<< Пред.           стр. 8 (из 14)           След. >>

Список литературы по разделу

  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.
 224
 
 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
 15-1499 225
 
 the nature of the units in question in the course of their further linguistic study.
  § 4. 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
 226
 
 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
 15* 227
 
 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.
  § 5. 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
 228
 
 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.
  CHAPTER XX
 SYNTAGMATIC CONNECTIONS OF WORDS
  § 1. 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
 229
 
 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.
  § 2. 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
 230
 
 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".
  § 3. 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.
 231
 
  § 4. 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.
  § 5. 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
 232
 
 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).
  § 6. The completive, one-way connection of words (monolateral domination) is considered as subordinative on the
 233
 
 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.
 234
 
  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.
  § 7. 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
 235
 
 (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
  § 1. 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. 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
 236
 
 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
 237
 
 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.
 238
 
 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
 239
 
 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.
  § 2. 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
 240
 
 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.:
 1G-1499 241
 
  ... > 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
 * Грамматика русского языка. M., 1960. T. 2, Ч. I. с. 79.-80.
 242
 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.
  CHAPTER XXII
 ACTUAL DIVISION OF THE SENTENCE
  § 1. The 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,
 243
 
 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
 244
 
 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.
  § 2. 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".
  § 3, 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
 245
 
 "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.
  § 4. 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
 246
 
 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
 247
 
 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.
 248
 
  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.
  § 5. 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
 
  249
 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.
  § 6. 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.
 250
 
  CHAPTER XXIII COMMUNICATIVE TYPES OF SENTENCES
  § 1. The 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).
 251
 
  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.
  § 2. 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
 252
 
 "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
 253
 
 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.
  § 3. 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
  * See: Грамматика русского языка. М., 1960. Т, 2. Синтаксис, ч. I, с. 353; 365 и сл.
 254
 
 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.
  § 4. 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
 255
 
 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.
 256
 
 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?)

<< Пред.           стр. 8 (из 14)           След. >>

Список литературы по разделу