. (Further diagnosis: He spoke and
spoke until he became hoarse.)
Apart from the
described types of subject-sharing sentences there is a variety of them
featuring the dominant verb in the passive. E.g.:
The idea has never
been considered a wise one. The company was ordered to halt.
These sentences
have active counterparts as their paradigmatic derivation bases which we
analyse below as semi-complex sentences of object sharing.
Semi-complex sentences
of object-sharing, as different from those of subject-sharing, are built up of
two base sentences overlapping round the word performing different functions in
them: in the matrix sentence it is the object, in the insert sentence it is the
subject. The complicator expansion of such sentences is commonly called the
"complex object". E.g.:
We saw him.-\-He
approached us. → We saw him approach us (approaching us). They painted
the fence.-\-The fence was (became) green. → They painted the fence
green.
Some dominant verbs
of such constructions are not used in the same essential meaning outside the
constructions, in particular, some causative verbs, verbs of liking and
disliking, etc. Cf.: *I made him.+He obeyed. ~» I made him obey.
This fact,
naturally, reflects a very close unity of the constituents of such
constructions, but, in our opinion, it can't be looked upon as excluding the
constructions from the
syntactic subsystem in question; rather, the subsystem should be divided into
the subsets of "free" object-sharing and "bound"
object-sharing.
The adjunct to the
shared object is expressed by an infinitive, a present or past participle, an
adjective, a noun, depending on the structural type of the insert sentence
(namely, on its being verbal or nominal).
As is seen from the
above, the paradigmatic (derivational) explanation of the sentence with a
"complex object" saves much descriptive space and, which is far more
important, is at once generalising and practicable.* As for the relations
between the two connected events expressed by the object-sharing sentence, they
are of the three basic types: first, relations of simultaneity in the same
place; second, relations of cause and result; third, relations of mental
attitude towards the event (events thought of, spoken of, wished for, liked or
disliked, etc.). All these types of relations can be explicated by the
corresponding transformations of the semi-complex sentences into pleni-complex
sentences.
Simultaneity in the
same place is expressed by constructions with dominant verbs of perceptions
(see, hear, feel, smell, etc.). E.g.:
He felt the morning
breeze gently touching his face. → He felt the morning breeze as it was
gently touching his lace. I never heard the word pronounced like that. →
I never heard the word as it was pronounced like that.
Cause and result
relations are rendered by constructions with dominant causative verbs taking
three types of complex objects: an unmarked infinitival complex object (the
verbs make, let, get, have, help); a nounal or adjectival complex object (the
verbs call, appoint, keep, paint, etc.); a participial complex object (the
verbs set, send, keep, etc.). Cf.:
I helped Jo find
the photo. → I helped Jo so that he found the photo. The cook beat the
meat soft. -» The cook beat the meat so that it was (became) soft.
Different mental
presentations of the complicator event are effected, respectively, by verbs of
mental perceptions and thinking (think, believe, expect, find, etc.); verbs of
speech (tell,
ask, report, announce, etc.); verbs of wish; verbs of liking and disliking.
Cf.:
You will find many
things strange here. → You will find that many things are strange here. I
didn't mean my words to hurt you. → I didn't mean that my words should
hurt you.
Semi-complex
sentences of the object-sharing type, as we have stated above, are closely
related to sentences of the subject-sharing type. Structurally this is
expressed in the fact that they can be transformed into the passive, their
passive counterparts forming the corresponding subject-sharing constructions.
Cf.:
We watched the
plane disappear behind the distant clouds. → The plane was watched to
disappear behind the distant clouds. They washed the floor clean. → The
floor was washed clean.
Between the two
series of constructions, i.e. active and passive, equivalence of the
event-relations is observed, so that the difference in their basic meaning is
inherent in the difference between the verbal active and passive as such.
§ 5. Semi-complex
sentences of attributive complication are derived from two base sentences
having an identical element that occupies the position of the subject in the
insert sentence and any notional position in the matrix sentence. The insert
sentence is usually an expanded one. By the semi-complexing process, the insert
sentence drops out its subject-identical constituent and is transformed into a
semi-predicative post-positional attribute to the antecedent element in the
matrix sentence. E.g.:
The waves sent out
fine spray. + The waves rolled over the dam. → The waves rolling over the
dam sent out fine spray. I came in late for the supper. + The supper was served
in the dining-room. → I came in late for the supper served in the
dining-room.
The analogy between
post-positional attributes (especially of a detached type) and attributive
subordinate clauses has always been pointed out in grammar-books of various
destination. The common pre-positional attribute is devoid of a similar
half-predicative character and is not to be considered as forming a
semi-composite construction with the dominant
predicative unit. Cf.: The bored family switched off the TV. - The family,
bored, switched off the TV.
As for the possible
detachment of the defining element (construction) in pre-position, this use is
rather to be analysed as adverbial, not attributive, the circumstantial
semantic component prevailing over the attributive one in this case. Cf.:
Bored, the family switched off the TV. → As the family was bored, it
switched off the TV.
, Naturally, the
existence of some intermediary types cannot be excluded, which should be
exposed in due course by the corresponding contextual observation.
As is seen, the
base syntactic material for producing attributively complicated semi-composites
is similar to the derivation base of position-sharing semi-composites. The
essential difference between the constructions, though, lies in the character
of joining their clausal parts: while the process of overlapping deprives the
position-sharing expansion of any self-dependent existence, however potential
it might be, the process of linear expansion with the attributive complication
preserves the autonomous functional role of the semi-clause. The formal test of
it is the possibility of inserting into the construction a relative conjunctive
plus the necessary verbal element, changing the attributive semi-clause into
the related attributive pleni-clause. E.g.:' This is a novel translated from
the French. → This is a novel which has been translated from the French,
This test resembles
a reconstruction, since an attributive complication in many respects resembles
a reduced clause. The position-sharing expansion does not admit of this kind of
procedure: the very process of overlapping puts it out of the question. The
other factor of difference is the obligatory status of the position-sharing
expansion (even in constructions of'"free"''object-sharing) against
the optional status of the attributive complicator.
The attributive
semi-clause may contain in its head position a present participle, a past
participle and an adjective. The present participial attributive semi-clause
corresponds to the attributive subordinate clause with a verbal predicate in
the active. E.g.: We found dry ground at the base of a tree looking toward the
sun. → We found dry ground at the base of a tree that looked toward the
sun.
Naturally, the
present participial semi-clause of the attributive type cannot express an event
prior to the event of
the dominant clause. So, an attributive clause of complete predicative
character expressing such an event has no parallel in a participial attributive
semi-clause. E.g.: The squad that picked me up could have been scouts. →
(*) The squad picking me up...
The past
participial attributive semi-clause corresponds to the passive attributive
subordinate clause. E.g.: You can never rely on the information received from
that office. → You can never rely on the information which is received
from that office.
The adjectival
attributive semi-clause corresponds to the nominal attributive subordinate
clause. E.g.: We admired the lilies white against the blue water. → We
admired the lilies which were white against the blue water.
Semi-complex
sentences of participial attributive complication formed by introducer
constructions resemble subject-sharing semi-complex sentences. Cf.:
There is a river
flowing through the town. → There is a river which flows through the
town. This is John speaking. → This is John who is speaking.
Still closer to the
subject-sharing semi-composite sentence stands the peculiar introducer or
demonstrative construction whose attributive semi-clause has a finite verb
predicate. This specific semi-complex sentence, formed much on the pattern of
common subject overlapping, is called the "apo-koinou" construction
(Greek "with a common element"). E.g.:
It was you insisted
on coming, because you didn't like restaurants (S. O'Casey), He's the one makes
the noise at night (E. Hemingway). And there's nothing more can be done (A.
Christie).
The apo-koinou
construction is considered here under the heading of the semi-complex sentence
of attributive complication on the ground of its natural relation to the
complex sentence with an attributive subordinate clause, similar to any common
semi-complex sentence of the type in question. The apo-koinou construction
should be classed as a familiar colloquialism of occasional use.
Semi-complex
sentences of adverbial complication are derived from two base sentences one of
which, the insert sentence,
is predicatively reduced and embedded in an adverbial position of the other
one, the matrix sentence. E.g.:
The task was
completed. + The task seemed a very easy one. → The task, when completed,
seemed a very easy one. The windows were closed.-\-She did not hear the noise
in the street. -» The windows being closed, she did not hear the noise in the
street.
The subject of the
insert sentence may be either identical with that of the matrix sentence (the
first of the above examples) or not identical with it (the second example).
This feature serves as the first fundamental basis for classifying the
semi-complex sentences in question, since in the derived adverbial semi-clause
the identical subject is dropped out and the non-identical subject is
preserved. It will be reasonable to call the adverbial semi-clause of the first
type (i.e. referring to the subject of the dominant clause) the
"conjoint" semi-clause. The adverbial complicator expansion of the
second type (i.e. having its own subject) is known under the name of the
"absolute construction" (it will further be referred to as
"absolutive").
The given
classification may be formulated for practical purposes as the "rule of
the subject", which will run as follows: by adverbialising scmi-complexing
the subject of the insert sentence is deleted if it is identical with the
subject of the matrix sentence,
The other
classificational division of adverbial semi-clauses concerns the representation
of the predicate position. This position is only partially predicative, the
role of the partial predicate being performed by the participle, either present
or past. The participle is derived from the finite verb of the insert sentence;
in other words, the predicate of the insert sentence is participialised in the
semi-clause. Now, the participle-predicate of the adverbial semi-clause may be
dropped out if the insert sentence, presents a nominal or existential
construction (the finite verb be). Thus, in accord with this feature of their
outer structure, adverbial semi-clauses are divided into participial and
non-participial. E.g.:
One day Kitty had
an accident. + She was swinging in the garden. → One day Kitty had an
accident while swinging in the garden. (The participle is not to be deleted,
being of an actional character.) He is very young.+ He is quite competent in
this field. -» Though being very young, he is
quite competent in this field. → Though
very young, he is quite competent in this field. (The participle can be
deleted, being of a linking nature.) She spoke as if being in a dream. →
She spoke as if in a dream. (The predicate can be deleted, since It is expressed
by the existential be.)
The two predicate
types of adverbial semi-clauses, similar to the two subject types, can be
briefly presented by the "rule of the predicate" as follows: by
adverbialising semi-complexing the verb-predicate of the insert sentence is
participialised, and may be deleted if it is expressed by be.
Conjoint adverbial
semi-clauses are either introduced by adverbial subordinated conjunctions or
joined to the dominant clause asyndetically. The adverbial semantics expressed
is temporal, broader local, causal, conditional, comparative. Cf. syndetic
introduction of adverbial semi-clauses:
He was silent as if
not having heard the call. → ...as if he had not heard the call. Read on
unless told otherwise. → ... unless you are told otherwise. Although kept
out of the press, the event is widely known in the diplomatic circles. →
Although it is kept out of the press... When in London, the tourists travelled
in double-deckers. → When they were in London...
Asyndetic
introduction of adverbial semi-clauses is characteristic of temporal and causal
constructions. Cf.:
Working on the
book, the writer travelled much about the country. → When working on the
book... Dialling her number, she made a mistake. → While dialling her
number... Being tired, I could not accept the invitation. → As I was
tired...
As for the
absolutive adverbial semi-clauses, they are joined to the dominant clause
either asyndetically, or, mostly for the purpose of emphasis, by the
conjunction with. The adverbial semantics of the absolutive complicator
expansion is temporal, causal, and attendant-circumstantial. E.g.:
Everything being
settled, Moyra felt relieved. → As everything was settled... Two days
having elapsed, the travellers set out on their way. -» When two days had
elapsed...With all this work waiting for me, I can't afford to join their
Sunday outing. → As all this work is waiting for me... • "
The rule of the
predicate is observed in absolulive complicators the same as in conjoint adverbial
complicators. Its only restriction concerns impersonal sentences where the
link-verb is not to be deleted. Cf.:
The long luncheon
over, the business friend would bow and go his way. → When the long
luncheon was over... It being very hot, the children gladly ran down to the
lake. → As it was very hot...
Semi-complex
sentences of nominal phrase complication are derived from two base sentences
one of which, the insert sentence, is partially norninalised (changed into a
verbid phrase of infinitival or gerundial type) and embedded in one of the
nominal and prepositional adverbial positions of the other sentence serving as
the matrix. The nominal verbid constructions meet the demands both of economy
and expressiveness, and they are widely used in all the functional orders of
speech. The gerundial phrase is of a more substantive semantic character, the
infinitival phrase, correspondingly, of a more processual semantic character.
The gerundial nominalisalion involves the optional change of the noun subject into
the possessive, while the infinitival nominalisation involves the use of the
preposition for before the subject. E.g.
Tom's coming late
annoyed his mother. → The fact that Tom came late annoyed his mother. For
him to come so late was unusual. → It was unusual that he came so late.
The rule of the
subject exposed in connection with the adverbial semi-complexing (see above)
applies also to the process of partial nominalisation and is especially
important here. It concerns the two types of subject deletion; first, its
contextual identification; second, its referring to a general (indefinite)
person. Thus, the rule can be formulated in this way: the subject of the verbid
phrase is deleted when it is either identified from the context (usually, but
not necessarily, from the matrix sentence) or denotes an indefinite person. Cf.
the contextual identification of the subject:
We are definite
about it. → Our being definite about it. → Let's postpone being
definite about it. Mary has recovered so soon. -» For Mary to have recovered so
soon -» Mary is happy to have recovered so soon.
Cf. the indefinite
person identification of the subject:
One avoids quarrels
with strangers. -» One's avoiding quarrels with strangers. → Avoiding
quarrels with strangers is always a wise policy. One loves spring. -» For one
to love spring.→It's but natural to love spring.
A characteristic
function of the infinitive phrase is its use with subordinative conjunctions in
nominal semi-clauses. The infinitive in these cases implies modal meanings of
obligation, admonition, possibility, etc. E.g.:
I wondered where to
go. -» I wondered where I was to go. The question is, what to do next. →
The question is, what we should do next.
In contrast with
nominal uses of infinitive phrases, gerundial phrases are widely employed as
adverbial semi-clauses introduced by prepositions. Semi-clauses in question are
naturally related to the corresponding adverbial pleni-clauses. Cf.:
In writing the
letter he dated it wrong. → White he was writing the letter he dated it
wrong. She went away without looking back. → As she went away she didn't
look back. I cleaned my breast by telling you everything. → I cleaned my
breast because I told you everything.
The prepositional
use of gerundial adverbial phrases is in full accord with the substantival
syntactic nature of the gerund, and this feature differentiates in principle
the gerundial adverbial phrase from the participial adverbial phrase as a
positional constituent of the semi-complex sentence.
XXX. SEMI-COMPOUND
SENTENCE
The semi-compound
sentence is a semi-composite sentence built up on the principle of
coordination. Proceeding from the outlined grammatical analysis of the
composite sentence, the structure of the semi-compound sentence is
derivationally to be traced back to minimum two base sentences having an
identical element belonging to one or both of their principal syntactic
positions, i.e. either the subject, or
the predicate, or both. By the process of semi-compounding, the sentences
overlap round the identical element sharing it in coordinative fusion, which
can be either syndetic or asyndetic. Thus, from the formal point of view, a
sentence possessing coordinated notional parts of immediately sentential
reference (directly related to its predicative line) is to be treated as
semi-compound. But different structural types of syntactic coordination even of
direct sentential reference (coordinated subjects, predicates, objects,
adverbial modifiers) display very different implications as regards
semi-compounding composition of sentences.
By way of a general
statement we may say that, other things being equal, the closer the
coordinative group is related to the verb-predicate of the sentence, the more
directly and explicitly it functions as a factor of sentence semi-compounding.
For instance,
coordinated subjects connected asyndetically in an enumerative sequence or
forming a plain copulative syndetic string can hardly be taken as constituting
so many shared though separately identified predicative lines with the verbal
constituent of the sentence. As different from this, two subject-groups
connected adversatively or antithetically are more "live" in their
separate relation to the predicative centre; the derivative reference of such a
sentence to the two source predicative constructions receives some
substantiality. E.g.:
There was nothing
else, only her face in front of me. → There
was nothing else in front of me.+There was only her face in front of me.
Substantially
involved in the expression of semi-compounding is a combination of two subjects
relating to one predicate when the subjects are discontinuously positioned, so
that the first starts the utterance, while the second concludes it with some
kind of process-referred introduction. Cf.:
The entrance door
stood open, and also the door of the living-room. -»
The entrance door stood open.+ The door of the
living-room stood also open.
However, if we turn
our attention to genuine coordinations of predicates (i.e. coordinations of
non-repetitive or otherwise primitivising type), both verbal and nominal, we
shall immediately be convinced of each element of the group presenting its own
predicative centre relating to the one subject
axis of the sentence, thereby forming a strictly compounding fusion of the
predicative lines expressed. This fact is so trivially clear that it does not
seem to require a special demonstration.
Hence, we will from
now on treat the corresponding sentence-patterns with coordinate predicate
phrases as featuring classes of constructions that actually answer the
identifying definition of semi-compound sentence; in our further exposition we
will dwell on some structural properties and functional semantics of this
important sentence-type so widely represented in the living English speech in
all its lingual divisions, which alone displays an unreservedly clear form of
sentential semi-compounding out of the numerous and extremely diversified
patterns of syntactic coordination.
The semi-compound
sentence of predicate coordination is derived from minimum two base sentences
having identical subjects. By the act of semi-compounding, one of the base
sentences in most cases of textual occurrence becomes the leading clause of
complete structure, while the other one is transformed into the sequential
coordinate semi-clause (expansion) referring to the same subject. E.g.:
The soldier was
badly wounded. +The soldier stayed in the ranks. →
The soldier was badly wounded, but stayed in the
ranks. He tore the photograph in half. + He threw the photograph in the fire. →
He tore the photograph in half and threw it in
the fire.
The rare instances
contradicting the given rule concern inverted constructions where the intense
fusion of predicates in overlapping round the subject placed in the end
position deprives the leading clause of its unbroken, continuous presentation.
Cf.:
Before him lay the
road to fame. + The road to fame lured him. →
Before him lay and lured him the road to fame.
In case of a
nominal predicate, the sequential predicative complement can be used in a
semi-compound pattern without its linking part repeated. E.g.:
My manner was
matter-of-fact, and casual. The savage must have been asleep or very tired.
The same holds true
about coordinated verbids related to
a common finite verb in the function of an auxiliary or otherwise. E.g.:
The tiger was at
large and burning with rage. He could not recall the face of the peasant girl
or remember the feel of her.
By the number of
bases joined, (and predicate phrases representing them) semi-compound sentences
may be two-base (minimal) or multi-base (more than minimal two-base). The
coordinated expansion is connected with the leading part either syndetically or
asyndetically.
The syndetic
formation of the semi-compound sentence expresses, first, copulative connection
of events; then contrast, either comparative or adversative; furthermore,
disjunction (alternation), consequence, limitation, elucidation. The
conjunctive elements effecting this syndetic semi-compounding of sentences are
both pure conjunctions and also words of adverbial nature. The pure conjunction
and, the same as with pleni-compound sentences, expresses the unmarked semantic
type of semi-compounding; the rest of the connectors render various marked
types of it. The pure conjunctions used for semi-compounding, besides the
copulative and, are monoconjunctions but, or, nor, and double (discontinuous)
conjunctions both ... and,
not only ... but
also, either ... or,
neither ... nor.
The conjunctive adverbials are then, so, just, only.
Here are some examples
of double-conjunctional formations expressing, respectively, disjunction,
simple copulative relation, copulative antithesis, copulative exclusion:
They either went
for long walks over the fields, or joined in a quiet game of chess on the
veranda. That great man was both a soldier and a born diplomat. Mary not only
put up with his presence, but tried to be hospitable. I am neither for the
proposal, nor against the proposal; nor participating in that sham discussion
of theirs at all.
Cf. instances of conjunctive-adverbial
introduction of predicate expansion rendering the functional meanings of action
ordering (then), of adversative-concessive relation (yet), of consequence (so),
of limitation (just):
His beady eyes
searched the clearing, then came back to my face. He was the tallest and
bravest, yet was among those to give up life. I knew then that she was
laughing, so
laughed with her. The Colonel didn't enlarge on the possible outcome of their
adventure, just said a few words of warning against the abrupt turns of the
mountain-pass.
With semi-compound
sentences, similar to pleni-compound sentences, but on a larger scale,
conjunctions combine with particle-like elements of modal-adverbial
description. These elements supplement and specify the meaning of the
conjunction, so that they receive the status of sub-conjunction specifiers, and
the pairs "conjunction plus sub-conjunctive" become in fact regular
conjunctive-coordinative combinations. Here belong such combinations as and
then, and perhaps, and probably, and presently, and so, and consequently, etc;
but merely, but only, but instead, but nevertheless, etc.; or else, or even, or
rather, etc. The specifications given by the sub-conjunctives are those of
change of events, probability evaluation, consequence in reasoning, concessive
contrast, limiting condition, intensity gradation, and many others, more
specific ones. E.g.:
He waited for some
moments longer and then walked down to the garden to where, on the terrace, the
jeep was parked (H. E. Bates). She lived entirely apart from the contemporary
literary world and probably was never in the company of anyone more talented
than herself (J. Austen). To his relief, she was not giving off the shifting
damp heat of her anger, but instead was cool, decisive, material (J. Updike).
For several hours I discussed this with you, or rather vented exhaustive
rewordings upon your silent phantom (J. Updike).
Of all the
diversified means of connecting base sentences into a semi-compound
construction the most important and by far the most broadly used is the
conjunction and. Effecting the unmarked semi-compounding connection of
sentences, it renders the widest possible range of syntactic relational
meanings; as for its frequency of occurrence, it substantially exceeds that of
all the rest of the conjunctives used for semi-compounding taken together.
The functional
meanings expressed by the and-semi-compound patterns can be exposed by means of
both coordinative and subordinative correlations. Here are some basic ones:
The officer parked
the car at the end of the terrace and went into the Mission. →
The officer parked the car ...,
then went into the Mission. (Succession of
events, inviting a coordinative exposition) Suddenly the door burst open and
Tommy rushed in panting for breath.→ As the door burst open, Tommy rushed
in ...("Successive simultaneity" of actions, inviting a subordinative
exposition) Patterton gavelled for attention and speedily disposed of several
routine matters. → Patterton
gavelled for attention so that he could dispose and did dispose of several
routine matters. (Purpose in successive actions, inviting a subordinative
exposition) Her anger and emotion grew, and finally exploded. →
Her anger and emotion grew to the degree that
they finally exploded. (Successive actions in gradation, inviting a
subordinative exposition) He just miscalculated and won't admit it. -»
Though he miscalculated, he won't admit it.
(Concession in opposition, inviting a subordinative exposition) Mary promised
to come and he was determined to wait. →
He was determined to wait because Mary had
promised to come. (Cause and consequence, inviting a subordinative exposition)
Among the various
connective meanings expressed by the conjunction and in combination with the
corresponding lexemic constituents of the sentence there are two standing very
prominent, due to the regular correlations existing between such constructions
and semi-complex patterns with verbid phrases -
infinitival and participial.
The first
construction expresses a subsequent action of incidental or unexpected
character:
He leaped up in
time to see the Colonel rushing out of the door (H. E. Bates). →
He leaped up in time and saw the Colonel rushing
out of the door. Walker woke in his bed at the bourbon house to hear a strange
hum and buzz in the air (M. Bradbury). →
Walker woke in his bed at the bourbon house and
heard a strange hum and buzz in the air.
In these constructions
the leading clause, as a rule, includes verbs of positional or psychological
change, while the expansion, correspondingly, features verbs of perceptions. As
is seen from the examples, it is the semi-compound pattern that diagnoses the
meaning of the pattern with the infinitive, not the reverse. The infinitive
pattern for its part makes up an expressive stylistic device by virtue of its
outward coincidence with an infinitive pattern of purpose: the unexpectedness
of the referent action goes together with the contextual unexpectedness of the
construction.
The participial
construction expresses a parallel attendant event that serves as a
characteristic to the event rendered by the leading clause:
He sat staring down
the gardens, trying to remember whether this was the seventh or eighth day
since the attack had begun (H. E. Bates). →
He was sitting and staring down the gardens, and
was trying to remember... Rage flamed up in him, contorting his own face (M.
Puzo). →Rage flamed up in him and contorted his own face.
With the
participial pattern, the same as with the infinitival one, the diagnostic
construction is the semi-compound sentence, not vice versa.
The nature of the
shown correlations might be interpreted as a reason for considering the
relations between the head-verb and the verbid in the tested patterns as
coordinative, not subordinative. However, on closer analysis we must admit that
diagnosis of this kind is called upon to expose the hidden meanings, but not to
level up the differences between units of opposed categorial standings. The
verbid patterns remain part of the system of semi-complex sentences because of
the hierarchical ranking of their notional positions, while the correlation
with semi-compound sentences simply explain their respective semantic
properties.
§ 4. The
asyndetic formation of the semi-compound sentence stands by its functional
features close to the syndetic and-formation in so far as it does not give a
rigorous characterisation (semantic mark) to the introduced expansion. At the
same time its functional range is incomparably narrower than that of the
and-formation.
The central
connective meaning distinguishing the asyndetic connection of predicative parts
in semi-compound sentences is enumeration of events, either parallel or
consecutive. In accord with the enumerative function, asyndetic
semi-compounding more often than not is applied to a larger set of base
sentences than the minimal two. E.g.:
He closed the door
behind him with a shaking hand, found the old car in its parking place, drove
along with the drifting lights. They talked, laughed, were perfectly happy late
into the night.
Asyndetic
semi-compound sentences are often used to express gradation of intensity going
together with a general emphasis. E.g.:
He would in truth
give up the shop, follow her to Paris, follow her also to the chateau in the
country (D. du Maurier). He never took the schoolbag again, had refused to
touch it (J. Updike).
Characteristic of
enumerative and gradational semi-compound sentences is the construction where
the first two parts are joined asyndetically, and the third part syndetically,
by means of the conjunction and. In such three-base constructions the syndetic
expansion finalises the sentence both structurally and semantically, making it
into an intensely complete utterance. E.g.:
He knows his
influence, struts about and considers himself a great duellist. They can do it,
have the will to do it, and are actually doing it.
Of the meanings
other than enumerative rendered by the construction in question, the most
prominent is elucidation combined with various connotations, such as
consequence, purpose, additional characteristics of the basic event. Cf.:
The sight of him
made me feel young again: took me back to the beaches, the Ardennes, the Reichswald,
and the Rhine. I put an arm round her, tried to tease her into resting.
The number of
predicative parts in a semi-compound sentence is balanced against the context
in which it is used, and, naturally, is an essential feature of its structure.
This number may be as great as seven, eight, or even more.
The
connection-types of multi-base semi-compound sentences are syndetic, asyndetic,
and mixed.
The syndetic
semi-compound sentences may be homo-syndetic (i.e. formed by so many entries of
one and the same conjunctive) and heterosyndetic (i.e. formed by different
conjunctives). The most important type of homosyndetic semi-compounding is the
and-type. Its functional meaning is enumeration combined with copulation. E.g.:
A harmless young
man going nowhere in particular was knocked down and trodden on and rose to
fight back and was punched in the head by a policeman in mistake for someone
else and hit the policeman back and ended in more trouble than if he had been
on the party himself (M. Dickens).
A series of
successive events is intensely rendered by a homosyndetic construction formed
with the help of the conjunctive then. E.g.: You saw the flash, then heard the
crack, then saw the smoke ball distort and thin in the wind (E. Hemingway).
Another conjunctive
pattern used in homosyndetic semi-compounding is the or-type in its different
variants. E.g.:
After dinner we sat
in the yard of the inn on hard chairs, or paced about the platform or stumbled
between the steel sleepers of the permanent way (E. Waugh). Babies never cried
or got the wind or were sick when Nurse Morrison fed them (M. Dickens).
By heterosyndetic
semi-compounding the parts of the sentence are divided into groups according to
the meanings of the conjunctives. Cf.:
A native woman in a
sarong came and looked at them, but vanished when the doctor addressed her (S.
Maugham). Ugly sat in the bow and barked arrogantly at passing boats, or stood
rockily peering in the river (M. Dickens).
The asyndetic
connections in semi-compound sentences, within their range of functions, are
very expressive, especially when making up long enumerations-gradations. E.g.:
He had enjoyed a
sharp little practice in Split, had meddled before the war in anti-Serbian
politics, had found himself in an Italian prison, had been let out when the
partisans briefly "liberated" the coast, had been swept up with them
in the retreat (E. Waugh).
In the mixed
syndetic-asyndetic semi-compound sentence various groupings of coordinated
parts are effected. E.g.: He spun completely round, then fell forward on his
knees, rose again and limped slowly on (E. Waugh).
In cases where
multi-base semi-compound sentences are formed around one and the same
subject-predicate combination, they are very often primitivised into a
one-predicate sentence with coordinated secondary parts. Of these sentences, a
very characteristic type is presented by a construction with a string of
adverbial groups. This type of sentence expresses an action (usually, though
not necessarily, a movement) or a series of actions continued through a
sequence of consecutive place- and time situations. E.g.: Then she took my
hand, and we went down the steps of the tower together, and through the court
and to the walls of the rock-place (D. du Maurier).
The construction is
very dynamic, its adverbial constituents preserve clear traces of the
corresponding predications, and therefore it approaches the genuine
semi-compound sentence of predicate coordination by its semantic nature.
The semi-compound
sentence of predicate coordination immediately correlates with a compound
sentence of complete composition having identical subjects. Both constructions
are built upon the same set of base sentences, use the same connective means and
reflect the same situation, E.g.:
She looked at him
and saw again the devotion, the humility in his eyes. →
She looked at him and she saw again the
devotion, the humility in his eyes (The latter sentence -
from D. du Maurier). The officer received the messengers,
took their letters, and though I stood with them, completely ignored me. -»
The officer received the messengers, took their
letters, and though I stood with them, he completely ignored me (The latter
sentence - from
H. E. Stover).
A question arises
whether the compared sentences are absolutely the same in terms of functions
and semantics, or whether there is some kind of difference between them which
causes them to be used discriminately.
In an attempt to
expose the existing functional difference between the two constructions, it has
been pointed out that base sentences with identical subjects are connected not
in a semi-compound, but into a compound sentence (of complete composition) in
the three main cases: first, when the leading sentence is comparatively long;
second, when the finite verbs in the two sentences are of different structure;
third, when the second sentence is highly emotional.* These tentative
formulations should rather be looked upon as practical guides, for they do
correspond to the existing tendencies of living speech. But the tendencies lack
absolute regularity and, which is far more significant, they do not present
complete lingual facts by themselves, but rather are particular manifestations
of a general and fundamental mechanism at work. This mechanism is embodied in
the actual division of the sentence:
as a matter of fact, observations of the relevant contexts show that the
structure of the actual division in the two types of sentences is essentially
different. Namely, whereas the actual division of the compound sentence with
identical subjects presents two (or more) separate informative perspectives
characterised by identical themes and different rhemes, the actual division of
the semi-compound sentence presents only one perspective, analysed into one
theme and one, though complex, rheme; the latter falls into two or more
constituent rhemes (sub-rhemes) in various concrete contexts.
The sub-rhemes may
be of equal importance from the informational point of view, as in the following
example: We were met by a guide who spoke excellent English and had a head full
of facts.
The sub-rhemes may
be of unequal informative importance, the predicative expansion rendering the
basic semantic content of the sentence. E.g.: She gave us her address and asked
us to come and see her.
The coordinated
predicate groups may also be informatively fused into an essentially simple
rheme, i.e. into a phrase making up a close informative unity. E.g.: He took
out his diary and began to write. The man looked up and laughed.
As different from
the semi-compound construction with its exposed informative properties, the
very identity of the subject themes in a compound sentence of complete
composition is a factor making it into a communicatively intense, logically
accented syntactic unit (compare the examples given at the beginning of the
paragraph).
XXXI. SENTENCE IN
THE TEXT
We have repeatedly
shown throughout the present work that sentences in continual speech are not
used in isolation; they are interconnected both semantically-topically and
syntactically.
Inter-sentential
connections have come under linguistic investigation but recently. The highest
lingual unit which was approached by traditional grammar as liable to syntactic
study was the sentence; scholars even specially stressed
that to surpass the boundaries of the sentence
was equal to surpassing the boundaries of grammar.
In particular, such
an outstanding linguist as L. Bloomfield, while recognising the general
semantic connections between sentences in the composition of texts as
linguistically relevant, at the same time pointed out that the sentence is the
largest grammatically arranged linguistic form, i.e. it is not included into
any other linguistic form by a grammatical arrangement.*
However, further
studies in this field have demonstrated the inadequacy of the cited thesis. It
has been shown that sentences in speech do come under broad grammatical
arrangements, do combine with one another on strictly syntactic lines in the
formation of larger stretches of both oral talk and written text.
It should be quite
clear that, supporting the principle of syntactic approach to arrangement of
sentences into a continual text, we do not assert that any sequence of
independent sentences forms a syntactic unity. Generally speaking, sentences in
a stretch of uninterrupted talk may or may not build up a coherent sequence,
wholly depending on the purpose of the speaker. E.g.:
Barbara. Dolly:
don't be insincere. Cholly: fetch your concertina and play something for us (B.
Shaw).
The cited sequence
of two sentences does not form a unity in either syntactic or semantic sense,
the sentences being addressed to different persons on different reasons. A
disconnected sequence may also have one and the same communication addressee,
as in the following case:
Duchess of
Berwic... I like him so much. I am quite delighted he's gone! How sweet you're
looking! Where do you get your gowns? And now I must tell you how sorry I am
for you, dear Margaret (O. Wilde).
But disconnected
sequences like these are rather an exception than the rule. Moreover, they do
not contradict in the least the idea of a continual topical text as being
formed of grammatically interconnected sentences. Indeed, successive sentences
in a disconnected sequence mark the corresponding transitions of thought, so
each of them can potentially be expanded into a connected sequence bearing on
one unifying topic. Characteristically, an utterance of a personage in a work
of fiction marking a transition of thought (and breaking the syntactic
connection of sentences in the sequence) is usually introduced by a special
author's comment. E.g.:
"You know,
L.S., you're rather a good sport." Then his tone grew threatening again.
"It's a big risk I'm taking. It's the biggest risk I've ever had to
take" (C. P. Snow).
As we see, the
general idea of a sequence of sentences forming a text includes two different
notions. On the one hand, it presupposes a succession of spoken or written
utterances irrespective of their forming or not forming a coherent semantic
complex. On the other hand, it implies a strictly topical stretch of talk, i.e.
a continual succession of sentences centering on a common informative purpose.
It is this latter understanding of the text that is syntactically relevant. It
is in this latter sense that the text can be interpreted as a lingual element
with its two distinguishing features: first, semantic (topical) unity, second,
semantico-syntactic cohesion.
The primary
division of sentence sequences in speech should be based on the communicative
direction of their component sentences. From this point of view monologue
sequences and dialogue sequences are to be discriminated.
In a monologue,
sentences connected in a continual sequence are directed from one speaker to
his one or several listeners. Thus, the sequence of this type can be
characterised as a one-direction sequence. E.g.:
We'll have a lovely
garden. We'll have roses in it and daffodils and a lovely lawn with a swing for
little Billy and little Barbara to play on. And we'll have our meals down by
the lily pond in summer (K. Waterhouse and H. Hall).
The first scholars
who identified a succession of such sentences as a special syntactic unit were
the Russian linguists N. S.
Pospelov and L. A. Bulakhovsky. The former called the unit in question a
"complex syntactic unity", the latter, a "super-phrasal
unity". From consistency considerations, the corresponding English term
used in this book is the "supra-sentential construction" (see Ch. I).
As different from
this, sentences in a dialogue sequence are uttered by the
speakers-interlocutors in turn, so that they are directed, as it were, to meet
one another; the sequence of
this type, then, should be characterised as a two-direction sequence. E.g.:
"Annette, what have you done?" -
"I've done what I had to do" (S.
Maugham).
It must be noted
that two-direction sequences can in principle be used within the framework of a
monologue text, by way of an "inner dialogue" (i.e. a dialogue of the
speaker with himself). E.g.: What were they jabbering about now in Parliament?
Some two-penny-ha'penny tax! (J. Galsworthy).
On the other hand,
one-direction sequences can be used in a dialogue, when a response utterance
forms not a rejoinder, but a continuation of the stimulating utterance
addressed to the same third party, or to both speakers themselves as a
collective self-addressee, or having an indefinite addressee. E.g.:
St. Erth. All the
money goes to fellows who don't know a horse from a haystack. -Canynge
(profoundly). And care less. Yes! We want men racing to whom a horse means
something (J. Galsworthy). Elуоt.
I'm glad we didn't go out tonight. Amanda. Or last night. El-yоt.
Or the night before. Amanda. There's no reason to, really, when we're cosy here
(N. Coward).
Thus, the direction
of communication should be looked upon as a deeper characteristic of the
sentence-sequence than its outer, purely formal presentation as either a
monologue (one man's speech) or a dialogue (a conversation between two
parties). In order to underline these deep distinguishing features of the two
types of sequences, we propose to name them by the types of sentence-connection
used. The formation of a one-direction sequence is based on syntactic
cumulation of sentences, as different from syntactic composition of sentences
making them into one composite sentence. Hence, the supra-sentential construction
of one-direction communicative type can be called a cumulative sequence, or a
"cumuleme". The formation of a two-direction sequence is based on its
sentences being positioned to meet one another. Hence, we propose to call this
type of sentence-connection by the term "occursive", and the
supra-sentential construction based on occursive connection, by the term
"occurseme".
Furthermore, it is
not difficult to see that from the hierarchical point of view the occurseme as
an element of the system occupies a place above the cumuleme. Indeed, if the
cumuleme is constructed by two or more sentences joined by cumulation, the
occurseme can be constructed by two or
more cumulemes, since the utterances of the interlocutors can be formed not
only by separate sentences, but by cumulative sequences as well. E.g.:
"Damn you,
stop talking about my wife. If you mention her name again I swear I'll knock
you down." - "Oh
no, you won't. You're too great a gentleman to hit a feller smaller than
yourself" (S. Maugham).
As we see, in
formal terms of the segmental lingual hierarchy, the supra-proposemic level
(identified in the first chapter of the book) can be divided into two
sublevels: the lower one - "cumulemic",
and the higher one - "occursemic".
On the other hand, a fundamental difference between the two units in question
should be carefully noted lying beyond the hierarchy relation, since the
occurseme, as different from the cumuleme, forms part of a conversation, i.e.
is essentially produced not by one, but by two or several speakers, or,
linguistically, not by one, but by two or several individual sub-lingual
systems working in an intercourse contact.
As for the
functional characteristic of the two higher segmental units of language, it is
representative of the function of the text as a whole. The signemic essence of
the text is exposed in its topic. The monologue text, or "discourse",
is then a topical entity; the dialogue text, or "conversation", is an
exchange-topical entity. The cumuleme and occurseme are component units of
these two types of texts, which means that they form, respectively, subtopical
and exchange-sub-topical units as regards the embedding text as a whole. Within
the framework of the system of language, however, since the text as such does
not form any "unit" of it, the cumuleme and occurseme can simply be
referred to as topical elements (correspondingly, topical and
exchange-topical), without the "sub "-specification.
Sentences in a
cumulative sequence can be connected either "prospectively" or
"retrospectively".
Prospective
("epiphoric", "cataphoric") cumulation is effected by
connective elements that relate a given sentence to one that is to follow it.
In other words, a prospective connector signals a continuation of speech: the
sentence containing it is semantically incomplete. Very often prospective
connectors are notional words that perform the cumulative function for the
nonce. E.g.:
I tell you, one of
two things must happen. Either out of that darkness some new creation will come
to supplant us as we have supplanted the animals, or the heavens will fall in
thunder and destroy us (B. Shaw).
The prospective
connection is especially characteristic of the texts of scientific and
technical works. E.g.:
Let me add a word
of caution here. The solvent vapour drain enclosure must be correctly
engineered and constructed to avoid the possibility of a serious explosion
(From a technical journal).
As different from
prospective cumulation, retrospective (or "anaphoric") cumulation is
effected by connective elements that relate a given sentence to the one that
precedes it and is semantically complete by itself. Retrospective cumulation is
the more important type of sentence connection of the two; it is the basic type
of cumulation in ordinary speech. E.g.:
What curious
"class" sensation was this? Or was it merely fellow-feeling with the
hunted, a tremor at the way things found one out? (J. Galsworthy).
On the basis of the
functional nature of connectors, cumulation is divided into two fundamental
types: conjunctive cumulation and correlative cumulation.
Conjunctive
cumulation is effected by conjunction-like connectors. To these belong, first,
regular conjunctions, both coordinative and subordinative; second, adverbial
and parenthetical sentence-connectors (then, yet, however, consequently, hence,
besides, moreover, nevertheless, etc.). Adverbial and parenthetical
sentence-connectors may be both specialised, i.e. functional and
semi-functional words, and non-specialised units performing the connective
functions for the nonce. E.g.:
There was an
indescribable agony in his voice. And as if his own words of pain overcame the
last barrier of his self-control, he broke down (S. Maugham). There was no
train till nearly eleven, and she had to bear her impatience as best she could.
At last it was time to start, and she put on her gloves (S. Maugham).
Correlative
cumulation is effected by a pair of elements one of which, the
"succeedent", refers to the other, the "antecedent", used
in the foregoing sentence; by means of this reference the succeeding sentence
is related to the preceding one, or else the preceding sentence is related to
the succeeding one. As we see, by its direction correlative cumulation may be
either retrospective or prospective, as different from conjunctive cumulation
which is only retrospective.
Correlative
cumulation, in its turn, is divided into substitutional connection and
representative connection. Substitutional cumulation is based on the use of
substitutes. E.g.:
Spolding woke me
with the apparently noiseless efficiency of the trained housemaid. She drew the
curtains, placed a can of hot water in my basin, covered it with the towel, and
retired (E. J. Howard).
A substitute may
have as its antecedent the whole of the preceding sentence or a clausal part of
it. Furthermore, substitutes often go together with conjunctions, effecting
cumulation of mixed type. E.g.:
And as I leaned
over the rail methought that all the little stars in the water were shaking
with austere merriment. But it may have been only the ripple of the steamer,
after all (R. Kipling).
Representative
correlation is based on representative elements which refer to one another
without the factor of replacement. E.g.:
She should be here
soon. I must tell Phipps, I am not in to any one else (O. Wilde). I went home.
Maria accepted my departure indifferently (E. J. Howard).
Representative
correlation is achieved also by repetition, which may be complicated by
different variations. E.g.:
Well, the night was
beautiful, and the great thing not to be a pig. Beauty and not being a pig\
Nothing much else to it (J. Galsworthy).
A cumuleme
(cumulative supra-sentential construction) is formed by two or more independent
sentences making up a topical syntactic unity. The first of the sentences in a
cumuleme is its "leading" sentence, the succeeding sentences are
"sequential".
The cumuleme is
delimited in the text by a finalising intonation contour (cumuleme-contour) with
a prolonged pause (cumuleme-pause);
the relative duration of this pause equals two and a half moras
("mora" - the
conventional duration of a short syllable), as different from the
sentence-pause equalling only two moras.
The cumuleme, like
a sentence, is a universal unit of language in so far as it is used in all the
functional varieties of speech. For instance, the following cumuleme is part of
the author's speech of a work of fiction:
The boy winced at
this. It made him feel hot and uncomfortable all over. He knew well how careful
he ought to be, and yet, do what he could, from time to time his forgetfulness
of the part betrayed him into unreserve (S. Butler).
Compare a cumuleme
in a typical newspaper article:
We have come a long
way since then, of course. Unemployment insurance is an accepted fact. Only the
most die-hard reactionaries, of the Goldwater type, dare to come out against it
(from Canadian Press).
Here is a sample
cumuleme of scientific-technical report prose:
To some engineers
who apply to themselves the word "practical" as denoting the
possession of a major virtue, applied research is classed with pure research as
something highbrow they can do without. To some business men, applied research
is something to have somewhere in the organisation to demonstrate modernity and
enlightenment. And people engaged in applied research are usually so satisfied
in the belief that what they are doing is of interest and value that they are
not particularly concerned about the niceties of definition (from a technical
journal).
Poetical text is
formed by cumulemes, too:
She is not fair to
outward view, | As many maidens be; | Her loveliness I never knew | Until she
smiled on me. |Oh, then I saw her eye was bright, | A well of love, a spring of
light (H. Coleridge).
But the most
important factor showing the inalienable and universal status of the cumuleme
in language is the indispensable use of cumulemes in colloquial speech (which
is reflected in plays, as well as in conversational passages in works of
various types of fiction).
The basic semantic
types of cumulemes are "factual" (narrative and descriptive),
"modal" (reasoning, perceptive, etc.), and mixed. Here is an example
of a narrative cumuleme:
Three years later,
when Jane was an Army driver, she was sent one night to pick up a party of
officers who had been testing defences on the cliff. She found the place where
the road ran between a cleft almost to the beach, switched off her engine and
waited, hunched in her great-coat, half asleep, in the cold black silence. She
waited for an hour and woke in a fright to a furious voice coming out of the
night (M. Dickens).
Compare this with
modal cumulemes of various topical standings:
She has not gone? I
thought she gave a second performance at two? (S. Maugham) (A reasoning
cumuleme of perceptional variety)
Are you kidding?
Don't underrate your influence, Mr. O'Keefe. Dodo's in. Besides, I've lined up
Sandra Straughan to work with her (A. Hailey). (A remonstrative cumuleme)
Don't worry. There
will be a certain amount of unpleasantness but I will have some photographs
taken that will be very useful at the inquest. There's the testimony of the
gunbearers and the driver too. You're perfectly all right (E. Hemingway). (A
reasoning cumuleme expressing reassurance) Etc.
Cumuleme in writing
is regularly expressed by a paragraph, but the two units are not wholly
identical.
In the first place,
the paragraph is a stretch of written or typed literary text delimited by a new
(indented) line at the beginning and an incomplete line at the close. As
different from this, the cumuleme, as we have just seen, is essentially a
feature of all the varieties of speech, both oral and written, both literary
and colloquial.
In the second
place, the paragraph is a polyfunctional unit of written speech and as such is
used not only for the written representation of a cumuleme, but also for the
introduction of utterances of a dialogue (dividing an occurseme into parts), as
well as for the introduction of separate points in various enumerations.
In the third place,
the paragraph in a monologue speech can contain more than one cumuleme. For
instance, the following
paragraph is divided into three parts, the first formed by a separate sentence,
the second and third ones presenting cumulemes. For the sake of clarity, we
mark the borders between the parts by double slash:
When he had left
the house Victorina stood quite still, with hands pressed against her chest. //
She had slept less than he. Still as a mouse, she had turned the thought:
"Did I take him in? Did I?" And if not - what? //
She took out the notes which had bought -
or sold -
their happiness, and counted them once more. And
the sense of injustice burned within her (J. Galsworthy).
The shown division
is sustained by the succession of the forms of the verbs, namely, the past
indefinite and past perfect, precisely marking out the events described.
In the fourth
place, the paragraph in a monologue speech can contain only one sentence. The
regular function of the one-sentence paragraph is expressive emphasis. E.g.:
The fascists may
spread over the land, blasting their way with weight of metal brought from
other countries. They may advance aided by traitors and by cowards. They may
destroy cities and villages and try to hold the people in slavery. But you
cannot hold any people in slavery.
The Spanish people
will rise again as they have always risen before against tyranny (E.
Hemingway).
In the cited
passage the sentence-paragraph marks a transition from the general to the
particular, and by its very isolation in the text expressively stresses the
author's belief in the invincible will of the Spanish people who are certain to
smash their fascist oppressors in the long run.
On the other hand,
the cumuleme cannot be prolonged beyond the limits of the paragraph, since the
paragraphal border-marks are the same as those of the cumuleme, i.e. a
characteristic finalising tone, a pause of two and a half moras. Besides, we
must bear in mind that both multicumuleme paragraphs and one-sentence
paragraphs are more or less occasional features of the monologue text. Thus, we
return to our initial thesis that the paragraph, although it is a
literary-compositional, not a purely syntactic unit of the text, still as a
rule presents a cumuleme; the two units, if not identical, are closely
correlative.
The introduction of
the notion of cumuleme in linguistics helps specify and explain the two
peculiar and rather important border-line phenomena between the sentence and
the sentential sequence.
The first of these
is known under the heading of "parcellation". The parcellated
construction ("parcellatum") presents two or more collocations
("parcellas") separated by a sentence-tone but related to one another
as parts of one and the same sentence. In writing the parts, i.e.,
respectively, the "leading parcella" and "sequential
parcella", are delimited by a full stop (finality mark). E.g.:
There was a sort of
community pride attached to it now. Or shame at its unavoidability
(E.Stephens). Why be so insistent, Jim? If
he doesn't want to tell you (J. O'Hara). ...I
realised I didn't feel one way or another about him. Then. I do now (J. O'Hara).
Having recourse to
the idea of transposition, we see that the parcellated construction is produced
as a result of transposing a sentence into a cumuleme. This kind of
transposition adds topical significance to the sequential parcella. The
emphasising function of parcellation is well exposed by the transformation of
de-transposition. This transformation clearly deprives the sequential parcella
of its position of topical significance, changing it into an ordinary
sentence-part. Cf.:
... → There
was a sort of community pride attached to it now or shame at its
unavoidability. ...→ Why
be so insistent, Jim, if he doesn't want to tell you? ...
→ I didn't feel one way or another
about him then.
With some authors
parcellation as the transposition of a sentence into a cumuleme can take the
form of forced paragraph division, i.e. the change of a sentence into a
supra-cumuleme. E.g.:
... It
was she who seemed adolescent and overly concerned, while he sat there smiling
fondly at her, quite self-possessed, even self-assured, and adult.
And naked. His
nakedness became more intrusive by the second, until she half arose and said
with urgency, "You have to go and right now, young man" (E.
Stephens).
The second of the
border-line phenomena in question is the opposite of parcellation, it consists
in forcing two different sentences into one, i.e. in transposing a cumuleme
into a sentence. The cumuleme-sentence construction is characteristic of
uncareful and familiar speech; in a literary text it is used for the sake of
giving a vivid verbal characteristic to a personage. E.g.:
I'm not going to
disturb her and that's flat, miss (A. Christie). The air-hostess came down the
aisle then to warn passengers they were about to land and please would everyone
fasten their safety belts (B. Hedworth).
The transposition
of a cumuleme into a sentence occurs also in literary passages dealing with
reasoning and mental perceptions. E.g.:
If there were
moments when Soames felt cordial, they were such as these. He had nothing
against the young man; indeed, he rather liked the look of him; but to see the
last of almost anybody was in a sense a relief; besides, there was this
question of what he had overheard, and to have him about the place without
knowing would be a continual temptation to compromise with one's dignity and
ask him what it was (J. Galsworthy).
As is seen from the
example, one of the means of transposing a cumuleme into a sentence in literary
speech is the use of half-finality punctuation marks (here, a semicolon).
Neither cumulemes,
nor paragraphs form the upper limit of textual units of speech. Paragraphs are
connected within the framework of larger elements of texts making up different
paragraph groupings. Thus, above the process of cumulation as syntactic
connection of separate sentences, supra-cumulation should be discriminated as
connection of cumulemes and paragraphs into larger textual unities of the
correspondingly higher subtopical status. Cf.:
... That
first slip with my surname was just like him; and afterwards, particularly when
he was annoyed, apprehensive, or guilty because of me, he frequently called me
Ellis.
So, in the smell of
Getliffe's tobacco, I listened to him as he produced case after case, sometimes
incomprehensibly, because of his allusive slang, often inaccurately. He loved
the law (C. P. Snow).
In the given
example, the sentence beginning the second paragraph is cumulated (i.e.
supra-cumulated) to the previous paragraph, thus making the two of them into a
paragraph grouping.
Moreover, even
larger stretches of text than primary paragraph groupings can be
supra-cumulated to one another in the syntactic sense, such as chapters and
other compositional divisions. For instance, compare the end of Chapter XXIII
and the beginning of Chapter XXIV of J. Galsworthy's
"Over the River":
Chapter XXIII. ...
She went back to Condaford with her father by
the morning train, repeating to her Aunt the formula: "I'm not going to be
ill."
Chapter XXIV. But
she was ill, and for a month in her conventional room at Condaford often wished
she were dead and done with. She might, indeed, quite easily have died...
Can, however, these
phenomena signify that the sentence is simply a sub-unit in language system,
and that "real" informative-syntactic elements of this system are not
sentences, but various types of cumulemes or supra-cumulemes? -
In no wise.
Supra-sentential
connections cannot be demonstrative of the would-be "secondary",
"sub-level" role of the sentence as an element of syntax by the mere
fact that all the cumulative and occursive relations in speech, as we have seen
from the above analysis, are effected by no other unit than the sentence, and
by no other structure than the inner structure of the sentence; the sentence
remains the central structural-syntactic element in all the formations of
topical significance. Thus, even in the course of a detailed study of various
types of supra-sentential constructions, the linguist comes to the confirmation
of the classical truth that the two basic units of language are the word and
the sentence: the word as a unit of nomination, the sentence as a unit of
predication. And it is through combining different sentence-predications that
topical reflections of reality are achieved in all the numerous forms of
lingual intercourse.
A LIST OF SELECTED
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ахманова О. С., Микаэлян Г. Б. Современные
синтаксические теории. М., 1963.
Бархударов Л. С. (1) Структура простого
предложения современного английского языка. М., 1966; (2) Очерки по морфологии
современного английского языка. М., 1975.
Бархударов Л. С. Штелинг Д. А. Грамматика
английского языка. М., 1973.
Блох М. Я. Вопросы изучения грамматического
строя языка. М., 1976.
Блумфилд Л. Язык. М., 1968.
Бурлакова В. В. Основы структуры словосочетания
в современном английском языке. Л., 1975.
Воронцова Г. Я. Очерки по грамматике английского
языка. М., 1960.
Гальперин И. Р. Текст как объект
лингвистического исследования. М., 1981.
Долгова О. В. (1) Семиотика неплавной речи. М.,
1978; (2) Синтаксис как наука о построении речи. М., 1980.
Есперсен О. Философия грамматики. М., 1958.
Жигадло В. Я., Иванова И. Я., Иофик Л. Л.
Современный английский язык. М., 1956.
Иванова И. Я. Вид и время в современном
английском языке. Л., 1961.
Иванова И. Я., Бурлакова В. В., Почепцов Г. Г.
Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка. М., 1981.
Корнеева Е. А., Кобрина Я. А., Гузеева К. А.,
Оссовская М. И. Пособие по морфологии современного английского языка. М. 1974.
Кошевая И. Г. Грамматический строй современного
английского языка. М., 1978.
Лайонз Дж. Введение в теоретическую лингвистику.
М., 1978.
Мухин A.M.
(1) Структура предложений и их модели. Л., 1968; (2) Синтаксемный анализ и
проблема уровней языка. Л., 1980.
Плоткин В. Я. Грамматические системы
современного английского языка. Кишинев, 1975.
Почепцов Г. Г. (1) Конструктивный анализ
структуры предложения. Киев, 1971; (2) Синтагматика английского слова. Киев,
1976.
Слюсарева Я. А. Проблемы функционального
синтаксиса современного английского языка. М., 1981.
Смирницкий А. И. (1) Синтаксис английского
языка. М., 1957; (2) Морфология английского языка. М., 1959.
Структурный синтаксис английского языка
(теоретический курс). /Под ред. Иофик Л.Л. Л., 1981.
Тер-Минасова С. Г. Словосочетание в
научно-лингвистическом и дидактическом аспектах. М., 1981.
Чейф У. Л. Значение и структура языка. М., 1975.
Уфимцева А. А. Слово в лексико-семантической
системе языка. М., 1968.
Хлебникова И. Б. Оппозиции в морфологии. М.,
1969.
Ярцева В. Н. (1) Историческая морфология
английского языка. М.-Л., I960; (2) Исторический синтаксис английского языка. М.-Л.,
1961.
Akhmanova О.
et. al. Syntax: Theory and Method. Moscow, 1972.
Bryant M. A. Functional English
Grammar. N.Y., 1945.
Close R. A. A Reference Grammar for
Students of English. Ldn., 1977.
Curme G.O.
A Grammar of the English Language. Boston -
N.Y., 1935.
Fries Ch.C. The Structure of
English. N.Y., 1952.
Ganshina M. A. Vasilevskaya N.
M. English Grammar. Moscow, 1964.
Hill A. A. Introduction to
Linguistic Structures. N.Y. - Burlingame,
1958.
Hockett Ch. A Course in Modern
Linguistics. N.Y., 1958.
Iofik L. L., Chakhoyan L. P.
Readings in the Theory of English Grammar. Leningrad, 1972.
Ilyish B. A. The Structure of Modern
English. M.-L., 1971.
Irtenyeva N.
F., Barsova O.
M., Blokh M. Y., Shapkin A. P. A Theoretical
English Grammar. Moscow, 1969.
Khaimovich B. S., Rogovskaya B. I. A
Course in English Grammar. Moscow, 1967.
Nida E. Morphology. Ann Arbor, 1965.
Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G.,
Svartvik J. A
Grammar of Contemporary English. Ldn., 1972.
Strang B. Modern English Structure.
Ldn., 1974.
Sweet H. A New English Grammar
Logical and Historical. Pt. 1. Oxf.,
1891;. Pt. 2.
Oxf., 1898.
SUBJECT INDEX
and relative
generalisation 77; 79; 81
absolute
construction 112; 114; 180; 348-350
actional and statal
verbs: see verb subclasses active
(verb-form) 177-179
actual division of
the sentence 243-250; 256-262; 305
address 269
adjective 38;
41; 203-220; of a. 213-219;
subclasses:
evaluative, specificative a. 206-207;
qualitative,
relative a. 205-207
adjectivid 213
adjunct-word 232
adverb 39;
220-229; of a. 227-228;
subclasses:
functional 226-227; 223-226; .
in -ly 228-229
adverbial clause 321-328;
subtypes:
circumstantial cl. 325-327;
localisation cl. 322-323;
parenthetical cl. 327-328;
qualification cl. 323-325
adverbial
complication 347-350
adverbial modifier 98;
101; 235; 269
adverbid 223
agreement (concord)
between subject and predicate 135-136; 232-233
agreement in sense
(notional concord) 135-136
"allo-emic"
theory 22-24
allo-term 22
analytical case 65
analytical form 34-35;
85; 107; 214-219
anaphoric
connection: see retrospective connection
appositive clause 318-321
appurtenance 69
article 40;
74-85;
identification 74-75;
a. 76;
indefinite a. 76-77;
functions 76-83;
. with proper nouns 84;
a. determination
paradigm 85
artificial
utterances 8
aspect 108;
155-176; 182
a-stative prefix 211
aspective meaning 94
asyndetic
connection 231; 298-300; 335-337
attribute 235;
269; noun a. 50-51;
descriptive,
limiting a. 80
attributive clause 317-321
attributive
complication 345-347
autosemantic and
synsemantic elements 229
auxiliary 25;
34; 85; 89
axes of sentence 274-278
be going +
Infinitive 151-152 meaning
word 48
case 62-74
cataphoric
connection: see prospective connection classes
of words: syntactic cl. of w. 42-45
clausalisation 283-284
clause 289-290
cohesion of text 363
combinability: с
of noun 50-51;
с of
verb 97-102;
с of
infinitive 105-106;
с of
gerund 109-110;
с of
pres. Participle 111-112;
с.
of past participle 112-113;
с.
of adjective 204-205;
c. of adverb 221-222
communicative
direction 363
communicative
purpose 251-255
communicative
sentence types 251-268; с
s. t. 251-252;
intermediary с
s. t. 262-268
complement 98-99
complementive and
supplementive verbs: see verb subclasses
completive connection: objective с.
с.
233-235;
qualifying с.
с.
235
completivity 99-101
complex balance 314
complex object 106;
112; 113-114; 281; 343-345
complex sentence 303-332
complex subject 106;
112; 114; 342-343; 345
composite sentence 288-302;
303-361
compound sentence 332-340
concise composition
301-302
conditional mood:
see subjunctive mood conjugation
37
conjunction 40;
41; 45; 231; also syndetic connection
conjunctive cumulation 366
connective 41-42
consective mood:
see subjunctive mood constant
feature category 36; 59
constituent parts
of language 6
constructional
system of syntactic paradigmatics 283-285
contact noun
attribute: see attribute continuous
(verb-form) 155-156; 158-164
continuum 19;
119
conversion 87;
120; 212-213; 224
co-occurrence 23
coordinative
connection of clauses 296-298; 332-340;
marked, unmarked с.
с.
336-337;
open, closed с.
с.
339-340
coordinative
connection of sentence constituents 270-271;
352-353
coordinators 335
corpus 23
correlative
cumulation 366-367 ,
uncountable nouns 59-62
cumulation 16;
231; 300-301; 363-367
cumuleme 364;
367-371;
cumuleme-sentence 372;
factual, modal,
mixed c. 369
declarative
sentence 251; 256-257
declension 37
deep structure 281;
340
degrees of
comparison: of adjectives 213-219; adverbs
227 (deictic
function) 39; 47; 129-130
deletion in
transformations: see transformational procedures derivation history 280
derivational
perspective 46
descriptions of
language 6-7
descriptive
attribute: see attribute determiner
74-75; 83-84; 85
development
(category of) 108; 158; 158-166; 176
diachrony: see
synchrony and diachrony dialogue
speech 363-365
differential
features 28-31 analysis
23-24
distribution:
complementary, contrastive, non-contrastive d. 23-24
do-auxiliary 164-166
domination
(dominational connection) 232-235; d.
232-233
double predicate 92;
342-343
edited speech 291
elative superlative
215-218 sentence
273-274 article
construction 77
elliptical sentence
274-278
eme-term 22
environment 23-24
equipollent
opposition 29; 30
equipotent
connection 230-231
exclamatory
sentence 254-255; 362 26
expanded and
unexpanded sentence 273-274 quality
220
finitude (category
of) 88; 104; 137 conversive
224 to
infinitive phrase 106 expansion
in transformations; see transformational procedures functional sentence
perspective: see actual division of the sentence functional words 39-40;
44-45; 47; 282
future tense 128;
143-154 option (category of) 150
gender 53-62;
g. 56 case
62-64; 66-68; 69-72;
g. of adverbial 71;
g. of agent 70;
. of author 70;
. of comparison 71;
g. of destination 71;
g. of dispensed
qualification 71; .
of integer 70. of patient 71; .
of possessor 69; .
of quantity 72;
g. of received
qualification 70
gerund 108-110;
116-123; 175
gerundial
participle 122
gradual opposition 29
grammatical
category 27-31; 35-37; 156-158
grammatical form 27-31
grammatical
idiomatism 34-35
grammatical meaning
27
grammatical
morphemes 21
grammatical
opposition 28; 29-32; 35
grammatical
repetition 35
grammatical
suffixation: see outer inflexion hybrid
categorial formation 36-37
hypotaxis 294-296
immanent category 35-36
immediate
constituents 269-271
imperative
(verb-form) 188-189 mood
188-189; 190-191 sentence:
see inducive
sentence imperfect
(verb-form) 156-157; 166; 173-174
incorrect
utterances 8-9 (verb-form)
155; 172;
marked i. 166
inducive sentence 257-259
infinitive 89;
105-108; 115-118; 161-162; 175; 179-180; ,
unmarked i. 107
infixation 26;
33
inflexion 21;
inner, outer i. 33-34
informative purpose
363
informative
sentence perspective 244
ing-form problem 119
insert sentence 303;
342
interjection 40
intermediary
phenomena 19; 36-37; 302
interrogative
sentence 259-261
inter-sentential
connection 361-363
intonational
arrangement in transformations: see transformational procedures inversive
sentence 323
junctional form 134
kernel element: see
head-word kernel sentence 280-281
half-gerund 118-123
head-word (kernel
element) 232 hierarchy
of levels 14
homonymy 11;
24
language:
definition 6 and
speech 11-12
larger syntax 15
leading clause 335
leading sentence 367
+Infinitive 190-191
letter 14
level of
constructions 18
levels of language 14-17
lexemic level 15
lexical morphemes 21
lexical paradigm of
nomination 45-47
lexicalisation of
plural 58
lexico-grammatical
category 38 case
66
limiting attribute:
see attribute limitive and unlimitive verbs 95-97;
113; 155 ;162-164; 173-174;
184
linear expansion 342
"linguistic
sentence" 239 verb
91; 100
logical accent 249-250
macrosystem
(supersystem) 11
marked (strong,
positive) member 28; 30; 32
matrix sentence 303
may/might+Infinitive
190
meaningful
functions of grammar 9
meaningful gender 56-57
medial voice 180-183
of sentence: see axes of sentence
microsystem (subsystem) 11
middle voice
meaning 183
modal
representation (category of) 117
modal verb 89-90;
126; 127; 161; 175
modal word 40
modality 239
modifier hierarchy 269-270
monologue speech 363-365
monolithic and
segregative complex sentences 328-331
mononomination 15
monopredicative
sentence 268 (category
of) 185-203
morph 23
morpheme 15;
17-26
morpheme types:
additive, replacive m. 25-26; ,
discontinuous m. 26;
free, bound m. 24;
, covert m. 25;
root, affixal m. 21;
, supra-segmental m. 25
morphemic
composition of the word
22
morphemic
distribution 23-24 level
15
morphemic structure
17-26 arrangement
in transformations: see transformational procedures morphology 17
names 42;
49
native form 134
neutralisation 32;
54; 95-96; 117; 121; 127; 136; 150; 153-154; 162-164; 173-175; 183; 184; 192;
203
nominalisation 222-223;
233; 235-236; 241-242;
complete, partial
n. 284
nominal phrase
complication 350
nominative aspect
of the sentence 240-243
nominative case 73
nominative
correlation 19; 20
nominative division
of the sentence 243
nominative meaning 15;
, incomplete n. m. 39
noncommunicative
utterances 253
non-contrastive
distribution 23-24
non-finite verb 87;
see also verbids
non-terms 30
notional link-verbs
92
noun 38;
40; 49-85;
general
characteristics 49-53;
subclasses 52-53;
categories 53-85
noun+noun
combination 50-51
number (category
of): number of noun 57-62;
number of verb 128-136
numeral 39
object 50;
98-100; 234-235; 269
object clause 314-316
object sharing 343-346
objective and
subjective verbs: see verb subclasses objective
case 73
objective
connection: see completive connection obligatory
sentence parts: 272-274
obligatory valency 98
oblique and direct
mood meaning 186
occurseme 364
occursive
connection 363-365
one-axis sentence 274-277
opposition 27-33;
54; 57; 81-83; 140-141; 143-145; 156-157; 158; 166; 177
oppositional
reduction (substitution) 31-32; 59; 60;
61-62; 95-96; also neutralisation; transposition
optional sentence parts 272-273
optional valency 98
organisational
function of verb 97
paradigm 13;
28;
p. of nomination
46-47
paradigmatic
relations 13-14
paradigmatic syntax
47; 278-279
paragraph 292;
369-370
parataxis 295-296
parcellation 371 269
parenthetical
clause 30.1; 327-328 of
sentence 269-270
participle past
(participle II) 112-115; 180
participle present
(participle I) 111-112; 118-123; 162; 174
particle 40;
68
particle case 68;
74
parts of speech 37-42;
of identification
37
parts of the
sentence 269-272
passive (verb-form)
178-180; .
of action, of state 183-185
passivised and
non-passivised verbs: see verb subclasses past tense 142
peak of informative
perspective 244
perfect (verb-form)
156; 166-176 continuous
(verb-form) 170; 172-173
person (category of)
125-137 pronouns
72-74 function 306
phoneme 14
phonemic
distribution 23
phonemic
interchange 26
phonemic level 14
phonological
opposition 28-29
phrasalisation 284
phrase: stable,
free ph. 15;
notional, formative
ph. 229-230
phrase genitive 66-68
phrasemic level 15
plane of content 10;
29
plane of expression
10; 29
pleni- and
semi-constructions 341
pleni-compounding:
see semi-compounding plural:
absolute, common pl. 60-62;
descriptive pl. 62;
pl., pl. of measure 58:
multitude pl. 61;
repetition pl. 62;
set pl. 61
pluralia tantum 59
polar phenomena 19-20
polynomination 15
polypredication 289
polypredicative
sentence 268; 289
polysemy 10-11
positional
arrangement in transformations: see transformational procedures
positional case 64
positional classes 43-44
possessive
postposition 66-67
postpositive 224-225
predicate 232-233;
269
predication 15-16;
86; 231-233; 237; 239-240; 242; 250
predicative aspect
of the sentence 240-243
predicative clause 313-314
predicative
connection 232-233
predicative
functions 285-288
predicative line 268,
288
predicative load 287-288
predicative system
of syntactic paradigmatics 283; 285-288
predicative zeroing
325
predicator verbs 89-92
prefix 21
preposition 40;
41; 45; 65; 69
prepositional case 65
prescriptive
approach 7-8
present tense 141-143
primary sentence 285
primary syntactic
system 285-288
primary time
(tense) 140-143
principal clause 304-306;
merger, non-merger pr. cl. 305
printed text 291
privative
opposition 28-31 representation
(category of) 117; 118
pronominal case 73-74
39; 47-48; 72-74 15
proposemic level 15
prospective
connection 365-366
purpose of grammar 7-10
qualifying
connection: see completive connection qualitative
adverbs 226-227
quantifiers 59;
60
quantitative
adverbs 226-227
question:
pronominal q. 259-260; q.
260-261
reflective category
36; 126 voice
meaning 180-182 re-formulation
of oppositions 29 relative
generalisation: see absolute and relative generalisation repetition plural: see
plural replacive morpheme: see morpheme types
representative
correlation 367 representative
role of pronouns 48 retrospective
connection 365-366 retrospective
coordination (category of) 108; 110; 156;
166-176; 192; 194-195
reverse comparison 218-219
rheme 79; 244
rhetorical question
264-265
rules of grammar 7-10
scripted speech 293-294
secondary
(potential) predication 87; 104
segmental morpheme:
see morpheme types
segmental units 14
segregative complex
sentences: see monolythic and segregative complex sentences
selectional
combinability 52
seme (semantic
feature) 30; 59
semi-bound morpheme
25
semi-clause 342
semi-complex
sentence 340-351; 340-341
semi-composite
sentence 268; 301-302; 340-361
semi-compound
sentence 351-361;
identification 351-353
semi-compounding:
marked, unmarked s.-c. 354;
homosyndetic,
heterosyndetic s.-c. 358-359;
vs
pleni-compounding 360-361
semi-predication 104;
106; 109-110; 112; 114; 233
sentence
(definition) 236
sentence length 290-293
sentence sequence 362-363
sequence of tenses 154-155
sequential clause 335
sequential sentence
367
set plural: see
plural
sex indicators 55-56
should + Infinitive
190
sign 11;
12; 14
signeme 14
significative
meaning 15
simple sentence 268-288;
identification 268-269;
parts of s. s. 269-272:
types of s. s. 274-277;
semantic types of
s. s. 278
singular: absolute,
common s. 59-60
singularia tantum 59
situation-determinant
221
smaller syntax 15
specifiers of names
49
spective mood: see
subjunctive mood speech:
see language and speech split
infinitive 107
statal verbs: see
verb subclasses stative
41; 207-212
stem 21;
87
stipulative mood:
see subjunctive mood structural
meaning 44
subcategorisation 40-41
subclass migration
of verbs 102
sub-conjunctives 355
subject 50;
98; 132-136; 232-233; 269
subject clause 311-313
subject sharing 342-343
mood (verb-form): spective m. 187-190;
spective (considerative, desiderative,
imperative) m. 190-193; (stipulative,
consective) m. 193-200
subordinate clauses
303; 306-332; 306-311;
cl. of primary
nominal positions 312-316; .
of secondary nominal positions 317-321; .
of adverbial positions 321-328
subordination: s.
of sentence constituents 269-271;
s. of clauses 296-298;
obligatory,
optional s. 328-331;
parallel,
consecutive s. 331-332
subordination
perspective 332
subordination ranks
269-270
subordinates 309-311
49; 212-213
substitute 49;
73 in transformations: see transformational
procedures substitution testing 43-44; 76
substitutional
correlation 367
substitutional
function 47-48
suffix 21
superposition 256;
259; 260
supplement 98
26; 33; 46-47; 60; 61; 74; 85; 90; 127; 153 supra-cumulation
372-373
supra-proposemic
level 16
supra-segmental
units 14; 25
supra-sentential
construction 16; 363
surface structure 281;
340 14 system 11
synchrony and
diachrony 11
syndetic connection
231; 298-300; 336-337; 354-359 11
synsemantic
elements: see autosemantic and synsemantic elements
syntactic classes of words 42-45
syntactic
derivation 279-281
syntactic paradigm
of predicative functions 286
syntagma 12-13
syntagmatic
connection 229-236
syntagmatic
relations 12-13
syntax 17
synthetical form 32-34
system in language 11-14
systemic approach 11
temporality 137
tense 137-155;
158; 166; 168; 185
tense-retrospect
shift 194-195
text 361-373
theme 79;
244
time: absolutive,
relative t. 137-140; 144; 154-155
time coordination
(category of) 156
time correlation
(category of) 170
to-marker
topical elements of
text 365
transform 279-280
transformation 279-284
transformational
procedures 281-283
transformational
relations 179; 279
transition in the
actual division 244 and
intransitive verbs: see verb subclasses transitivity 99
transposition 32;
62; 67; 83; 84; 85; 142; 163; 318
two-axis sentence 274-277
two-base
transformation 284
unexpanded
sentence: see expanded and unexpanded sentence
unity of text 363
unmarked (weak,
negative) member 28; 30
utterance:
situation utterance, response utterance 253-254
valency:
obligatory, optional v. 97-102; 273 274
valency partner 97-98
feature category 36;
59
verb 39;
40; 85-203
verb subclasses:
actional, statal v. 92-94;
complementive,
supplementive v. 99-102;
limitive,
unlimitive v. 95-97;
objective,
subjective, transitive, intransitive v. 99-101;
passivised,
non-passivised v. 177; ,
imperfective v. 96-97;
personal,
impersonal v. 100;
v. of full
nominative value 89; 92-102; .
of partial nominative value 89-92
verbids 88-89;
102-123
voice (category of)
108; 110; 176-185
voluntary and
non-voluntary future 148-151
word 15;
17-22; definitions of
w. 18
word-morpheme 20;
107
word-sentence 236-237
written speech 293-294
zero article 77-80;
82 : see deletion; reduction zero morpheme 25;
34
zero-representation
133; also
elliptical sentence; reduction
Марк
Яковлевич
Блох
ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА
АНГЛИЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКА
Редактор И. С. Маненок Младшие
редакторы: И. Б. Мордасова, Е. Г. Назарова
Художник Ю. И. Тиков
Художественный редактор В. И. Пономаренко
Технический редактор 3. В.
Нуждина Корректоры 3. Ф. Юрескул, Г. А. Данилова
ИБ № 3821
Изд. № А-793. Сдано в набор
11.08.82. Подп. в печать 06.12.82 Формат 84Х1081/32. Бум. тип. № 1. Гарнитура
литературная. Печать высокая Объем. 20,16 усл. печ. л. Усл. кр.-отт. 20,16.
Уч-изд. л. 22,92. Тираж 29000 экз. Зак. № 1499. Цена 1 руб.
Издательство «Высшая школа»,
Москва, К-51, Неглинная ул., д. 29/14
Ордена Трудового Красного
Знамени
Московская типография № 7
«Искра революции»
«Союзполиграфпрома»
Государственного
Комитета СССР по делам
издательств,
полиграфии и книжной торговли.
Москва, 121019, пер. Аксакова,
13.