7. “Lower” and “higher” predicative functions. The notion of “predicative load”.

In the predicative system of syntactic paradigmatics, a kernel sentence undergoes transformations connected with the expression of predicative syntactic semantics. Predicative functions, expressed by primary sentence patterns, can be subdivided into “lower” and “higher”.

- Lower functions include the expression of such morphological categories as tense and aspect; these are of “factual”, “truth-stating” semantic character.

- Higher predicative functions are “evaluative”; they are expressed by syntactic categorial oppositions, which make up the following syntactic categories:

1) the category of communicative purpose, or rather two communicative sub-categories: the first sub-category, in which question is opposed to statement: Mary put the book on the table. – Did Mary put the book on the table?; and the second sub-category, in which statement is opposed to inducement: Mary put the book on the table. – Mary, put the book on the table;

2) the category of existence quality (affirmation and negation), in which affirmation is opposed to negation: Mary put the book on the table. – Mary didn’t put the book on the table;

3) the category of realization, in which unreality is opposed to reality: Mary put the book on the table. – Mary would have put the book on the table…;

4) the category of probability, in which probability is opposed to fact: Mary put the book on the table. – Mary might put he book on the table;

5) the category of modal identity, in which modal identity is opposed to fact: Mary put the book on the table. – Mary happened to put the book on the table;

6) the category of subjective modality, in which modal subject-action relation is opposed to fact: Mary put the book on the table. – Mary must put the book on the table;

7) the category of subject-action relations, in which specified actual subject-action relation is opposed to fact.: Mary put the book on the table. – Mary tried to put the book on the table;

8) the category of phase, in which phase of action is opposed to fact: Mary put the book on the table. – Mary started putting her book on the table (though I asked her not to);

9) the category of subject-object relations, in which passive action is opposed to active action: Mary put the book on the table. – The book was put on the table by Mary;

10) the category of informative perspective, in which specialized, reverse actual division is opposed to non-specialized, direct actual division: Mary put the book on the table. – It was Mary who put the book on the table;

11) the category of (emotional) intensity, in which emphasis (emotiveness) is opposed to emotional neutrality: Mary put the book on the table. – Mary did put the book on the table!

All these categories may or may not be represented in an utterance by their strong function members. The total volume of the strong members of predicative oppositions actually represented in a sentence can be defined as its “predicative load”. The kernel sentence, which is characterized in oppositional terms as non-interrogative, non-imperative, non-negative, non-modal-identifying, can be treated as predicatively “non-loaded” (has a “zero predicative load”); sentences with the most typical predicative loads of one or two positive feature expressed can be treated as “lightly” loaded; sentences with intricate predicative semantics of more than two positive predicative features (normally, no more than six) are “heavily” loaded. For example, the sentence Why on earth has Mary failed to put my book back on the table?! can be described as expressing positive predicative semantics of interrogations, subject-action relations and intensity; its predicative load is “heavy”.

8. Composite sentences as polypredicative constructions. Subordinative polypredication (hypotaxis) and coordinative polypredication (parataxis). Complex/compound/cumulative/semi-composite sentences. Syndeton and asyndeton.

Composite sentences differ from simple sentences by the number of predicative lines: simple sentences are monopredicative syntactic constructions, formed by only one predicative line, while composite sentences are polypredicative syntactic constructions, formed by two or more predicative lines, each with a subject and a predicate of its own. This means, that the composite sentence reflects two or more situations making up a unity.

Each predicative unit in a composite sentence forms a clause. A clause as a part of a composite sentence corresponds to a separate sentence: This is the issue I planned to discuss with you. - This is the issue. I planned to discuss it with you. The purpose of communication in the composite sentence above is the presentation of a certain topic.

There are two principal types of composite sentences: 1) complex and 2) compound.

- In compound sentences, the clauses are connected on the basis of coordinative connections (parataxis). By coordination the clauses are arranged as units of syntactically equal rank, i.e. equipotently (equipotent, or coordinative phrases).

- In complex sentences, the clauses are united on the basis of subordinative connections (hypotaxis). By subordination the clauses are arranged as units of syntactically unequal rank, one of which dominates another (dominational, or subordinative phrases).

The connections between the clauses in a composite sentence may be effected syndetically, i.e. by means of special connecting words, conjunctions and other conjunctional words or word-combinations, or asyndetically, i.e. without any conjunctional words used.

There is some controversy concerning the status of syndeton and asyndeton versus coordination and subordination. According to the traditional view, all composite sentences are to be subdivided on the upper level into compound and complex, and on the lower level of subdivision each type is represented by syndetic and asyndetic connections. This view was challenged by N. S. Pospelov and some other Russian linguists, who treated this subdivision in the opposite way: at the higher level of classification all composite sentences should be divided into syndetic and asyndetic, while at the lower level the syndetic composite sentences (and only these) should be divided into compound and complex ones in accordance with the connective words used. This approach was also challenged, in particular, by B. A. Ilyish, who pointed out the mixture of two different criteria – formal and semantic - in both classifications. Indeed, the semantic equality of syndetic and asyndetic constructions is unquestionable in the following example: This is the issue I planned to discuss with you. – This is the issue, which I planned to discuss with you; both sentences include the subordinate attributive clause. Besides, asyndetic connection of clauses often displays its own specific functional value, which supports arguments for the existence of asyndetic polypredication.

Alongside the two basic types of composite sentences there is one more type of polypredicative construction, in which the connections between the clauses are rather loose, syntactically detached: the following clause is like an afterthought, an expansion or a comment to the proceeding clause. In oral speech its formal sign is often the tone of sentential completion, followed by a shorter pause. In written speech such clauses are usually separated by semi-final punctuation marks: a dash, a colon, a semi-colon or brackets: I wasn’t going to leave; I’d only just arrived. This type of connection is called cumulation, and such composite sentences can be called 3) cumulative. The status of cumulative sentences is intermediary between composite sentences proper and combinations of sentences in supra-sentential constructions. Various parenthetical clauses of introductory and commenting-deviational semantics can be treated as specific cumulative clauses, which give a background to the essential information of the expanded clause: As I have already told you, they are just friends.

Alongside the “completely” composite sentence, built up by two or more fully predicative lines, there are polypredicative constructions, in which one predicative line may be partially predicative (potentially predicative, semi-predicative), as, for example, in sentences with various verbid complexes: I heard him singing in the backyard. Such sentences actually render two situations and present two predicative lines blended with each other. This can be demonstrated in explanatory transformations of these constructions into composite sentences: I heard him, when he was singing in the backyard; He was singing in the backyard and I heard him. The transformations show that such sentences are derived from two base sentences and that their systemic status can be treated as intermediary between the simple sentence and the composite sentence. They can be defined as 4) “semi-composite sentences”.