Seminar 14 The theory of the parts of the sentence (Ilysh)

1. The principal parts of the sentence.

The subject and the predicate constitute the backbone of the sentence: without them the sentence would not exist at all, whereas all other parts may or may not be there, and if they are there, they serve to define or modify either the subject or the predicate, or each other.

1. The Subject. Types of subjects. Formal subjects.

??? How are we to define the subject of a sentence?

The subject is one of the 2 main parts of the sentence:

1. It denotes the thing whose action or characteristic is expressed by the predicate.

2. It is not dependent on any other part of the sentence.

3. It may be expressed by different parts of speech, the most frequent ones being: a noun in the common case, a personal pronoun in the nominative case, a demonstrative pronoun occasionally, a substantivized adjective, a numeral, an infinitive, and a gerund. It may also be expressed by a phrase.

Formal subject

It gave Hermione a sudden convulsive sensation of pleasure, to see these rich colours under the candlelight.

 2 views:

1. The pronoun it at the beginning of the sentence is the formal subject, and the real subject id the infinitive.

2. It is the subject of the sentence, and the infinitive an apposition to it.

2. The Predicate. Types of predicates.

The predicate is one of the 2 main parts of the sentence:

1. It denotes the action or property of the thing expressed by the subject

2. It is not dependent on any other part of the sentence.

3. Ways of expressing the predicate are varied and their structure will better be considered under the heading of types of predicate.

It is sometimes claimed that the predicate agrees in number with the subject: when the subject is in the singular, the predicate is bound to be in the singular, and vice versa. However this statement is very doubtful. E.g. My family are early risers. + The question of concord refers to the level of phrases, not sentences.

Types of predicate:

Predicates may be classified in 2 ways, one of which is based on their structure (simple or compound), and the other on their morphological characteristics (verbal or nominal).

Structural classification:

1. simple predicate

1. verbal

2. nominal

2. compound predicate

1. verbal

2. nominal

Morphological classification:

1. verbal predicate

1. simple

2. compound

2. nominal predicate

1. simple

2. compound

??? The simple nominal predicate and the limits of the compound verbal predicate.

The simple nominal predicate – a predicate consisting merely of a noun or an adjective, without a link verb, is rare in English, but it is nevertheless a living type and must be recognized as such.

Only 2 spheres of its use:

1. In sentences where the immediate neighborhood of the subject noun and the predicate noun or adjective is used to suggest the impossibility or absurdity of the idea that they might be connected. Sentences with this kind of simple nominal predicate are always exclamatory, e.g. My ideas obsolete!!!!!!! It would not do to call such sentences elliptical since the link verb cannot be added without completely changing the meaning of the sentence.

2. In the sentences un which the predicative comes first, the subject next, and no link verb is either used or possible. Such sentences seem to occur chiefly in colloquial style, e.g. “Splendid game, cricket”, remarked MR Barbecue-Smith heartily to no one in particular; “so thoroughly English”.

The participle as predicate:

And then to add to the nervousness and confusion engendered by all this, thoughts as to what additional developments or persons, even, he might encounter before leaving on his climacteric errand – Roberta announcing that…

1. A one-member clause, Roberta – the main part, announcing – an attribute;

2. Two-member clause, Roberta – the subject, announcing – the predicate.

Such examples show that the participle, though it is a verbal, not a finite verb form, is able to perform by itself a function generally believed to be characteristic of finite verb forms only, namely that of predicate.

Limits of the compound verbal predicate:

A rather considerably number of verbs can be followed by an infinitive, some of them with, others without the particle to. Among such verbs are: without to  shall, will, should, would, can, may, must; with to  ought, wish, want, desire, hate, fear, begin, start, continue, omit, forget, remember, etc.

The phrases with the verbs can, may, must, ought constitute a compound verbal predicate. But the phrases with the verbs wish, want, desire, hate, fear, begin, start, continue, etc. give rise to doubts and controversies.

Views:

1. All such phrases are also a compound predicate: the finite verb (wish, begin) does not denote any action of its own, it merely denotes the subject’s attitude to the action expressed by the following infinitive, or a phrase in the development of that action, namely, its beginning, continuation, etc. The phrase as a whole constitutes the predicate of the sentence: it is a compound verbal predicate, just as in the case of can, may, or ought. This argument is based on purely semantic reasons.

2. Compare: began to work and began his work. Approaching phenomena from a grammatical viewpoint, which is the essential one here, we start from the assumption that in the phrase began his work the group his work is a separate (secondary) part of the sentence (an object). Since the verb to begin can take an object there appears to be no reason to deny that an infinitive following this verb is an object as well.

Another question of a similar kind arises with reference to sentences containing idioms of the pattern “verb+noun”, e.g. make a mistake, have a look, have a smoke.

2 approaches:

1. If a phrase is a phraseological unit, i.e. if its meaning is not equal to the sum of the meanings of its components, it cannot be divided into 2 parts of the sentence, and has to be taken as one part, namely, the predicate.

He makes toys – What does he makes?

He makes mistakes – NOT What does he make?

2. Such phraseological phenomena belong to the sphere of lexicology alone and are irrelevant for grammar, i.e. for sentence analysis.

Phrases like: come in, bring up, put down.

Should these phrases be taken as the predicate, or should the predicate be limited to the verb alone?

They brought up three children – predicate.

The compound nominal predicate:

The CNP always consists of a link verb and a predicative, which may be expressed by various parts of speech, usually a noun, an adjective, also a stative, or an adverb.

Link verb – the idea of link suggests that its function is to connect the predicative with the subject. It is not correct. The true function of a link verb is not a connecting function. It expresses the tense and the mod in the predicate (to be also expresses number and person).

There are sentences in which the finite verb is a predicate itself, i.e. it contains some information about the subject which may be taken separately, but at the same time the verb is followed by a predicative and is in so far a link verb.

He came home tired - the finite verb in such sentences conveys a meaning of its own, but the main point of the sentence lies in the information conveyed by the predicative noun or adjective. The finite verb performs the function of a link verb.

Since such sentences have both a simple verbal predicate and a compound nominal predicate, they form a special or mixed type: double predicates, e.g. Sunlight seeped thick and golden through the high, oblong (продолговатый) windows above the cages and fell in broad shafts (луч света) to the linoleum floor where he dropped his bucket.

2. The secondary parts of the sentence.

1. The Object. Types of objects. Objective predicatives.

The object is a secondary part of the sentence expressed by a verb, a noun, a substantival pronoun, an adjective, a numeral, or an adverb, and denoting a thing to which the action passes on, which is a result of the action, in reference to which an action is committed or a property is manifested, or denoting an action as object of another action.

Objects differ form one another

• by their morphological composition, by the parts of speech or phrases which perform the function of object

• by the type of their relation to the action expressed by the verb (direct/indirect)

1. Prepositional and non-prepositional objects

2. Morphological types (noun, pronoun, substantivized adjective, infinitive, gerund)

3. Direct/indirect, is applied only to objects expressed by nouns or pronouns. There are sentences in which the predicate is expressed by the verbs send, show, lend, give. These verbs usually take 2 different kinds of objects simultaneously: (1) an object expressing the thing which is sent, shown, lent, given, etc. (2) the person or persons to whom the thing is sent, shown, lent, given, etc. The difference between the 2 relations is clear enough: the direct object denotes the thing immediately affected by the action denoted by the predicate verb, whereas the indirect object expresses the person towards whom the thing is moved, e.g. We sent them a present. The indirect object stands 1^st, the direct object comes after it.

In studying different kinds of objects it is also essential to take into account the possibility of the corresponding passive construction.

2. The Adverbial Modifier.

The term ‘adverbial modifier’ cannot be said to be a very lucky one, as it is apt to convey erroneous (wrong, incorrect) ideas about the essence of this secondary part. They have nothing to do with adverbs and they modify not only verbs.

There are several ways of classifying adverbial modifiers:

1. According to their meaning – not a grammatical classification. However it may acquire some grammatical significance.

2. According to their morphological peculiarities – according to the parts of speech and to the phrase patterns. It has also something to do with word order, and stands in a certain relation to the classification according to meaning.

1. adverb

2. preposition+noun

3. a noun without a preposition

4. infinitive or an infinitive phrase

3. According to the type of their head word – is the syntactic classification proper. The meaning of the word (phrase) acting as modifier should be compatible with the meaning of the head word.