<< Пред.           стр. 9 (из 14)           След. >>

Список литературы по разделу

  The strictly imperative sentence, as different from the strictly declarative sentence, does not express by its immediate destination any statement of fact, i.e. any proposition proper. It is only based on a proposition, without formulating it directly. Namely, the proposition underlying the imperative sentence is reversely contrasted against the content of the expressed inducement, since an urge to do something (affirmative inducement) is founded on the premise that something is not done or is otherwise not affected by the wanted action, and, conversely, an urge not to do something (negative inducement) is founded on the directly opposite premise. Cf.:
  Let's go out at once! (The premise: We are in.) Never again take that horrible woman into your confidence, Jerry! (The premise: Jerry has taken that horrible woman into his confidence.)
  Thus, the rheme of the imperative utterance expresses the informative nucleus not of an explicit proposition, but of an inducement - a wanted (or unwanted) action together with its referential attending elements (objects, qualities, circumstances).
  Due to the communicative nature of the inducement addressed to the listener, its thematic subject is usually zeroed, though it can be represented in the form of direct address. Cf.:
  Don't try to sidetrack me (J. Braine). Put that dam* dog down, Fleur; I can't see your face (J. Galsworthy). Kindly tell me what you meant, Wilfrid (J. Galsworthy).
  Inducements that include in the address also the speaker himself, or are directed, through the second person medium, to a third person (persons) present their thematic subjects explicit in the construction. E.g.:
  I say, Bob, let's try to reconstruct the scene as it developed. Please don't let's quarrel over the speeds now. Let her produce the document if she has it.
  The whole composition of an ordinary imperative utterance is usually characterised by a high informative value,
 17-1499 257
 
 so that the rheme proper, or the informative peak, may stand here not so distinctly against the background information as in the declarative utterance. Still, rhematic testing of imperative utterances does disclose the communicative stratification of their constituents. Compare the question-tests of a couple of the cited examples:
  Put that dam' dog down, Fleur. > What is Fleur to do with the dog? Kindly tell me what you meant, Wilfrid. > What is Wilfrid to tell the speaker?
  As for the thematic, and especially the subrhematic (transitional) elements of the imperative utterance, they often are functionally charged with the type-grading of inducement itself,-i.e.-with making it into a command, prohibition, request, admonition, entreaty, etc. Compare, in addition to the cited, some more examples to this effect:
  Let us at least remember to admire each other (L. Hellman). Oh, please stop it... Please, please stop it (E. Hemingway). Get out before I break your dirty little neck (A. Hailey).
  The second-person inducement may include the explicit pronominal subject, but such kind of constructions should be defined as of secondary derivation. They are connected with a complicated informative content to be conveyed to the listener-performer, expressing, on the one hand, the choice of the subject out of several persons-participants of the situation, and on the other hand, appraisals rendering various ethical connotations (in particular, the type-grading of inducement mentioned above). Cf.:
  "What about me?" she asked. - "Nothing doing. You go to bed and sleep" (A. Christie). Don't you worry about me, sir. I shall be all right (B..K. Seymour).
  At a further stage of complication, the subject of the inducement may be shifted to the position of the rheme. E.g.:
  "...We have to do everything we can." - "You do it," he said. "I'm tired" (E. Hemingway).
  The essentially different identifications of the rheme in the two imperative utterances of the cited example can be proved by transformational testing: ... > What we have to do is (to do) everything we can. ... > The person who should do it is you.
 The inducement with the rhematic subject of the latter
 255
 
 type may be classed as the "(informatively) shifted inducement".
  § 5. As far as the strictly interrogative sentence is concerned, its actual division is uniquely different from the actual division of both the declarative and the imperative sentence-types.
  The unique quality of the interrogative actual division is determined by the fact that the interrogative sentence, instead of conveying some relatively self-dependent content, expresses an inquiry about information which the speaker (as a participant of a typical question-answer situation) does not possess. Therefore the rheme of the interrogative sentence, as the nucleus of the inquiry, is informationally open (gaping); its function consists only in marking the rhematic position in the response sentence and programming the content of its filler in accord with the nature of the inquiry.
  Different types of questions present different types of open rhemes.
  In the pronominal ("special") question, the nucleus of inquiry is expressed by an interrogative pronoun. The pronoun is immediately connected with the part of the sentence denoting the object or phenomenon about which the inquiry ("condensed" in the pronoun) is made. The gaping pronominal meaning is to be replaced in the answer by the wanted actual information. Thus, the rheme of the answer is the reverse substitute of the interrogative pronoun: the two make up a rhematic unity in the broader question-answer construction. As for the thematic part of the answer, it is already expressed in the question, therefore in common speech it is usually zeroed. E.g.:
  "Why do you think so?" - "Because mostly I keep my eyes open, miss, and I talk to people" (A. Hailey).
  The superpositional rhematic test for the pronominal question may be effected in the following periphrastic-definitional form: -" The question about your thinking so is: why?
  For the sake of analytical convenience this kind of superposition may be reduced as follows: > You think so - why?
  Compare some more pronominal interrogative superpositions:
  What happens to a man like Hawk Harrap as the years go by? (W. Saroyan). > To a man like Hawk Harrap, as
  259
 
 the years go by - what happens? How do you make that out, mother? (E. M. Forster) > You make that out, mother, - how? How's the weather in the north? (D. du Maurier) > The weather in the north - how is it? What's behind all this? (A. Hailey) > Behind all this is - what?
  The rheme of non-pronominal questions is quite different from the one described. It is also open, but its openness consists in at least two semantic suggestions presented for choice to the listener. The choice is effected in the response; in other words, the answer closes the suggested alternative according to the interrogative-rhematic program inherent in it. This is clearly seen in the structure of ordinary, explicit alternative questions. E.g.: Will you take it away or open it here? (Th. Dreiser)
  The superposition of the utterance may be presented as follows: > You in relation to it - will take (it) away, will open (it) here?
  The alternative question may have a pronominal introduction, emphasising the open character of its rheme. Cf.: In which cave is the offence alleged, the Buddhist or the Jain? (E. M. Forster)
  The superposition: > The offence is alleged - in the Buddhist cave, in the Jain cave?
  Thus, in terms of rhematic reverse substitution, the pronominal question is a question of unlimited substitution choice, while the alternative question is a question of a limited substitution choice, the substitution of the latter kind being, as a rule, expressed implicitly. This can be demonstrated by a transformation applied to the first of the two cited examples of alternative questions: Will you take it away or open it here? > Where will you handle it - take it away or open it here?
  The non-pronominal question requiring either confirmation or negation ("general" question of yes-no response type) is thereby implicitly alternative, though the inquiry inherent in it concerns not the choice between some suggested facts, but the choice between the existence or non-existence of an indicated fact. In other words, it is a question of realised rhematic substitution (or of "no substitution choice"), but with an open existence factor (true to life or not true to life?), which makes up its implicitly expressed alternative. This can be easily shown by a superposition; Are they going to stay long? > They are going to stay - long, not long?
 260
 
  The implicit alternative question can be made into an explicit one, which as a rule is very emphatic, i.e. stylistically "forced". The negation in the implied alternative part is usually referred to the verb. Cf.: > Are they going to stay long, or are they not going to stay long?
  The cited relation of this kind of question to interrogative reverse substitution (and, together with it, the open character of its rheme) is best demonstrated by the corresponding pronominal transformation: > How long are they going to stay - long (or not long)?
  As we see, the essential difference between the two types of alternative questions, the explicit one and the implicit one, remains valid even if the latter is changed into an explicit alternative question (i.e. into a stylistically forced explicit alternative question). This difference is determined by the difference in the informative composition of the interrogative constructions compared.
  In general terms of meaning, the question of the first type (the normal explicit alternative question) should be classed as the alternative question of fact, since a choice between two or more facts is required by it; the question of the second type (the implicit alternative question) should be classed as the alternative question of truth, since it requires the statement of truth or non-truth of the indicated fact. In terms of actual division, the question of the first type should be classed as the polyperspective alternative question (biperspective, triperspective, etc.), because it presents more than one informative perspectives (more than one actual divisions) for the listener's choice; the question of the second type, as opposed to the polyperspective, should be classed as the monoperspective alternative question, because its both varieties (implicit and explicit) express only one informative perspective, which is presented to the listener for the existential yes-no appraisal.
  § 6. The exposition of the fundamental role of actual division in the formation of the communicative sentence types involves, among other things, the unequivocal refutation of recognising by some linguists the would-be "purely exclamatory sentence" that cannot be reduced to any of the three demonstrated cardinal communicative types.*
  * The existence of the "purely exclamatory sentence" is defended, in particular, by B. A. Ilyish in his cited book (pp. 186-187).
 261
 
  Indeed, by "purely exclamatory sentences" are meant no other things than interjectional exclamations of ready-made order such as "Great Heavens!", "Good Lord!", "For God's sake!" "Fiddle-dee-dee!", "Oh, I say!" and the like, which, due to various situational conditions, find themselves in self-dependent, proposemically isolated positions in the text. Cf.:
  "Oh, for God's sake!" - "Oh, for God's sake!" the boy had repeated (W. Saroyan). "Ah!" said Lady Mont. "That reminds me" (J. Galsworthy).
  As is seen from the examples, the isolated positions of the interjectional utterances do not make them into any meaningfully articulate, grammatically predicated sentences with their own informative perspective (either explicit, or implicit). They remain not signals of proposemically complete thoughts, not "communicative utterances" (see above), but mere symptoms of emotions, consciously or unconsciously produced shouts of strong feelings. Therefore the highest rank that they deserve in any relevant linguistic classification of "single free units of speech" is "non-sentential utterances" (which is just another name for Ch. Fries's "noncommunicative utterances").
  Of quite another nature are exclamatory sentences with emphatic introducers derived on special productive syntactic patterns. Cf.:
  Oh, that Mr. Thornspell hadn't been so reserved! How silly of you! If only I could raise the necessary sum! Etc.
  These constructions also express emotions, but they are meaningfully articulate and proposemically complete. They clearly display a definite nominative composition which is predicated, i.e. related to reality according to the necessary grammatical regularities. And they inevitably belong to quite a definite communicative type of sentences, namely, to the declarative type.
  § 7. The vast set of constructional sentence models possessed by language is formed not only by cardinal, mono-functional communicative types; besides these, it includes also intermediary predicative constructions distinguished by mixed communicative features. The true nature of such intermediary constructions can be disclosed in the light of the
 
 actual division theory combined with the general theory of paradigmatic oppositions.
  Observations conducted on the said principles show that intermediary communicative sentence models may be identified between all the three cardinal communicative correlations (viz., statement - question, statement - inducement, inducement - question); they have grown and are sustained in language as a result of the transference of certain characteristic features from one communicative type of sentences to another.
  § 8. In the following dialogue sequence the utterance which is declarative by its formal features, at the same time contains a distinct pronominal question:
  "I wonder why they come to me about it. That's your job, sweetheart." - I looked up from Jasper, my face red as fire. "Darling," I said, "I meant to tell you before, but - but I forgot" (D. du Maurier).
  Semantic-syntactic comparison of the two utterances produced by the participants of the cited dialogue clearly shows in the initial utterance the features inherently peculiar to the interrogative communicative type, namely, its open rhematic part ("why they come to me about it") and the general programming character of its actual division in relation to the required response.
 Compare some more examples of a similar nature:
  "But surely I may treat him as a human being." - "Most certainly not" (B. Shaw), "I don't disturb you, I hope, Mr Cokane." - "By no means" (B. Shaw). "Wait a second, you haven't told me your address." - "Oh, I'm staying at the Hotel du Phare" (A. Christie), "I should like to hear your views on that," replied Utterson (R. L. Stevenson).
  As is seen from the examples, utterances intermediary between statements and questions convey meanings and connotations that supplement the direct programming of the answer effected by strictly monofunctional, cardinal interrogative constructions. Namely, they render the connotation of insistency in asking for information, they express a more definite or lass definite supposition of the nature of information possessed by the listener, they present a suggestion to
 263
 
 the listener to perform a certain action or imply a request for permission to perform an action, etc.
  On the other hand, in the structural framework of the interrogative sentence one can express a statement. This type of utterance is classed as the "rhetorical question" - an expressive construction that has been attracting the closest attention of linguistic observers since ancient times.
  A high intensity of declarative functional meaning expressed by rhetorical questions is best seen in various proverbs and maxims based on this specifically emphatic predicative unit. Cf.:
  Can a leopard change his spots? Can man be free if woman be a slave? O shame! Where is thy blush? Why ask the Bishop when the Pope's around? Who shall decide when the doctors disagree?
  Compare rhetorical questions in stylistically freer, more common forms of speech:
  That was my mission, you imagined. It was not, but where was I to go? (O. Wilde) That was all right; I meant what I said. Why should I feel guilty about it? (J. Braine) How could I have ever thought I could get away with it! (J. Osborne)
  It should be noted that in living speech responses to rhetorical questions exactly correspond to responses elicited by declarative sentences: they include signals of attention, appraisals, expressions of fellow feeling, etc. Cf.:
  "How can a woman be expected to be happy with a man who insists on treating her as if she were a perfectly rational being?" - "My dear!" (O. Wilde)
  A rhetorical question in principle can be followed by a direct answer, too. However, such an answer does not fill up the rheme of the rhetorical question (which, as different from the rheme of a genuine question, is not at all open), but emphatically accentuates its intensely declarative semantic nature. An answer to a rhetorical question also emphasises its affirmative or negative implication which is opposite to the formal expression of affirmation or negation in the outer structure of the question. Cf.: "What more can a gentleman desire in this world?" - "Nothing more, I am quite sure" (O. Wilde).
 Due to these connotations, the answer to a rhetorical
 264
 
 question can quite naturally be given by the speaker himself: Who, being in love, is poor? Oh, no one (O. Wilde).
  The declarative nature of the rhetorical question is revealed also in the fact that it is not infrequently used as an answer to a genuine question - namely, in cases when an expressive, emphatic answer is needed. Cf.: "Do you expect to save the country, Mr Mangan?" - "Well, who else will?" (B. Shaw)
  Rhetorical questions as constructions of intermediary communicative nature should be distinguished from such genuine questions as are addressed by the speaker to himself in the process of deliberation and reasoning. The genuine quality of the latter kind of questions is easily exposed by observing the character of their rhematic elements. E.g.: Had she had what was called a complex all this time? Or was love always sudden like this? A wild flower seeding on a wild wind? (J. Galsworthy)
  The cited string of questions belongs to the inner speech of a literary personage presented in the form of non-personal direct speech. The rhemes of the questions are definitely open, i.e. they are typical of ordinary questions in a dialogue produced by the speaker with an aim to obtain information from his interlocutor. This is clearly seen from the fact that the second question presents an alternative in relation to the first question; as regards the third question, it is not a self-dependent utterance, but a specification, cumulatively attached to the foregoing construction.
  Genuine questions to oneself as part of monologue deliberations can quite naturally be followed by corresponding responses, forming various kinds of dialogue within monologue. Cf.:
  Was she tipsy, week-minded, or merely in love? Perhaps all three! (J. Galsworthy). My God! What shall I do? I dare not tell her who this woman really is. The shame would kill her (O. Wilde).
  § 9. The next pair of correlated communicative sentence types between which are identified predicative constructions of intermediary nature are declarative and imperative sentences.
  The expression of inducement within the framework of a declarative sentence is regularly achieved by means of constructions with modal verbs. E.g.:
 265
 
  You ought to get rid of it, you know (C. P. Snow). "You can't come in," he said. "You mustn't get what I have" (E. Hemingway). Well, you must come to me now for anything you want, or I shall be quite cut up (J. Galsworthy). "You might as well sit down," said Javotte (J. Erskine).
  Compare semantically more complex constructions in which the meaning of inducement is expressed as a result of interaction of different grammatical elements of an utterance with its notional lexical elements:
  "And if you'll excuse me, Lady Eileen, I think it's time you were going back to bed." The firmness of his tone admitted of no parley (A. Christie). If you have anything to say to me, Dr Trench, I will listen to you patiently. You will then allow me to say what I have to say on my part (B. Shaw).
  Inducive constructions, according to the described general tendency, can be used to express a declarative meaning complicated by corresponding connotations. Such utterances are distinguished by especially high expressiveness and intensity. E.g.: The Forsyte in him said: "Think, feel, and you're done for!" (J. Galsworthy)
  Due to its expressiveness this kind of declarative inducement, similar to rhetorical questions, is used in maxims and proverbs. E.g.:
  Talk of the devil and he will appear. Roll my log and I will roll yours. Live and learn. Live and let live.
  Compare also corresponding negative statements of the formal imperative order: Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. Don't cross the bridge till you get to it.
  § 10. Imperative and interrogative sentences make up the third pair of opposed cardinal communicative sentence types serving as a frame for intermediary communicative patterns.
  Imperative sentences performing the essential function of interrogative sentences are such as induce the listener not to action, but to speech. They may contain indirect questions. E.g.:
  "Tell me about your upbringing." - "I should like to hear about yours" (E. J. Howard). "Please tell me what I can do. There must be something I can do." - "You can take the leg off and that might stop it..." (E. Hemingway).
 266
 
  The reverse intermediary construction, i.e. inducement effected in the form of question, is employed in order to convey such additional shades of meaning as request, invitation, suggestion, softening of a command, etc. E.g.:
  "Why don't you get Aunt Em to sit instead, Uncle? She's younger than I am any day, aren't you, Auntie?" (J. Galsworthy) "Would - would you like to come?" - "I would," said Jimmy heartily. "Thanks ever so much, Lady Coote" (A. Christie).
  Additional connotations in inducive utterances having the form of questions may be expressed by various modal constructions. E.g.:
  Can I take you home in a cab? (W. Saroyan) "Could you tell me," said Dinny, "of any place close by where I could get something to eat?" (J. Galsworthy) I am really quite all right. Perhaps you will help me up the stairs? (A. Christie)
  In common use is the expression of inducement effected in the form of a disjunctive question. The post-positional interrogative tag imparts to the whole inducive utterance a more pronounced or less pronounced shade of a polite request or even makes it into a pleading appeal. Cf.:
  Find out tactfully what he wants, will you? (J. Tey) And you will come too, Basil, won't you? (O. Wilde)
  § 11. The undertaken survey of lingual facts shows that the combination of opposite cardinal communicative features displayed by communicatively intermediary sentence patterns is structurally systemic and functionally justified. It is justified because it meets quite definite expressive requirements. And it is symmetrical in so far as each cardinal communicative sentence type is characterised by the same tendency of functional transposition in relation to the two other communicative types opposing it. It means that within each of the three cardinal communicative oppositions two different intermediary communicative sentence models are established, so that at a further level of specification, the communicative classification of sentences should be expanded by six subtypes of sentences of mixed communicative features. These are, first, mixed sentence patterns of declaration (interrogative-declarative, imperative-declarative); second, mixed sentence patterns of interrogation (declarative-interrogative, imperative-interrogative); third,
 267
 
 mixed sentence-patterns of inducement (declarative-imperative, interrogative-imperative). All the cited intermediary communicative types of sentences belong to living, productive syntactic means of language and should find the due reflection both in theoretical linguistic description and in practical language teaching.
  CHAPTER XXIV
 SIMPLE SENTENCE: CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE
  § 1. The basic predicative meanings of the typical English sentence, as has already been pointed out, are expressed by the finite verb which is immediately connected with the subject of the sentence. This predicative connection is commonly referred to as the "predicative line" of the sentence. Depending on their predicative complexity, sentences can feature one predicative line or several (more than one) predicative lines; in other words, sentences may be, respectively, "monopredicative" and "polypredicative". Using this distinction, we must say that the simple sentence is a sentence in which only one predicative line is expressed. E.g.:
  Bob has never left the stadium. Opinions differ. This may happen any time. The offer might have been quite fair. Etc.
  According to this definition, sentences with several predicates referring to one and the same subject cannot be considered as simple. E.g.: I took the child in my arms and held him.
  It is quite evident that the cited sentence, although it includes only one subject, expresses two different predicative lines, since its two predicates are separately connected with the subject. The content of the sentence reflects two closely connected events that happened in immediate succession: the first - "my taking the child in my arms"; the second - "my holding him".
  Sentences having one verb-predicate and more than one subject to it, if the subjects form actually separate (though interdependent) predicative connections, cannot be considered as simple, either. E.g.: The door was open, and also the front window.
 268
 
  Thus, the syntactic feature of strict monopredication should serve as the basic diagnostic criterion for identifying the simple sentence in distinction to sentences of composite structures of various systemic standings.
  § 2. The simple sentence, as any sentence in general, is organised as a system of function-expressing positions, the content of the functions being the reflection of a situational event. The nominative parts of the simple sentence, each occupying a notional position in it, are subject, predicate, object, adverbial, attribute, parenthetical enclosure, addressing enclosure; a special, semi-notional position is occupied by an interjectional enclosure. The parts are arranged in a hierarchy, wherein all of them perform some modifying role. The ultimate and highest object of this integral modification is the sentence as a whole, and through the sentence, the reflection of the situation (situational event).
  Thus, the subject is a person-modifier of the predicate. The predicate is a process-modifier of the subject-person. The object is a substance-modifier of a processual part (actional or statal). The adverbial is a quality-modifier (in a broad sense) of a processual part or the whole of the sentence (as expressing an integral process inherent in the reflected event). The attribute is a quality-modifier of a substantive part. The parenthetical enclosure is a detached speaker-bound modifier of any sentence-part or the whole of the sentence. The addressing enclosure (address) is a substantive modifier of the destination of the sentence and hence, from its angle, a modifier of the sentence as a whole. The interjectional enclosure is a speaker-bound emotional modifier of the sentence.
  All the said modifiers may be expressed either singly (single modifiers) or collectively, i.e. in a coordinative combination (co-modifiers, in particular, homogeneous ones).
  The traditional scheme of sentence parsing shows many essential traits of the said functional hierarchy. On the scheme presented graphically, sentence-parts connected by bonds of immediate domination are placed one under the other in a successive order of subordination, while sentence-parts related to one another equipotently are placed in a horizontal order. Direct connections between the sentence-parts are represented by horizontal and vertical lines.
  By way of example, let us take an ordinary English sentence featuring the basic modifier connections, and see its
 269
 
 
 traditional parsing presentation (Fig. 3): The small lady listened to me attentively.
 Fig. 3
  The scheme clearly shows the basic logical-grammatical connections of the notional constituents of the sentence. If necessary, it can easily be supplemented with specifying linguistic information, such as indications of lexico-grammatical features of the sentence-parts the same as their syntactic sub-functions.
  However, observing the given scheme carefully, we must note its one serious flaw. As a matter of fact, while distinctly exposing the subordination ranks of the parts of the sentence, it fails to consistently present their genuine linear order in speech.
  This drawback is overcome in another scheme of analysis called the "model of immediate constituents" (contractedly, the "IC-model").
  The model of immediate constituents is based on the group-parsing of the sentence which has been developed by traditional grammar together with the sentence-part parsing scheme. It consists in dividing the whole of the sentence into two groups: that of the subject and that of the predicate, which, in their turn, are divided into their sub-group constituents according to the successive subordinative order of the latter. Profiting by this type of analysis, the IC-model explicitly exposes the binary hierarchical principle of subordinative connections, showing the whole structure of the sentence as made up by binary immediate constituents. As for equipotent (coordinative) connections, these are, naturally, non-binary, but, being of a more primitive character than subordinative connections, they are included in the
 270
 
 analysis as possible inner subdivisions of subordinative connections.
  Thus, structured by the IC-model, the cited sentence on the upper level of analysis is looked upon as a united whole (the accepted symbol S); on the next lower level it is divided into two maximal constituents - the subject noun-phrase (NP-subj) and the predicate verb-phrase (VP-pred); on the next lower level the subject noun-phrase is divided into the determiner (det) and the rest of the phrase to which it semantically refers (NP), while the predicate noun-phrase is divided into the adverbial (DP, in this case simply D) and the rest of the verb-phrase to which it semantically refers; the next level-stages of analysis include the division of the first noun-phrase into its adjective-attribute constituent (AP, in this case A) and the noun constituent (N), and correspondingly, the division of the verb-phrase into its verb constituent (V or Vf - finite verb) and object noun-phrase constituent (NP-obj), the latter being, finally, divided into the preposition constituent (prp) and noun constituent (N). As we see, the process of syntactic IC-analysis continues until the word-level of the sentence is reached, the words being looked upon as the "ultimate" constituents of the sentence.
  The described model of immediate constituents has two basic versions. The first is known as the "analytical IC-diagrarn", the second, as the "IС-derivation tree". The analytical IC-diagram commonly shows the groupings of sentence constituents by means of vertical and horizontal lines (see Fig. 4). The IC-derivation tree shows the groupings of
 
 THE SMALL LADY LISTENED TO
 prp ME NP-pro ATTENTIVELY. A N V NP det NP VP D NP-subj VP-pred Fig. 4
 sentence constituents by means of branching nodes: the nodes symbolise phrase-categories as unities, while the branches mark their division into constituents of the corresponding sub-categorial standings (see Fig. 5).
 271
 
 
  § 3. When analysing sentences in terms of syntagmatic connections of their parts, two types of subordinative relations are exposed: on the one hand, obligatory relations, i.e. such as are indispensable for the existence of the syntactic unit as such; on the other hand, optional relations, i.e. such as may or may not be actually represented in the syntactic unit. These relations, as we have pointed out elsewhere, are at present interpreted in terms of syntactic valency (combining power of the word) and are of especial importance for the characteristic of the verb as the central predicative organiser of the notional stock of sentence constituents. Comparing the IC-representation of the sentence with the pattern of obligatory syntactic positions directly determined by the valency of the verb-predicate, it is easy to see that this pattern reveals the essential generalised model of the sentence, its semantico-syntactic backbone. For instance, in the cited sentence this pattern will be expressed by the string "The lady listened to me", the attribute "small" and the adverbial "attentively" being the optional parts of the sentence. The IC-model of this key-string of the sentence is logically transparent and easily grasped by the mind (see Fig. 6).
 
 272
 
  Thus, the idea of verbal valency, answering the principle of dividing all the notional sentence-parts into obligatory and optional, proves helpful in gaining a further insight into the structure of the simple sentence; moreover, it is of crucial importance for the modern definition of the simple sentence.
  In terms of valencies and obligatory positions first of all the category of "elementary sentence" is to be recognised; this is a sentence all the positions of which are obligatory. In other words, this is a sentence which, besides the principal parts, includes only complementive modifiers; as for supplementive modifiers, they find no place in this type of predicative construction.
  After that the types of expansion should be determined which do not violate the syntactic status of the simple sentence, i.e. do not change the simple sentence into a composite one. Taking into consideration the strict monopredicative character of the simple sentence as its basic identification predicative feature, we infer that such expansions should not complicate the predicative line of the sentence by any additional predicative positions.
  Finally, bearing in mind that the general identification of obligatory syntactic position affects not only the principal parts of the sentence but is extended to the complementive secondary parts, we define the unexpanded simple sentence as a monopredicative sentence formed only by obligatory notional parts. The expanded simple sentence will, accordingly, be defined as a monopredicative sentence which includes, besides the obligatory parts, also some optional parts, i.e. some supplementive modifiers which do not constitute a predicative enlargement of the sentence.
  Proceeding from the given description of the elementary sentence, it must be stressed that the pattern of this construction presents a workable means of semantico-syntactic analysis of sentences in general. Since all the parts of the elementary sentence are obligatory, each real sentence of speech should be considered as categorially reducible to one or more elementary sentences, which expose in an explicit form its logical scheme of formation. As for the simple sentence, however intricate and expanded its structure might be, it is formed, of necessity, upon a single-elementary sentence-base exposing its structural key-model. E.g.: The tall trees by the island shore were shaking violently in the gusty wind.
 This is an expanded simple sentence including a number
 273
 
 of optional parts, and its complete analysis in terms of a syntagmatic parsing is rather intricate. On the other hand, applying the idea of the elementary sentence, we immediately reveal that the sentence is built upon the key-string "The trees were shaking", i.e. on the syntagmatic pattern of an intransitive verb.
  As we see, the notions "elementary sentence" and "sentence model" do not exclude each other, but, on the contrary, supplement each other: a model is always an abstraction, whereas an elementary sentence can and should be taken both as an abstract category (in the capacity of the "model of an elementary sentence") and as an actual utterance of real speech.
  § 4. The subject-group and the predicate-group of the sentence are its two constitutive "members", or, to choose a somewhat more specific term, its "axes" (in the Russian grammatical tradition - "составы предложения"). According as both members are present in the composition of the sentence or only one of them, sentences are classed into "two-member" and "one-member" ones.
  Scholars point out that "genuine" one-member sentences are characterised not only as expressing one member in their outer structure; in addition, as an essential feature, they do not imply the other member on the contextual lines. In other words, in accord with this view, elliptical sentences in which the subject or the predicate is contextually omitted, are analysed as "two-member" sentences [Ilyish, 190, 252].
  We cannot accept the cited approach because, in our opinion, it is based on an inadequate presupposition that in the system of language there is a strictly defined, "absolute" demarcation line between the two types of constructions. In reality, though, each one-member sentence, however pure it might appear from the point of view of non-association with an ellipsis, still, on closer observation, does expose traits of this association.
  For instance, the sentence "Come on!" exemplifying one of the classical one-member sentence varieties, implies a situational person (persons) stimulated to perform an action, i.e. the subject of the event. Similarly, the construction "All right!" rendering agreement on the part of the speaker, is a representative unit standing for a normal two-member utterance in its contextual-bound implication plane, otherwise it would be senseless.
 274
 
  Bearing in mind the advanced objection, our approach to the syntactic category of axis part of the sentence is as follows.
  All simple sentences of English should be divided into two-axis constructions and one-axis constructions.
  In a two-axis sentence, the subject axis and the predicate axis are directly and explicitly expressed in the outer structure. This concerns all the three cardinal communicative types of sentences. E.g.:
  The books come out of the experiences. What has been happening here? You better go back to bed.
  In a one-axis sentence only one axis or its part is explicitly expressed, the other one being non-presented in the outer structure of the sentence. Cf.:
  "Who will meet us at the airport?" - "Mary." The response utterance is a one-axis sentence with the subject-axis expressed and the predicate-axis implied: > *Mary will meet us at the airport. Both the non-expression of the predicate and its actual implication in the sub-text are obligatory, since the complete two-axis construction renders its own connotations.
  "And what is your opinion of me?" - "Hard as nails, absolutely ruthless, a born intriguer, and as self-centred as they make 'em." The response utterance is a one-axis sentence with the predicate-axis expressed (partially, by its predicative unit) and the subject-axis (together with the link-verb of the predicate) implied: > *You are hard as nails, etc.
  "I thought he might have said something to you about it." - "Not a word." The response utterance is a one-axis sentence with the predicate-axis partially expressed (by the object) and the subject-axis together with the verbal part of the predicate-axis implied: > *He said not a word to me.
  "Glad to see you after all these years!" The sentence is a one-axis unit with the predicate-axis expressed and the subject-axis implied as a form of familiarity: > *I am glad to see you ...
  All the cited examples belong to "elliptical" types of utterances in so far as they possess quite definite "vacant" positions or zero-positions capable cf being supplied with the corresponding fillers implicit in the situational contexts. Since the restoration of the absent axis in such sentences is,
 275
 
 So to speak, "free of avail", we class them as "free" one-axis sentences. The term "elliptical" one-axis sentences can also be used, though it is not very lucky here; indeed, "ellipsis" as a sentence-curtailing process can in principle affect both two-axis and one-axis sentences, so the term might be misleading.
 Alongside of the demonstrated free one-axis sentences, i.e. sentences with a direct contextual axis-implication, there are one-axis sentences without a contextual implication of this kind; in other words, their absent axis cannot be restored with the same ease and, above all, semantic accuracy.
 By way of example, let us read the following passage from S. Maugham's short story "Appearance and Reality";
 Monsieur Le Sueur was a man of action. He went straight up to Lisette and smacked her hard on her right cheek with his left hand and then smacked her hard on the left cheek with his right hand. "Brute," screamed Lisette.
 The one-axis sentence used by the heroine does imply the you-subject and can, by association, be expanded into the two-axis one "You are a brute" or "You brute", but then the spontaneous "scream-style" of the utterance in the context (a cry of indignation and revolt) will be utterly distorted.
 Compare another context, taken from R. Kipling's "The Light that Failed":
 "...I'm quite miserable enough already." - "Why? Because you're going away from Mrs Jennett?" - "No." - "From me, then?" - No answer for a long time. Dick dared not look at her.
 The one-axis sentence "No answer for a long time" in the narrative is associated by variant lingua! relations with the two-axis sentence "There was no answer...". But on similar grounds the association can be extended to the construction "He received no answer for a long time" or "No answer was given for a long time" or some other sentence supplementing the given utterance and rendering a like meaning. On the other hand, the peculiar position in the text clearly makes all these associations into remote ones: the two-axis version of the construction instead of the existing one-axis one would destroy the expressive property of the remark conveying Dick's strain by means of combining the author's line of narration with the hero's inner perception of events.
 Furthermore, compare the psychologically tense description
 276
 
  of packing up before departure given in short, deliberately disconnected nominative phrase-sentences exposing the heroine's disillusions (from D. du Maurier's "Rebecca"):
 Packing up. The nagging worry of departure. Lost keys, unwritten labels, tissue paper lying on the floor. I hate it all.
 Associations referring to the absent axes in the cited sentences are indeed very vague. The only unquestionable fact about the relevant implications is that they should be of demonstrative-introductory character making the presented nominals into predicative names.
 As we see, there is a continuum between the one-axis sentences of the free type and the most rigid ones exemplified above. Still, since all the constructions of the second order differ from those of the first order just in that they are not free, we choose to class them as "fixed" one-axis sentences.
 Among the fixed one-axis sentences quite a few subclasses are to be recognised, including nominative (nominal) constructions, greeting formulas, introduction formulas, incentives, excuses, etc. Many of such constructions are related to the corresponding two-axis sentences not by the mentioned "vague" implication, but by representation; indeed, such one-axis sentence-formulas as affirmations, negations, certain ready-made excuses, etc., are by themselves not word-sentences, but rather sentence-representatives that exist only in combination with the full-sense antecedent predicative constructions. Cf.:
 "You can't move any farther back?" - "No." (I.e. "I can't move any farther back"). "D'you want me to pay for your drink?" - "Yes, old boy." (I.e. "Yes, I want you to pay for my drink, old boy"). Etc.
 As for the isolated exclamations of interjectional type ("Good Lord!", "Dear me!" and the like), these are not sentences by virtue of their not possessing the inner structure of actual division even through associative implications (see Ch. XXII).
 Summing up what has been said about the one-axis sentences we must stress the two things: first, however varied, they form a minor set within the general system of English sentence patterns; second, they all are related to two-axis sentences either by direct or by indirect association.
 277
 
  § 5. The semantic classification of simple sentences should be effected at least on the three bases: first, on the basis of the subject categorial meanings; second, on the basis of the predicate categorial meanings; third, on the basis of the subject-object relation.
  Reflecting the categories of the subject, simple sentences are divided into personal and impersonal. The further division of the personal sentences is into human and non-human; human - into definite and indefinite; non-human - into animate and inanimate. The further essential division of impersonal sentences is into factual (It rains, It is five o'clock) and perceptional (It smells of hay here).
  The differences in subject categorial meanings are sustained by the obvious differences in subject-predicate combinability.
  Reflecting the categories of the predicate, simple sentences are divided into process-featuring ("verbal") and, in the broad sense, substance-featuring (including substance as such and substantive quality - "nominal"). Among the process-featuring sentences actional and statal ones are to be discriminated (The window is opening - The window is glistening in the sun); among the substance-featuring sentences factual and perceptional ones are to be discriminated (The sea is rough - The place seems quiet).
  Finally, reflecting the subject-object relation, simple sentences should be divided into subjective (John lives in London), objective (John reads a book) and neutral or "potentially" objective (John reads), capable of implying both the transitive action of the syntactic person and the syntactic person's intransitive characteristic.
 CHAPTER XXV
 SIMPLE SENTENCE:
 PARADIGMATIC STRUCTURE
  § 1. Traditional grammar studied the sentence from the point of view of its syntagmatic structure: the sentence was approached as a string of certain parts fulfilling the corresponding syntactic functions. As for paradigmatic relations, which, as we know, are inseparable from syntagmatic relations, they were explicitly revealed only as part of morphological descriptions, because, up to recent times, the idea of the sentence-model with its functional variations was not
 278
 
 developed. Moreover, some representatives of early modern linguistics, among them F. de Saussure, specially noted that it was quite natural for morphology to develop paradigmatic (associative) observations, while syntax "by its very essence" should concern itself with the linear connections of words.
  Thus, the sentence was traditionally taken at its face value as a ready unit of speech, and systemic connections between sentences were formulated in terms of classifications. Sentences were studied and classified according to the purpose of communication, according to the types of the subject and the predicate, according to whether they are simple or composite, expanded or unexpanded, compound or complex, etc.
  In contemporary modern linguistics paradigmatic structuring of lingual connections and dependencies has penetrated into the would-be "purely syntagmatic" sphere of the sentence. The paradigmatic approach to this element of rendering communicative information, as we have mentioned before, marked a new stage in the development of the science of language; indeed, it is nothing else than paradigmatic approach that has provided a comprehensive theoretical ground for treating the sentence not only as a ready unit of speech, but also and above all as a meaningful lingual unit existing in a pattern form.
  § 2. Paradigmatics finds its essential expression in a system of oppositions making the corresponding meaningful (functional) categories. Syntactic oppositions are realised by correlated sentence patterns, the observable relations between which can be described as "transformations", i.e, as transitions from one pattern of certain notional parts to another pattern of the same notional parts. These transitions, being oppositional, at the same time disclose derivational connections of sentence-patterns. In other words, some of the patterns are to be approached as base patterns, while others, as their transforms.
  For instance, a question can be described as transformationally produced from a statement; a negation, likewise, can be presented as transformationally produced from an affirmation. E.g.:
 You are fond of the kid. > Are you fond of the kid? You are fond of the kid. > You are not fond of the kid.
 Why are the directions of transitions given in this way
 279
 
 and not vice versa? - Simply because the ordinary affirmative statement presents a positive expression of a fact in its purest form, maximally free of the speaker's connotative appraisals.
  Similarly, a composite sentence, for still more evident reasons, is to be presented as derived from two or more simple sentences. E.g.:
  He turned to the waiter.+The waiter stood in the door. > He turned to the waiter who stood in the door.
  These transitional relations are implicitly inherent in the syntagmatic classificational study of sentences. But modern theory, exposing them explicitly, has made a cardinal step forward in so far as it has interpreted them as regular derivation stages comparable to categorial form-making processes in morphology and word-building.
  And it is on these lines that the initial, basic element of syntactic derivation has been found, i.e. a syntactic unit serving as a "sentence-root" and providing an objective ground for identifying syntactic categorial oppositions. This element is known by different names, such as the "basic syntactic pattern", the "structural sentence scheme", the "elementary sentence model", the "base sentence", though as the handiest in linguistic use should be considered the "kernel sentence" due to its terminological flexibility combined with a natural individualising force.
  Structurally the kernel sentence coincides with the elementary sentence described in the previous chapter. The difference is, that the pattern of the kernel sentence is interpreted as forming the base of a paradigmatic derivation in the corresponding sentence-pattern series.
  Thus, syntactic derivation should not be understood as an immediate change of one sentence into another one; a pronounced or written sentence is a finished utterance that thereby cannot undergo any changes. Syntactic derivation is to be understood as paradigmatic production of more complex pattern-constructions out of kernel pattern-constructions as their structural bases. The description of this production ("generation") may be more detailed and less detailed, i.e. it can be effected in more generalised and less generalised terms, depending on the aim of the scholar. The most concrete presentation concerns a given speech-utterance analysed into its derivation history on the level of the word-forms.
 280
 
  By way of example let us take the following English sentence: I saw him come.
  This sentence is described in school grammar as a sentence with a complex object, which is syntagmatically adequate, though incomplete from the systemic point of view. The syntagmatic description is supplemented and re-interpreted within the framework of the paradigmatic description presenting the sentence in question as produced from the two kernel sentences: I saw him. + He came. > I saw him come.
 
  The same may be given in terms of the IC-derivation tree diagrams (see Fig. 7). The indices specifying the basic sym-
 
  In a more generalised, categorial-oriented paradigmatic presentation the sentence will be shown as a transformational combination of the two kernel pattern-formulas:
 bols can vary in accord with the concrete needs of analysis and demonstration.
  § 3. The derivation of genuine sentences lying on the "surface" of speech out of kernel sentences lying in the "deep base" of speech can be analysed as a process falling into sets of elementary transformational steps or procedures. These procedures make up six major classes.
  The first class includes steps of "morphological arrangement" of the sentence, i.e. morphological changes expressing syntactically relevant categories, above all, the predicative categories of the finite verb: tense, aspect, voice, mood. The syntactic role of these forms of morphological change (systematised into morphological paradigms) consists in the fact
 281
 
 that they make up parts of the more general syntactico-paradigmatic series. E.g.:
  John+start (the kernel base string) > John starts. John will be starting. John would be starting. John has started. Etc.
  The second class of the described procedures includes various uses of functional words (functional expansion). From the syntactic point of view these words are transformers of syntactic constructions in the same sense as the categorial morphemes {e.g. inflexions) are transformers of lexemes, i.e. morphological constructions. E.g.:
  He understood my request. > He seemed to understand my request. Now they consider the suggestion. > Now they do consider the suggestion.
  The third class of syntactic derivational procedures includes the processes of substitution. Among the substitutes we find personal pronouns, demonstrative-substitute pronouns, indefinite-substitute pronouns, as well as substitutive combinations of half-notional words. Cf.:
  The pupils ran out of the classroom. > They ran out of the classroom. I want another pen, please. > I want another one, please.
  The fourth class of the procedures in question is formed by processes of deletion, i.e. elimination of some elements of the sentence in various contextual conditions. As a result of deletion the corresponding reduced constructions are produced. E.g.:
  Would you like a cup of tea? > A cup of tea? It's a pleasure! > Pleasure!
  The fifth class of syntactic derivational procedures includes processes of positional arrangement, in particular, permutations (changes of the word-order into the reverse patterns). E.g.:
  The man is here. > Is the man here? Jim ran in with an excited cry. -" In ran Jim with an excited cry.
  The sixth class of syntactic derivational procedures is formed by processes of intonational arrangement, i.e. application of various functional tones and accents. This arrangement is represented in written and typed speech by
 282
 
 punctuation marks, the use of different varieties of print, the use of various modes of underlining and other graphical means. E.g.:
  We must go. > We must go? We? Must go?? You care nothing about what I feel. > You care nothing about what I feel!
  The described procedures are all functionally relevant, i.e. they serve as syntactically meaningful dynamic features of the sentence. For various expressive purposes they may be applied either singly or, more often than not, in combination with one another. E.g.: We finish the work. > We are not going to finish it.
  For the production of the cited sentence-transform the following procedures are used: morphological change, introduction of functional words, substitution, intonational arrangement. The functional (meaningful) outcome of the whole process is the expression of the modal future combined with a negation in a dialogue response. Cf.:
  Are we ever going to finish the work? > Anyway, we are not going to finish it today!
  § 4. The derivational procedures applied to the kernel sentence introduce it into two types of derivational relations in the sentential paradigmatic system: first, the "constructional" relations; second, the "predicative" relations. The constructional derivation effects the formation of more complex clausal structures out of simpler ones; in other words, it provides for the expression of the nominative-notional syntactic semantics of the sentence. The predicative derivation realises the formation of predicatively different units not affecting the constructional volume of the base; in other words, it is responsible for the expression of the predicative syntactic semantics of the sentence. Both types of derivational procedures form the two subsystems within the general system of syntactic paradigmatics.
  § 5. As part of the constructional system of syntactic paradigmatics, kernel sentences, as well as other, expanded base-sentences undergo derivational changes into clauses and phrases.
  The transformation of a base sentence into a clause can "be called "clausalisation". By way of clausalisation a
 283
 
 sentence is changed into a subordinate or coordinate clause in the process of subordinative or coordinative combination of sentences. The main clausalising procedures involve the use of conjunctive words - subordinators and coordinators. Since a composite sentence is produced from minimum two base sentences, the derivational processes of composite sentence production are sometimes called "two-base transformations". For example, two kernel sentences "They arrived" and "They relieved me of my fears" (> I was relieved of my fears), combined by subordinative and coordinative clausalising, produce the following constructions:
  > When they arrived I was relieved of my fears. > If they arrive, I shall be relieved of my fears. > Even though they arrive, I shan't be relieved of my fears. Etc. > They arrived, and I was relieved of my fears. > They arrived, but I was not relieved of my fears. Etc.
  The transformation of a base sentence into a phrase can be called "phrasalisation". By phrasalisation a sentence is transformed either into a semi-predicative construction (a semi-clause), or into a nominal phrase.
  Nominal phrases are produced by the process of nominalisation, i.e. nominalising phrasalisation which we have analyzed before (see Ch. XX). Nominalisation may be complete, consisting in completely depriving the sentence of its predicative aspect, or partial, consisting in partially depriving the sentence of its predicative aspect. Partial nominalisation in English produces infinitive and gerundial phrases. By other types of phrasalisation such semi-clauses are derived as complex objects of infinitive and participial types, various participial constructions of adverbial status and some other, minor complexes. The resulting constructions produced by the application of the cited phrasalising procedures in the process of derivational combination of base sentences will be both simple expanded sentences (in case of complete nominalisation) and semi-composite sentences (in case of various partial nominalisations and other phrasalisations). Cf.:
  -" On their arrival I was relieved of my fears. -" They arrived to relieve me of my fears. > They arrived relieving me of my fears. > Having arrived, they did relieve me of my fears. Etc.
 284
 
  As is seen from the examples, each variety of derivational combination of concrete sentences has its own semantic purpose expressed by the procedures employed.
  § 6. As part of the predicative system of syntactic paradigmatics, kernel sentences, as well as expanded base-sentences, undergo such structural modifications as immediately express the predicative functions of the sentence, i.e. the functions relating the nominative meanings of the sentence to reality. Of especial importance in this respect is the expression of predicative functions by sentences which are elementary as regards the set of their notional constituents: being elementary from the point of view of nominative semantics, these sentences can be used as genuine, ordinary utterances of speech. Bearing in mind the elementary nominative nature of its constructional units, we call the system of sentences so identified the "Primary Syntactic System" (Lat. "Prima Systema Syntactica").
  To recognise a primary sentence in the text, one must use the criteria of elementary sentence-structure identification applied to the notional constituents of the sentence, irrespective of the functional meanings rendered by it. For instance, the notionally minimal negative sentence should be classed as primary, though not quite elementary (kernel) in the paradigmatic sense, negation being not a notional, but a functional sentence factor. Cf.:
  I have met the man. > I have not met the man. > I have never met the man.
  Any composite (or semi-composite) sentence is analysable into two or more primary sentences (i.e. sentences elementary in the notional sense). E.g.:
  Is it a matter of no consequence that I should find you with a young man wearing my pyjamas? "- Is it a matter of no consequence?+I should find you with a (young) man.+ The (young) man is wearing my pyjamas.
  The kernel sentence can also have its representation in speech, being embodied by the simplest sentential construction not only in the notional, but also in the functional sense. In other words, it is an elementary sentence which is non-interrogative, non-imperative, non-negative, non-modal, etc. In short, in terms of syntactic oppositions, this is the "weakest"
 285
 
 construction in the predicative oppositional space of the primary syntactic system.
  § 7. The predicative functions expressed by primary sentence patterns should be divided into the two types: first, lower functions; second, higher functions. The lower functions include the expression of such morphological categories as tenses and aspects; these are of "factual", "truth-stating" semantic character. The higher functions are "evaluative" in the broad sense of the word; they immediately express the functional semantics of relating the nominative content of the sentence to reality.
  The principal predicative functions expressed by syntactic categorial oppositions are the following.
  First, question as opposed to statement. Second, inducement as opposed to statement. Third, negation as opposed to affirmation. Fourth, unreality as opposed to reality. Fifth, probability as opposed to fact. Sixth, modal identity (seem to do, happen to do, prove to do, etc.) as opposed to fact. Seventh, modal subject-action relation as opposed to fact (can do, may do, etc.). Eighth, specified actual subject-action relation as opposed to fact. Ninth, phase of action as opposed to fact. Tenth, passive action as opposed to active action. Eleventh, specialised actual division (specialised perspective) as opposed to non-specialised actual division (non-specialised perspective). Twelfth, emphasis (emotiveness) as opposed to emotional neutrality (unemotiveness).
  Each opposition of the cited list forms a categorial set which is rather complex. For instance, within the framework of the question-statement opposition, pronominal and alternative questions are identified with their manifold varieties; within the system of phase of action, specialised subsets are identified rendering the phase of beginning, the phase of duration, the phase of end, etc. The total supersystem of all the pattern-forms of a given sentence base constitutes its general syntactic paradigm of predicative functions. This paradigm is, naturally, extremely complicated so that it is hardly observable if presented on a diagram. This fact shows that the volume of functional meanings rendered by a sentence even on a very high level of syntactic generalisation is tremendous. At the same time the derivation of each functional sentence-form in its paradigmatically determined position in the system is simple enough in the sense that it is quite explicit. This shows the dynamic essence of the paradigm
 286
 
 in question; the paradigm exactly answers the needs of expression at every given juncture of actual communication.
  § 8. All the cited oppositions-categories may or may not be represented in a given utterance by their strong function-members. In accord with this oppositional regularity, we advance the notion of the "predicative load" of the sentence. The predicative load is determined by the total volume of the strong members of predicative oppositions (i.e. by the sum of positive values of the corresponding differential features) actually represented in the sentence.
  The sentence, by definition, always expresses predication, being a predicative unit of language. But, from the point of view of the comparative volume of the predicative meanings actually expressed, the sentence may be predicatively "loaded" or "non-loaded". If the sentence is predicatively "non-loaded", it means that its construction is kernel elementary on the accepted level of categorial generalisation. Consequently, such a sentence will be characterised in oppositional terms as non-interrogative, non-inducive, non-negative, non-real, non-probable, non-modal-identifying, etc., down to the last of the recognised predicative oppositions. If, on the other hand, the sentence is predicatively "loaded", it means that it renders at least one of the strong oppositional meanings inherent in the described categorial system. Textual observations show that predicative loads amounting to one or two positive feature values (strong oppositional members) may be characterised as more or less common; hence, we consider such a load as "light" and, correspondingly, say that the sentence in this case is predicatively "lightly" loaded. As for sentences whose predicative load exceeds two positive feature values, they stand out of the common, their functional semantics showing clear signs of intricacy. Accordingly, we consider such loads as "heavy", and of sentences characterised by these loads we say that they are "heavily" loaded. Predicative loads amounting to four feature values occur but occasionally, they are too complicated to be naturally grasped by the mind.
  To exemplify the cited theses, let us take as a derivation sentence-base the construction "The thing bothers me". This sentence, in the above oppositional sense, is predicatively "non-loaded", or has the "zero predicative load". The predicative structure of the sentence can be expanded by the expression of the modal subject-action relation, for instance,
 287
 
 the ability relation. The result is: > "The thing can bother me"; the predicative load of the sentence has grown to 1. This construction, in its turn, can be used as a derivation base for a sentence of a higher predicative complexity; for instance, the feature of unreality can be added to it: > "The thing could bother me (now)". The predicative load of the sentence has grown to 2. Though functionally not simple, the sentence still presents a more or less ordinary English construction. To continue with our complicating it, we may introduce in the sentence the feature of passivity: > "I could be bothered (by the thing now)". The predicative semantics expressed has quite clearly changed into something beyond the ordinary; the sentence requires a special context to sound natural. Finally, to complicate the primary construction still further, we may introduce a negation in it: > "I could not be bothered (by the thing now)". As a result we are faced by a construction that, in the contextual conditions of real speech, expresses an intricate set of functional meanings and stylistic connotations. Cf.:
  "...Wilmet and Henrietta Bentworth have agreed to differ already." - "What about?" - "Well, I couldn't be bothered, but I think it was about the P.M., or was it Portulaca? - they differ about everything" (J. Galsworthy).
  The construction is indeed semantically complicated; but all its meaningful complexity is linguistically resolved by the demonstrated semantico-syntactic oppositional analysis showing the stage-to-stage growth of the total functional meaning of the sentence in the course of its paradigmatic derivation.
 CHAPTER XXVI
 COMPOSITE SENTENCE AS A POLYPREDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION
  § 1. The composite sentence, as different from the simple sentence, is formed by two or more predicative lines. Being a polypredicative construction, it expresses a complicated act of thought, i.e. an act of mental activity which falls into two or more intellectual efforts closely combined with one another. In terms of situations and events this means that the composite sentence reflects two or more elementary

<< Пред.           стр. 9 (из 14)           След. >>

Список литературы по разделу