Modern English syntax and sentence - Ingliz tili - Referatlar

Modern English syntax and sentence

Yuklangan vaqt:

20.09.2019

Ko'chirishlar soni:

0

Hajmi:

137 KB

Ko'chirib olish

Modern English syntax and sentence Problems to be discussed: 1. subject - matter of syntax 2. syntax-minor and syntax-major 3. the types of syntactical relations: a) coordination, b) subordination, c) predication: primary and secondary predication 4. the types of syntactical relations according to the form of the constituents: a) agreement, b) government c) collocation 5. word-combinations and their types 6. definition of sentence 7. the types of sentences according to the different grouping requirements 8. the problem of one-member sentences 9. the problem of elliptical sentences

The Subject – Matter of Syntax It has been mentioned above that the syntactic level is divided into two parts: syntax – minor and syntax – major. The first one deals with sentence structure and the second – with text and its structure.These units, sentence and text, have a communicative function. The subject-matter of syntax are these communicative units: sentence and text. The Types of Linguistic Relations Between Words There are two types of relations between words in languages: paradigmatic and syntagmatic. 1) paradigmatic bond is a connection among the classes of linguistic units/words combined by the existence of some certain common features, e.g. a) asking, sitting, barking, sleeping (all these words have common – ing ending); b) ask, asking, asks, asked, has asked, be asked (in this case it is stem “ask” is common); 2) Syntagmatic connection is a bond among linguistic units in a lineal succession in the connected speech. Syntagmatic connection between words or group of words is also called a syntactic bond. Types of Syntactic Relations L. Barkhudarov (3) distinguishes three basic types of syntactical bond: sub - ordination, co-ordination, predication. Subordination implies the relation of head-word and adjunct-word, as e.g. a tall boy, a red pen and so on. The criteria for identification of head-word and adjunct is the substitution test. Example: 1) A tall boy came in. 2) A boy came in. 3) Tall came in. Co-ordination is shown either by word-order only, or by the use of form-words: 4) Pens and pencils were purchased.

5) Pens were purchased. 6) Pencils were purchased. Since both (5), (6) sentences show identical meaning we may say that these two words are independent: coordination is proved. Predication is the connection between the subject and the predicate of a sentence. In predication none of the components can be omitted which is the characteristic feature of this type of connection, as e.g. 7) He came ... 8) *He ... 9) * ... came or 10) I knew he had come 11) * I knew he 12) * I knew had come Sentences (8), (9) and (11), (12) are unmarked ones. H. Sweet (42) distinguishes two types of relations between words: subordina - tion, coordination. Subordination is divided in its turn into concord when head and adjunct words have alike inflection, as it is in phrases this pen or these pens: and government when a word assumes a certain grammatical form through being associated with another word: 13) I see him, here "him" is in the objective case-form. The transitive verbs require the personal pronouns in this case. 14) I thought of him. “him” in this sentence is governed by the preposition “of”. Thus, “see” and “of” are the words that governs while “him” is a governed word. B. Ilyish (15) also distinguishes two types of relations between words: agree - ment by which he means "a method of expressing a syntactical relationship, which consists in making the subordinate word take a form similar to that of the word to which it is subordinated". Further he states: "the sphere of agreement in Modern English is extremely small. It is restricted to two pronouns-this and that ..." government ("we understand the use of a certain form of the subordinate word

required by its head word, but not coinciding with the form of the head word itself- that is the difference between agreement and government") e.g. Whom do you see This approach is very close to Sweet's conception. E. Kruisinga (36) considers two types of word-groups: close and loose. I. Close group - when one of the members is syntactically the leading element of the group. There may be verb groups like running quickly, to hear a noise and nouns groups: King Edward, my book II. Loose group - when each element is comparatively independent of the other members: men and woman ; strict but just and so on. Thus, if we choose the terms suggested by Barkhudarov L.S., then we may say all grammarians mentioned here are unanimous as to the exist ence in English the subordination and coordination bonds. In addition to these two bonds Barkhudarov adds the predication. So when speaking on the types of syntactic connections in English we shall mean the three bonds mentioned. As one can see that when speaking about syntactic relations between words we mention the terms coordination, subordination, predication, agreement and government. It seems that it is very important to differentiate the first three terms (coordination, subordination and predication) from the terms agreement and government, because the first three terms define the types of syntactical relations from the standpoint of dependence of the components while the second ones define the syntactic relations from the point of view of the correspondence of the grammatical forms of their components. Agreement and government deals with only subordination and has nothing to do with coordination and predication. Besides agreement and government there is one more type of syntactical relations which may be called collocation when head and adjunct words are connected with each-other not by formal grammatical means (as it is the case with agreement and government but by means of mere collocation, by the order of words and by their meaning as for example: fast food, great day, sat silently and so on). The grammatical structure of language comprises two major parts - morphology

and syntax. The two areas are obviously interdependent and together they constitute the study of grammar. Morphology deals with paradigmatic and syntagmatic properties of morphological units - morphemes and words. It is concerned with the internal structure of words and their relationship to other words and word forms within the paradigm. It studies morphological categories and their realization. Syntax, on the other hand, deals with the way words are combined. It is concerned with the external functions of words and their relationship to other words within the linearly ordered units - word-groups, sentences and texts. Syntax studies the way in which the units and their meanings are combined. It also deals with peculiarities of syntactic units, their behavior in different contexts. Syntactic units may be analyzed from different points of view, and accordingly, different syntactic theories exist. Transformational-Generative Grammar. The Transformational grammar was first suggested by American scholar Zelling Harris as a method of analyzing sentences and was later elaborated by another American scholar Noam Chomsky as a synthetic method of 'generating' (constructing) sentences. The main point of the Transformational-Generative Grammar is that the endless variety of sentences in a language can be reduced to a finite number of kernels by means of transformations. These kernels serve the basis for generating sentences by means of syntactic processes. Different language analysts recognize the existence of different number of kernels (from 3 to 39). The following 6 kernels are commonly associated with the English language: (1) NV -John sings. (2) NV Adj. - John is happy. (3) NVN -John is a man. (4) NVN -John hit the man. (5) NVNN -John gave the man a book. (6) NVPrep.N - The book is on the table. It should be noted that (3) differs from (4) because the former admits no passive

transformation. Transformational method proves useful for analysing sentences from the point of their deep structure: Flying planes can be dangerous. This sentence is ambiguous, two senses can be distinguished: a) the action of flying planes can be dangerous, b) the planes that fly can be dangerous. Therefore it can be reduced to the following kernels: a) Planes can be dangerous b) Planes can be dangerous X (people) fly planes Planes fly Constructional Syntax. Constructional analysis of syntactic units was initiated by Prof. G .Pocheptsov in his book published in Kyiv in 1971. This analysis deals with the constructional significance/insignificance of a part of the sentence for the whole syntactic unit. The theory is based on the obligatory or optional environment of syntactic elements. For example, the element him in the sentence I saw him there yesterday is constructionally significant because it is impossible to omit it. At the same time the elements there and yesterday are constructionally insignificant - they can be omitted without destroying the whole structure. Communicative Syntax. It is primarily concerned with the analysis of utterances from the point of their communicative value and informative structure. It deals with the actual division of the utterance - the theme and rheme analysis. Both the theme and the rheme constitute the informative structure of utterances. The theme is something that is known already while the rheme represents some new information. Depending on the contextual informative value any sentence element can act as the theme or the rheme: Who is at home? - John is at home. Where is John? - John is at home. Pragmatic approach to the study of syntactic units can briefly be described as the study of the way language is used in particular contexts to achieve particular goals. Speech Act Theory was first introduced by John Austin. The notion of a speech act presupposes that an utterance can be said with different intentions or purposes and therefore can influence the speaker and situation in different ways:

It's cold here I just state the fact; I want you to do something about it (close the window); I'm treatening you; I'm s eking for an excuse for not doing something; I wan you to feel guilty of it; Etc. Accordingly, we can distinguish different speech acts. Of special interest here is the problem of indirect speech acts: Are you leaving already? In our everyday activities we use indirect speech acts rather willingly because it is the best way to influence people, to get what we want and to be polite at the same time. Text linguistics studies the text as a syntactic unit, its main features and peculiarities, different ways of its analysis. Discourse analysis focuses on the study of language use with reference to the social and psychological factors that influence communication. Syntactic notions The syntactic language level can be described with the help of special linguistic terms and notions: syntactic unit, syntactic form, syntactic meaning, syntactic function, syntactic position, and syntactic relations. Syntactic unit is always a combination that has at least two constituents. The basic syntactic units are a word-group, a clause, a sentence, and a text. Their main features are: a) they are hierarchical units - the units of a lower level serve the building material for the units of a higher level; b) as all language units the syntactic units are of two-fold nature: content side syntactic meaning Syntactic unit = = expression side syntactic form

c) they are of communicative and non-communicative nature - word-groups and clauses are of non-communicative nature while sentences and texts are of communicative nature. Syntactic meaning is the way in which separate word meanings are combined to produce meaningful word-groups and sentences. Green ideas sleep furiously. This sentence is quite correct grammatically. However it makes no sense as it lacks syntactic meaning. Syntactic form may be described as the distributional formula of the unit (pattern). John hits the ball- NI қ V қ N2. Syntactic function is the function of a unit on the basis of which it is included to a larger unit: in the word-group a smart student the word 'smart' is in subordinate attributive relations to the head element. In traditional terms it is used to denote syntactic function of a unit within the sentence (subject, predicate, etc.). Syntactic position is the position of an element. The order of constituents in syntactic units is of principal importance in analytical languages. The syntactic position of an element may determine its relationship with the other elements of the same unit: his broad back , a back district, to go back , to back sm. Syntactic relations are syntagmatic relations observed between syntactic units. They can be of three types - coordination, subordination and predication. The syntactic units can go into three types of syntactic relations. 1. Coordination (SR1) - syntagmatic relations of independence. SRI can be observed on the phrase, sentence and text levels. Coordination may be symmetric and asymmetric. Symmetric coordination is characterized by complete interchangeability of its elements - pens and pencils. Asymmetric coordination occurs when the position of elements is fixed: ladies and gentlemen. Forms of connection within SRI may be copulative (you and me), disjunctive (you or me), adversative (strict but just) and causative-consecutive (sentence and text level only). 2. Subordination (SR2) - syntagmatic relations of dependence. SR2 are established between the constituents of different linguistic rank. They are observed

on the phrase and sentence level. Subordination may be of three different kinds - adverbial (to speak slowly ), objective (to see a house ) and attributive (a beautiful flower). Forms of subordination may also be different - agreement (this book - these books), government (help us) , adjournment (the use of modifying particles just, only, even, etc.) and enclosure (the use of modal words and their equivalents really, after all, etc.). 3. Predication (SR3) - syntagmatic relations of interdependence. Predication may be of two kinds primary (sentence level) and secondary (phrase level). Primary predication is observed between the subject and the predicate of the sentence while secondary predication is observed between non-finite forms of the verb and nominal elements within the sentence. Secondary predication serves the basis for gerundial, infinitive and participial wore-groups (predicative complexes). SYNTAX AND ITS MAIN UNITS. TRADITIONAL AND COGNITIVE APPROACHES IN SYNTAX I. Syntax as part of grammar. The main units of syntax. II. Traditional and cognitive understanding of syntax. III. The basic principles and arguments of the cognitive linguistics. IV. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic patterning. I. Syntax as part of grammar. The main units of syntax. Syntax as part of grammar analyses the rules of combining words into phrases, sentences and supra-sentential constructions or texts. The rules of combinability of linguistic units are connected with the most general and abstract parts of content of the elements of language. These parts of content together with the formal means of their expression are treated as “grammatical categories”. In syntax, they are, for instance, the categories of communicative purpose or emphasis, which are actualized by means of word- order. Thus, word-order (direct or indirect), viewed as a grammatical form, expresses the difference between the central idea of the sentence and the marginal idea, between emotive and unemotive modes of speech, e.g.: In the center of the room stood the old man.

The word arrangement in this sentence expresses a narrative description with the central informative element placed in the strongest position, i.e. at the end. Thus, grammatical elements of language present a unity of content and expression (i.e. a unity of form and meaning). Accordingly, the purpose of Modern Grammar, and Syntax in particular, is to disclose and formulate the rules of the correspondence between the plane of content and the plane of expression in the process of utterance-formation. The main units of syntax are phrases and sentences. The phrase is a combination of two or more notional words which is a grammatical unit but is not an analytical form of some word. The main difference between the phrase and the sentence is in their linguistic function. The phrase is a nominative unit, the sentence is a predicative one. Nomination is naming things and their relations. A nominative unit simply names something known to everybody or a majority of native language speakers, recalling it from their memory, e.g.: a book, a departure. A phrase represents an object of nomination as a complicated phenomenon, be it a thing, an action, a quality or a whole situation, e.g.: an interesting book, to start with a jerk, absolutely fantastic, his unexpected departure. The sentence is the immediate unit of speech built up of words according to a definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a communicative purpose. The sentence, naming a certain situation, expresses predication, i.e. shows the relation of the denoted event to reality through the grammatical categories of tense, person and mood. The category of tense is used to convey something new and define its place in reality as preceding, or following the act of communication. The category of person shows, whether the situation involves the communicators or not. Through the category of mood the event is shown as real or unreal, desirable or obligatory. Thus, the sentence presents a unity in its nominative and predicative aspects, denoting a certain event in its reference to reality. The distinguishing features of the sentence are predication, modality and communicative meaningfulness.

It is stated that the center of predication in a sentence of verbal type is a finite verb, which expresses essential predicative meanings by its categorial forms (categories of tense and mood). Some linguists though (V.V Vinogradov, M.Y.Bloch ) insist that predication is effected not only by the forms of the finite verb, but also by all the other forms and elements of the sentence, which help establish the connection between the named objects and reality. They are such means as intonation, word order, different functional words. Due to their nominative meaning, both the sentence and the phrase enter the system of language by their syntactic patterns. The traditional linguistics considers four main types of syntactic patterns: predicative (subject қ predicate), objective (verb қobject), attributive (attribute қ noun), adverbial (verb/adverb/adjective қ adverbial modifier). II. Traditional and cognitive understanding of syntax. The traditional, or systemic approach in Grammar, centers around the description of structural properties of linguistic units and their meanings, as they are represented in the system of language without considering the process of utterance-formation, i.e. it doesn’t envisage the general (cognitive and linguistic) mechanisms which enable us to shape the conceptual content into a sentence and what’s more important to structure the exact sentence we want, corresponding to our pragmatic intention (for example, what’s the difference between the following pairs of sentences, if any at all: Bill sent a walrus to Joyce. Bill sent Joyce a walrus; Buzzing, the car went down the road. The car buzzed down the road. To find the answers seems possible within a cognitive approach, the approach which was started in the second half of the 20 th century and since then has been greatly promoted by foreign linguists such as G.Lakoff, R.Jackendoff, R. Langacker, L.Talmy, J.R. Taylor, A.Wierzbicka and others. Cognitive linguistics appeared within a framework of approaches to the analysis of language, which are the formal, the psychological, and the conceptual. The formal approach addresses the linguistic patterns, abstracted away from any

associated meaning. Thus, this approach includes the study of morphological, syntactic, lexical structure. Traditional generative grammar has centered itself within this approach. The psychological approach looks at language from the perspective of general cognitive systems, within this approach language is examined from the perspective of perception, memory, attention, reasoning. The main target of the conceptual approach is to consider the global system of schematic structures with which language organizes conceptual content that it expresses. Cognitive approach is concerned with the patterns in which and the processes by which conceptual content is organized in language, or, in other words, how language structures conceptual content. Cognitive linguistics studies how language structures such basic conceptual categories as those of space and time, scenes and events, entities and properties, motion and location, force and causation. It considers the semantic structure of morphological and lexical forms as well as that of syntactic patterns. Cognitive linguistics considers language a cognitive system, which along with other cognitive systems, such as perception, attention, reasoning, affect, memory, motor control comprises human cognition. In this respect language appears to have some structural properties common to other cognitive systems. The investigation of linguistic means in cognitive aspect, that is examining of meaning-form mappings ( картирование , отображение ) is based on the recent findings of psychology: such as the prototypical principle of category structure, the principle of figure-ground segregation ( выделение фигуры и фона ), “windowing” of attention ( распределение внимания ) and some others. Let’s consider each of them. III. The basic principles and arguments of the cognitive linguistics. The prototypical principle of category structure argues that any category possesses center-periphery pattern. The center comprises entities which maximally reveal categorial properties, while the periphery is represented by the entities which demonstrate categorial properties only to a certain degree. The

The difference in imagery determines the use of “to” and the “double – object construction” for certain types of situations. Consider the following examples: a) I sent a walrus to Antarctica. – sounds OK; b) I sent the zoo a walrus. – sounds OK; but c) I sent Antarctica a walrus. - is doubtful. Thus, the first argument of cognitive approach, concerning syntax, sounds as follows: grammatical constructions , (according to R. Langacker), possess schematic characteristics, i. e. provide alternative imagery (conceptualizations) for the same event or situation. (In L.Talmy’s conception the idea of imagery function of grammatical constructions was formulated as a principle of conceptual alternativity. It means that the variety of grammatical forms provide a choice among alternative conceptualizations, from which a speaker selects one or another according to her communicative purposes.) The second argument says, that the set of grammatical notions constitutes the fundamental concept structuring system of language. The grammatical forms of a sentence, and its syntactic pattern particularly, determine the structure of the conceptual material represented in the sentence, while the lexical elements specify its content. It is due to this argument that it becomes possible to distinguish different formats of representing knowledge in syntactic forms: configurational format, where linguistic knowledge prevails – the knowledge of syntactic configurations or schemas, such as transitive and intransitive constructions; actualizational format, where extra-linguistic knowledge prevails – the knowledge of event types (event concepts as mapped onto the basic syntactic configurations- transitive and intransitive constructions); format of mixed type, where linguistic knowledge and extra-linguistic knowledge are equally represented. ( For details see : Болдырев Н.Н., Фурс Л.А. Репрезентация языковых и неязыковых знаний синтаксическими средствами // Филологические науки. №3, 2004, стр. 67-74; Фурс Л.А. Форматы представления знаний в синтаксисе //Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. Вып.1., 2004, стр. 166-181.)

To illustrate the basic function of grammatical forms to determine the structure of the conceptual material represented in the sentence let’s consider the following sentences: He panted up to the school. The car rattled down the road. He dozed into a new cut. The syntactic construction, containing a prepositional word-group, structures the conceived event as Motion, while the lexical semantics of the verbs “to pant”, “to rattle”, “to doze” evokes the Processual aspect of the event in the listener’s mind. Within a cognitive approach the sentence as a unit of syntax is viewed in terms of schematization or profiling or imagery. It means, as it has been already discussed, that every grammatical construction possesses schematic characteristics, provides some particular imagery or conceptualization for the same event. In this aspect the study of a transitive construction is very illustrative, performed by such linguists as G.Lakoff, G. Taylor, A. Wierzbicka. The prototypical transitive construction is built up according to a certain syntactic pattern, which is the subject қ the verb-predicate қ the direct object. Initially it encodes transitive events: events which involve two participants, an agent and a patient, where an agent consciously acts in such a way as to cause a change in state of a patient, and its concept- structuring pattern or scheme is agent-action-patient. When the speaker uses the transitive construction for naming a particular event or situation he profiles it as a transitive event, that is he conceptualizes this particular event in terms of a agent-action-patient schema, even if this particular event is not inherently transitive. Let’s compare pairs of sentences which describe the same situation: a) He swam across the Channel; b) He swam the Channel ( J.R. Taylor’s examples).

Sentence (a) denotes the location of swimming. Sentence (b) presents the event as a transitive one and suggests its reading/conceptualization as follows: the Channel is a challenge to the swimmer’s power. In this respect the sentence “He swam our new swimming pool.” seems odd. A. Wierzbicka analyses the use of two- objects- constructions, one object is a patient, the other is an addressee, e.g.: John offered Mary a rose. Such like constructions are used to encode events, where the patient is involved into the action but doesn’t undergo any structural changes, for example destruction. It means that this type of semantic-syntactic constructions profiles the event in terms of an agent-action-addressee-patient scheme, where the action is understood as “giving to”, (and in this aspect it becomes clear, why the sentence “Kill me a spider.” is impossible). Thus, if the traditional linguistics concentrates on the study of the formal, structural and semantic properties of the syntax units, in the cognitive linguistics the sentence, its syntactic structure or pattern, is understood in terms of conceptualization, that is how the sentence, as a particular syntactic model, performs the concept-structuring function. IV. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic patterning. The sentence and the phrase as particular syntactic patterns are traditionally viewed as standing to one another in two types of relations: syntagmatic and paradigmatic. Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear relations between units in a sequence, e.g.: The book was sold at a great reduction in price. In this sentence syntagmatically connected are the words: “was sold”, “at a reduction in price”, “at a great reduction” etc. Paradigmatic relations exist between elements of the system outside the strings where they co-occur. Paradigmatics finds its expression in a system of oppositions, for example sentences of various functional destination can be viewed as opposed

to each other: question as opposed to statement, negation as opposed to affirmation (about syntactic oppositions read in the book by M.Y. Bloch p.286). Syntactic oppositions are realized by correlated sentence patterns, the relations between which can be described as transformations. Some of the patterns are base patterns, others are their transformations, for example, a question can be described as produced from a statement, e.g.: He is interested in sports.  Is he interested in sports? A negation produced from an affirmation, e.g.: He is interested in sports.  He is not interested in sports. Paradigmatics can be understood as syntactic derivation of more complex pattern-constructions out of basic or kernel pattern-constructions. There are two types of derivational relations in the paradigmatic system: 1) the constructional relations 2) the predicative relations. The constructional derivation effects the formation of more complex clausal structures out of simpler ones. Kernel sentences can undergo changes into clauses (the process of clausalization) and phrases (the process of phrasalization). For example, the two kernel sentences “They departed from the city” and “They started a new life” produce the following constructions, which demonstrate clausalization : 1) As they departed from the city, they started a new life; 2) If they depart from the city they shall start a new life; 3) They departed from the city, and they started a new life; 4) They departed from the city, but they did not start a new life. These kernel sentences also produce constructions, which demonstrate phrasalization: 1) On their departure from the city (a case of complete nominalization) they started a new life; 2) They departed from the city to start a new life (a case of partial nominalization);

3) They departed from the city starting a new life (a case of partial nominalization); 4) Having departed from the city , they started a new life ( participal construction of adverbial status). The predicative derivation realizes the formation of predicatively different units, and is responsible for the expression of the predicative semantics of the sentence. So, kernel sentences undergo structural modification, which expresses the predicative functions of the sentence, e.g.: He has done the job. -> He has not done the job. In this respect the kernel sentence is the simplest construction both in the notional and functional sense, that is it is an elementary sentence which is non- interrogative, non-imperative, non-negative, non-modal. Thus, the main units of syntax, phrases and sentences, enter the system of language by their syntactic patterns. Syntactic patterns are explicated in syntagmatic and paradigmatic patterning. Syntactical relations Coordination Predication Subordination Predication Primary predication Secondary predication Types of syntactical relations according to the form of the constituents

agree ment government collocation There are many definitions of the sentence and these definitions differ from each other because that the scientists approach from different view points to this question. Some of them consider the sentence from the point view of phonetics, others - from the point of view of semantics (the meaning of the sentence) and so on. According to the opinion of many grammarians the defi nition of the sentence must contain all the peculiar features of the smallest communicative unit. Some of the definitions of a sentence are given below. «Предложение – минимальная синтаксическая конструкция, используемая в актах речевой коммуникации, характеризующаяся предикативностью и реализующая определенную структурную схему» (14) “The 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” The definitions which are mentioned above prove that B.A. Ilyish is quite right when he writes: “The notion of sentence has not so far received a satis factory definition” (15) “ A sentence is a unit of speech whose grammatical structure conforms to the laws of the language and which serves as the chief means of conveying a thought. A sentence is not only a means of communicating something about reality but also a means of showing the speaker's attitude to it. “В отличие от слова или словосочетания, которые выражают лишь различные понятия, предложения выражают относительно законченные мысли и тем самым используются как единицы общения между людьми; произнося (или изображая на письме) предложения, люди что-то сообщают, выясняют, побуждают друг другу к выполнению действия. The train moved out of the city. Are you ready?

Put down the book. Для того чтобы сообщение о том или ином факте, явлении был полным, законченным, требуется указать каким образом данный факт, явление, событие и т.д. относится к реальной действительности, существует ли оно на самом деле или же мыслится как возможное предполагаемое, воображаемое, необходимое и т.д., т.е. необходимо выразить модальность сообщения. Модальность непременно имеется в любом предложении». «Важнейшим средством грамматического оформления предложения является законченность интонации». (15) Thus, concluding the above mentioned conceptions, we can say that in any act of communication there are three factors: 1. The act of speech; 2. The speaker; 3. Reality (as viewed by the speaker). B. Kh aimovich and Rogovskaya (22) state that these factors are variable since they change with every act of speech. They may be viewed from two view points: 1) from the point of view of language are constant because they are found in all acts of communication; 2) they are variable because they change in every act of speech. Every act of communication contains the notions of time, person and reality. The events mentioned in the communications are correlated in time and time correlation is expressed by certain grammatical and lexical means. Any act of communication presupposes existence of the speaker and the hearer. The meaning of person is expressed by the category of person of verbs. They may be expressed grammatically and lexico-grammatically by words: I, you, he... Reality is treated differently by the speaker and this attitude of the speaker is expressed by the category of mood in verbs. They may be expressed gram matically and lexically (may, must, probably...)

According to the same authors the three relations - to the act of speech, to the speaker and to reality - can be summarized as the relation to the situation of speech. The relation of the thought of a sentence to the situation of speech is called predicativity. Predicativity is the structural meaning of the sentence while intonation is the structural form of it. Thus, a sentence is a communication unit made up of words /and word-morphemes/ in conformity with their combinability and structurally united by intonation and predicativity. Within a sentence the word or combination of words that contains the meanings of predicativity may be called the predication. My father used to make nets and sell them. My mother kept a little day-school for the girls. Nobody wants a baby to cry. A hospital Nursery is one of the most beautiful places in the world. You might say, it’s a room filled with love. Thus, by sentence we understand the smallest communicative unit, consisting of one or more syntactically connected words that has primary predi cation and that has a certain intonation pattern. The Types of Sentences There are many approaches to classify sentences. Below we shall consider only some of them.B. Ilyish classifies sentences applying two principles:1) types of communication. Applying this principle he distinguishes 3 types of sentences: declarative, interrogative, imperative.2) according to structure. Applying this principle he distinguishes two main types of sentences: simple and composite. Ch. Fries (31), (32) gives an original classification of types of sentences. All the ut terances are divided by him into Communicative and Non-communicative. The Communicative utterances are in their turn divided into 3 groups: I. Utterances regularly eliciting “oral” responses only: A) Greetings. B) Calls. C) Questions.

II. Utterances regularly eliciting "action" responses, sometimes accompa nied by one of a limited list of oral responses: requests or commands. III. Utterances regularly eliciting conventional signals of attention to continuous discourse statements. L. Barkhudarov (3) compares source (kernel) sentences with their transforms, he distinguishes several types of sentences from their struc tural view-point. His classification will represent binary oppositions where the unmarked member is the source kernel sentence and marked one is the transformed sentence. The most important oppositions within the limits of simple sentences are the following two: 1. Imperative (request) and non-imperative sentences. 2. Elliptical and non-elliptical sentences. Summarizing the issue about the classification of sentences in the English language, we can say that this can be done from different points of view. But the most important criteria so are as follows: 1. the criterion of the structure of sentences 2. the criterion of the aim of the speaker 3. the criterion of the existence of all parts of the sentence. From the point of view of the first criterion sentences fall under two subtypes: simple and composite. The difference between them is in the fact that simple sentences have one primary predication in their structure while composite ones have more than one. According to the criterion of the aim of the speaker sentences fall under declarative, interrogative, imperative and exclamatory. From the point of view of the existence of all parts of the sentence we differentiate elliptical and non-elliptical sentences. Below we shall consider these types of sentence. Types of Sentences according to the Aim of the Speaker

The declarative sentences : This type of sentence may be called basic, when compared with other types of sentences because all other types of sentences are the result of transformation of kernel sentences which are affirmative in their origin (kernel sentences). - they convey some statement. Maybe because of this fact these sentences are called declarative. - they usually have the falling an intonation - usually they have regular order of words with no inversion. Interrogative Sentences There are two structural types of interrogative sentences in Modern English - general questions (yes- or no- questions) and special (or wh-) questions. Both of them are characterized by having partial inversions: Are we staying here? Where are we staying? Besides, the first one has a special (rising) intonation pattern. The second one (wh-question) has interrogative words. But the intonation pattern of wh-questions is identical with that of the affirmative sentences. And it is important to point out that the interrogative sentences require answers (if they are not rhetorical ones). Exclamatory Sentences The peculiar features of these sentences are: 1. exclamatory sentences usually express some sort of emotion, feeling or the spirit of the person who pronounces it; 2. in their structure they have such introductory words as what and how : Ex. What a lovely night! How beautiful it is here! 3. they are always in the declarative form; 4. there’s usually no inversion; 5. they are pronounced with a falling intonation; Imperative Sentences The imperative sentences are opposed to non-imperative ones because.

1. In imperative sentences the predicate is used in only one form-in the imperative one, while in non-imperative sentences predicate may be used in any form except the imperative. 2. In imperative sentences no modal verb is used. 3. The imperative sentences are most often directed to the second person. 4. The subject of the imperative sentences are almost always represented by the zero alternant of you, that is, elliptically. 5. The imperative sentences urge the listener to perform an action or verbal response. The above said is quite sufficient to characterize the structure of imperative sentences to be specific and distinct from that of the structure of non-imperative sentences. Elliptical Sentences The problem of elliptical sentences has been and still is one of the most important and at the same time difficult problems of syntax. The problem is solved by different linguists in different way. According to H. Kruisinga's (36) concept “Any noun that is used to call a person may be looked upon as a sentence, or a sentence-word. Some words regularly form a sentence, such as “yes” or “no”'; but they do so only in connection with another sentence. Words used in a sentence with subject and predicate may also be alone to form a complete sentence, but again in connection with another sentence only...” As we stated above elliptical sentences are also the result of transformation of kernel sentences. Since transforms are derived from kernel sentences they must be considered in connection with the latter. L. Barkhudarov (3) looks upon the sentences like « Вечер », « Утро » and so on as two-member sentences. Really, if we isolate such utterances from the language system it will not be divisible. If an investigator wants to be objective he cannot neglect the language system. Any unit of any language is in interdependence of the other units of the language. Since the overwhelming majority of sentences are two-

member ones as e.g. « Был вечер », « Будет вечер » the above-mentioned utterances are also two-member ones. In sen tences « Был вечер », « Будет вечер » the predicates are expressed explicitly, while in « Вечер », « Утро » the predicates are expressed by zero alternants of the verb « быть ». M. Blokh is conception is very close to this (5), (6). The classification of elliptical sentences may be based on the way of their ex - plication. By explication we understand the replacement of the zero alternant of this or that word by the explicit one. There are two kinds of explication: 1. Syntagmatically restored elliptical sentences - when the explicit alternant of the elliptical sentence is found in the same context where the elliptical sentence is: One was from Maine; the other from California. If you have no idea where Clive might be, I certainly haven't. (Nancy Buckingam). 2. Paradigmatically restored elliptical sentence - when the explicit alternant of the zero form is not found in the context where the ellipsis is used but when it is found in similar language constructions, e.g. Stop and speak to me. (Galsworthy) You listen to me, Horace. (Steinback) The Problem of One -Member Sentences “A sentence is the expression of a self- contained and complete thought”. Quite often the terms are applied to linguistic forms lack completeness in one or more respects. It will of course be readily agreed that sentences like “All that glitters is not gold” and “Two multiplied by two are four”, are for mally and notionally complete and self-contained. But in everyday intercourse utterances of this type are infrequent in comparison with the enormous number which rely upon the situation or upon the linguistic context - to make their intention clear. In the extract Strove asked him if he had seen Strickland. “He is ill”, he said. “Didn’t you know?” – “Seriously?” – “Very, I understand”, to Fries “Seriously” is a sentence - equivalent. They all seem to be a complete communication. But it can

not be denied that each of them, either through pronouns (he, him) or through omissions, depend heavily on what has been said immediately before it is spoken; in fact the last three would be unthinkable outside a linguistic context. Properly speaking, therefore, omissions must be said to effect connection between sentences (31), (32). Sentences with syntactic items left out are natural, for omissions are inherent in the very use of language. “In all speech activities there are three things to be distin - guished: expression, suppression, and impression. Expression is what the speaker gives, suppression is what the speaker does not give, though he might have given it, and impression is what the hearer receives”. (35) Grammarians have often touched upon omissions of parts of sentences. But it is difficult to find an opinion which is shared by the majority of linguists. When considering the types of sentences some grammarians recognize the existence of two-member, one-member and elliptical sentences. The two-member sentences are sentences which have the subject and the predicate. However, language is a phenomenon where one cannot foresay the structure of it without detailed analysis. There are sentences which cannot be described in terms of two- member sentences. We come across to sentences which do not contain both the subject and the predicate. “There's usually one primary part and the other could not even be supplied, at least not without a violent change of the structure of the sentence", (llyish) Fire! Night. Come on! As Ilyish (15) puts it, it is a disputed point whether the main part of such a sentence should, or should not be termed subject in some case (as in Fire! Night...) or predicate in some other (Come on!; Why not stay here?) There are grammarians who keep to such a conception. Russian Academician V.V. Vinogradov (10) considers that grammatical subject and predicate are correlative notions and that the terms lose their meaning outside their relation to each other. He suggests the term “main part”.

Thus, one member sentence is a sentence which has no separate subject and predicate but one main only instead. B. Ilyish (15) considers some types of such sentences: 1) with main part of noun (in stage directions); Night. A lady's bed-chamber ... . 2) Imperative sentences with no subject of the action mentioned: Come down, please. Infinitive sentences are also considered to be one special type of one-member sentences. In these sentences the main part is expressed by an infinitive. Such sentences are usually emotional: Oh, to be in a forest in May! Why not go there immediately? B.A. Ilyish (15) states that these sentences should not be considered as elliptical ones, since sentences like: Why should not we go there immediately? - is stylistically different from the original one. By elliptical sentence he means sentence with one or more of their parts left out, which can be unambiguously inferred from the context. It is rather difficult to define the sentence as it is connected with many lingual and extra lingual aspects - logical, psychological and philosophical. We will just stick to one of them - according to academician G.Pocheptsov, the sentence is the central syntactic construction used as the minimal communicative unit that has its primary predication, actualises a definite structural scheme and possesses definite intonation characteristics. This definition works only in case we do not take into account the difference between the sentence and the utterance. The distinction between the sentence and the utterance is of fundamental importance because the sentence is an abstract theoretical entity defined within the theory of grammar while the utterance is the actual use of the sentence. In other words, the sentence is a unit of language while the utterance is a unit of speech. The most essential features of the sentence as a linguistic unit are a) its

structural characteristics - subject-predicate relations (primary predication), and b) its semantic characteristics - it refers to some fact in the objective reality. It is represented in the language through a conceptual reality: conceptual reality proposition objective reality lingual representation objective situation predicative unit We may define the proposition as the main predicative form of thought. Basic predicative meanings of the typical English sentence are expressed by the finite verb that is immediately connected with the subject of the sentence (primary predication). To sum it up, the sentence is a syntactic level unit, it is a predicative language unit which is a lingual representation of predicative thought (proposition). Different approaches to the study of the sentence. a) Principal and secondary parts of the sentence. b) Immediate constituents of the sentence. IC analysis. To grasp the real structure of the English sentence, one must understand not only words that occur but also the principles of their arrangement. Each language has its own way of structural grouping. English has dichotomous phrase structure, which means that the phrase in English can always be divided into two elements (constituents) until we get down to the single word. All groups of words are arranged in levels. The name given by linguists to these different levels of relationship is immediate constituents . Thus, one way of analyzing a sentence is to cut it to its immediate constituents, that is, to single out different levels of meaning: The old man saw a black dog there.

It is obvious that dividing a sentence into ICs does not provide much information. Nevertheless, it can sometimes prove useful if we want to account for the ambiguity of certain constructions. A classic example is the phrase old men and women which can be interpreted in two different ways. Ambiguity of this kind is referred to as syntactic ambiguity. By providing IC analysis we can make the two meanings clear: old man and women old man and women c) Oppositional analysis. The oppositional method in syntax means correlating different sentence types: they possess common features and differential features. Differential features serve the basis for analysis. E.g. two member sentence :: one member sentence (John worked:: John! Work! Or: I speak English :: I don't speak English. d) Constructional analysis. According to the constructional approach, not only the subject and the predicate but also all the necessary constituents of primary predication constitute the main parts because they are constructionally significant. Therefore, the secondary parts of the sentence are sometimes as necessary and important as the main ones. If we omit the object and the adverbial modifier in the following sentences they will become grammatically and semantically unmarked: Bill closed the door; She behaved well. The structural sentence types are formed on the basis of kernels (basic structures). Three main types of propositional kernels may be distinguished: N V, N is A, N is N. However, if we take into account the valent properties of the verbs (their obligatory valency) the group will become larger (8 kernels), e.g. NI V N2 N3: John gave Ann the book, NI V N2: I see a house. The kernel sentences form the basis for syntactic derivation. Syntactic derivation lies in producing more complex sentences Syntactic processes may be internal and

external. Internal syntactic processes involve no changes in the structure of the parts of the sentence. They occur within one and the same part of the sentence (subject, etc.). External syntactic processes are those that cause new relations within a syntactic unit and lead to appearance of a new part of the sentence. The internal syntactic processes are: Expansion Compression The phone was ringing and ringing They were laughing and singing Complication Contamination (a synt. unit becomes complicated) (two parts of the sentence are joined I have seen it - I could have seen it together - e.g. double predicate) The moon rose red Replacement - the use of the words that have a generalized meaning: one, do, etc, I'd like to take this one . Representation - a part of the syntactic unit represents the whole syntactic unit: Would you like to come along? I'd love to . Ellipsis - Where are you going? To the movies . The external syntactic processes are: Extension - a nice dress - a nice cotton dress. Ajoinment - the use of specifying words, most often particles: He did it - Only he did it. Enclosure - inserting modal words and other discourse markers: after all, anyway, naturally, etc. The utterance as opposed to the sentence is the unit of speech. The main categories of the utterance from the point of view of its informative structure are considered to be the theme and the rheme . They are the main components of the Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP) - actual division of the sentence (most language analysts stick to the term "sentence" but actually they mean "utterance").In English, there is a "standard" word order of Subject қ Verb қ Object: The cat ate the rat - here we have a standard structure (N I қ V қ N2). However, there are numerous other ways in which the semantic content of the

sentence can be expressed: l. The rat was eaten by the cat. 2. It was the cat that ate the rat. 3. It was the rat that the cat ate. 4. What the cat did was ate the rat. 5. The cat, it ate the rat. Which of these options is actually selected by the writer or the speaker will depend on the context in which the utterance occurs and the importance of the information. One important consideration is whether the information has already been introduced before or it is assumed to be known to the reader or listener. Such information is referred to as given information or the theme. It contrasts with information which is introduced for the first time and which is known as new information or the rheme. Informative structure of the utterance is one of the topics that still attract the attention of language analysts nowadays. It is well recognized that the rheme marking devices are: 1. Position in the sentence. As a rule new information in English generally comes last: The cat ate the rat . 2. Intonation. 3. The use of the indefinite article. However, sometimes it is impossible (as in 1): A gentleman is waiting for you. 4. The use of 'there is', 'there are'. There is a cat in the room. 5. The use of special devices, like 'as for', 'but for', etc.: As for him , I don't know. 6. Inverted word order: Here comes the sun. 7. The use of emphatic constructions: It was the cat that ate the rat. However, sometimes the most important information is not expressed formally: The cat ate the rat after all. The rheme here is 'the rat'. At the same time there is very important information which is hidden or implicit: the cat was not supposed to do it, or - it was hard for the cat to catch the rat, or - the cat is a vegetarian (this

hidden information will depend on the context or situation). In other words, we may say that this sentence contains two informative centres, or two rhemes - explicit and implicit. 5. Functional typology of utterances. Actional utterance: N қ Vact. қ Complement - actional predicate Performative utterance: I қ Vperf.Nsay - performative predicate Characterizing utterance: N қ Vbe қ NQ - characterizing predicate (See the book by E.Morokhovskaya 'Fundamentals of Theoretical English Grammar', pp.254-268) Composite Sentences The word "composite" is used by H. Poutsma (39) as a common term for both the compound and complex sentences. There are three types of composite sentences in Modern English: 1. The compound sentence contains two or more independent clauses with no dependent one. 2. The complex sentence contains one dependent clause and one or more independent clauses. The latter usually tells something about the main clause and is used as a part of speech or as a part of sentence. J. The compound-complex sentence combines the two previous types. The compound-complex sentences are those which have at least two independent clauses and at least one dependent (subordinate) clause in its structure: Blair found herself smiling at him and she took the letter he held out to her. That there are three types of composite sentences in languages is contemporary approach to this issue. Historically not all the grammarians were unanimous in this respect. According to it H. Sweet (42) there are structurally two types of sentences: simple and complex. “Two or more sentences may be joined together to form a single complex sentence … In every complex there is one independent clause, called the principal clause together with at least one dependent clause, which stands in the relation of

adjunct to the principal clause. The dependent clause may be either coordinate or subordinate”. Examples: Principal clause 1. You shall walk , and I will ride. Coordinate clause Co-complex Principal clause 2. You are the man I want . Subordinate clause Sub-complex As one can see in H. Sweets conception there’s no place for compound sentences since even so-called “co-complex” there’s subordination. In this paper we shall classify the composite sentences into three types as has been mentioned above. Compound Sentences The compound sentence was not felt to be a sentence proper. There were at least three methods, as L. Iophic and Chahoyan (17) state, employed by the grammar - ians to find a way out of this difficulty: (1) to explain it away by the complete independence and the possibility of isolating each member of a compound sentence without any change of its meaning or intonation; (2) by employing new terms to express more exactly the grammatical peculiarity of this combination of sentences. The terms “double”, “triple” and “multiple” sen tences were used by E. Kruisinga (36) in “A Hand-book of Present day English” and H.R. Stokoe (41). (3) by excluding this concept from the structural classification of sen tences. The analysis of compound sentences show that clauses of a compound sentence are usually connected more closely than independent sentences. According to M. Blokh (7) “in these sentences the clauses are arranged as units of syntactically equal rank, i.e. equipotent” (p.296). But more close examination of these type of sentences shows that: 1. The order of clauses is fixed.

He came at six and we had dinner together. The two women understood one another very well, but Paul seemed to be left outside this conversation. Every drawer in every room had been taken out, the contents spilled, the bed had been ripped apart, pictures were off their hooks and (they) were lying on the floor. One cannot change order of the clauses in these sentences. 2. Between clauses of compound sentences there exist certain semantic relations. And these relations are defined by conjunctions and connectives: 2. 1. Harmony or agreement (copulative relation): Her lips trembled and she put up her hand as if to steady them with her fingers. 2. 2. Contrast or opposition. This relation is usually expressed by adversative conjunctions but, yet: The conjunctions are not numerous but they are of very frequent occur rence. 2. 3. The choice or alternation (disjunctive conjunction- or): Is that his torically true or is it not? 2. 4. Reason or consequence (or conclusion) for, so... E.g. He had apparently been working, for the table was littered with papers. There's no car available, so I shall go on foot. Complex Sentences Linguists explain the complex sentences as units of unequal rank, one being categorically dominated by the other. In terms of the positional struc ture of the sentence it means that by subordination one of the clauses (subor dinate) is placed in a dependent 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 premedi tated and prepared even before its explicit expression in the utterance (5), (6), (7).

The Types of Complex Sentences The subordinate clauses are classified according to the two criteria: meaning and combinability. The clauses of a complex sentence form the unity, a simple sentence in which some part is replaced by a clause. The subject clauses are used in the function of a primary part of the sen tence. The peculiarity of the subject clause is its inseparability from the princi pal clause. It is synsemantic; it can't be cut off from the rest of the sentence. What he says is true . The predicative clause fulfills the function of the notional predicate (the function of the predicative). e.g. The thing is what we should do the next. The Adverbial clauses serve to express a variety of adverbial relations: action quality . Mike acted as though nothing had happened. = manner . Everybody should love her as he did. Some more complex sentences: What the newspapers say may be false (subject clause). I don't remember what his name is. (object) He thought that it might well be. (object) The lot that is on the corner needs moving. (attributive) He is a man whom I have always admired. (attributive) When Bill decided to leave, everyone expressed regret. (adverbial clause of time) The Structural Approach to the Problem of Composite Sentences One of the representatives of structural linguists Ch. Fries (31), (32) considers two kinds of composite sentences: sequence sentences and included sentences. The sequence sentences consist of situation sentence and sequence sentence. Example: 1. The government has set up an agency called Future builders. 2. It has a certain amount of fund to make loans to social enterprises.

These two sentences are connected with each-other. The first sentence is a situation sentence and the second one is a sequence sentence since it develops the idea of the situation sentence. In the following example “ The biggest loan has gone to M. Trust, which runs a school for handicapped children .” There are also two sentences included into one but they are not separated by a period (full stop). Thus, in both cases there are certain signals that serve to connect the constituents, they are “if” in the sequence sentence and “which” - in the included one. The most significant difference between these function words as signals of “inclusion” and the forms given above as signals of sequence lies in the fact that these function words of inclusion at the beginning of a sentence look forward to a coming sentence unit, while the signals of sequence look backward to the preceding sentence unit. When sentence units are included in larger units they can fulfill a variety of structural functions. In the structure of the larger sentence unit in which they are included they often operate as a single unit substitutable for one of the single part of the speech. C.H. Fries, as we see, makes an attempt to reject the traditional classification and terms. He substitutes for the traditional doctrine his theory of included sentences and sequences of sentences. His attitude towards the traditional concept of the compound sentence is primarily a matter of the punctuation of written texts.

Literature 1. Ирискулов М., Кулдашев A. A course in theoiretical English Grammar. T., 2008 2. Л. Бархударов. Структура простого предложения современного английского языка. М., 1966 3. Л. Бархударов, Д. Штелинг. Грамматика английского языка. М. , 1994 4. М. Блох. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. М. , 1994 5. М. Блох. Теоретические основы грамматики. М. , 2002 6. M. Blokh. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. M., 1983 7. Дж. Буранов. Сравнительная типология английского и тюркских языков. М. , 1989 8. Ж. Б ў ронов. Инглиз ва ў зб ек тиллари қ иёсий грамматикаси. Т., 1973 9. В.В. Виноградов. Русский язык (Грамматическое учение о слове). М. , 1972 10. Г. Воронцова. Очерки по грамматике английского языка. М ., 1960

O'xshashlar

Word-formation in modern english

Modern american prose and poetry

Survey of the linguistic literature on the problems of morphology in Present Day Linguistics

Sentence

Language and speech levels