1. Phrases equivalent to prepositions-

1. pattern “adverb+ preposition”- out of, apart from, down to

The phrases equivalent to prepositions perform the very functions that are typical of prepositions and some of them have synonyms among prepositions

Apart from = besides

Previous of = before

2. pattern “preposition + noun+ preposition”- in front of, with reference to, in accordance with

2. Phrases equivalent to modal verbs

Of course

3. Phrases equivalent to conjunctions- as soon as, as long as, in order that, notwithstanding that- несмотря нa…

1. “adverb + adverb+ conjunction”- as soon as, so long as

1^st component is an adverb

2. “preposition + noun+ conjunction”

in order that= is used to introduce adverbial clause of purpose

for fear that= tends to become a kind of conjunctional phrase introducing a special kind of clause of cause.

Phrases can also be classified according to the nominative value of their constituents. As a result three major types of phrases are identified: notional (consisting of grammatically connected notional words), formative (made up by notional and functional words) and functional (consisting of functional words alone). Notional phrases are subdivided into two groups on the principle of the constituent rank: equipotent phrases (the phrase constituents are of an equal rank) and dominational phrases (the syntactic ranks of the constituents are not equal as they refer to one another as the modifier and the modified). Further subdivision of equipotent notional word groupings into coordinative and cumulative is carried out on the principle of the character of nomination realized by the phrase constituents: coordinative phrases are based on the logically consecutive connections, cumulative phrases are characterized by the constituent inequality in the character of nomination realized and the presence of a coordinative conjunction. In their turn, dominational notional phrases are subdivided into consecutive and cumulative: the classification principle of the character of nomination realized by the phrase constituents remains valid. Dominational consecutive phrases fall into minor groupings according to the specific features of dominational connection.

2.The problem of sentence definition.

The syntactic structure of a language may consider in two aspects – formal and meaningful. The study of the syntax from formal point of view covers the longest period of linguistic research – from ancient grammars up to the appearance in the second part of the 20^th century the content-based theories. Nowadays there isn’t a full definition of sentence in modern linguistics. But different definitions can be grouped into:

1. logic (the most ancient, it comes from Aristhotle and practically makes the sentence equal to logic statement: “Sentence is a judgment, expressed by words”)

2. psychological: the sentence is the combination of individual conceptions of a speaker, expressed orally.

3. phonetic “The sentence is a segment of speech, possessing intonational completeness and separated from other segments of speech by pauses.”

4. graphic “The sentence is a consequence of words, restricted in written form by two dots.”

5. grammatical definitions: “The sentence is a segment of oral or written language, possessing the characteristics of modality and predicativeness.”

In the textbook by M.Y.Bloch we find the following definition of a sentence: “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.”

Under predicativeness most grammarians understand the accordance of the content to the designated extra lingual reality (factors). When we speak about predicativeness we should bear in mind that in linguistic analysis there exist the predication the mechanism of realization of predicativeness. The predication is made by the verb, which as it has the categories of mood, tense and person, can ascribe the subject its property as corresponding or not corresponding the reality, referring to the sphere of past, present or future and aimed at the members of communicative act or people, objects which are not the members of communication.

3. Status of the sentence.

The difference between the phrase and the sentence is fundamental: the phrase is a nominative unit which fulfils the function of polynomination denoting a complex referent analyzable into its component elements together with various relations between them; the sentence is a unit of predication which, naming a certain situational event, shows the relation of the denoted event towards reality.

Taking into consideration the two-aspective character of the sentence as a meaningful unit of language, predication should be interpreted not simply as referring the content of the sentence to reality. It is this interpretation of the semantico-functional nature of predication that discloses, in one and the same generalized presentation, both the unity of the two identified aspects of the sentence and also their different, though mutually complementary, meaningful roles. 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.

Phonetically, the sentence is distinguished by a relevant intonation (intonation contour). Between the sentence and the substantive word combination of the full nominative type, direct transformational relations are established: the sentence, interpreted as an element of paradigmatics, is transformed into the substantive phrase, or “nominalized”, losing its processual-predicative character.

The status of a sentence as a phenomena of language reveals that every time it is written according to this or that language model (pattern, scheme), the member of which is restricted, completed and idioethnic, that is specific for every concrete language.

Foe English the number of models according to which the sentences are built vary in the works of different authors from 3 to 39 according to classification. There are different types of models in modern linguistics. We’ll study two: functional and categorical.

The functional model of the sentence is based on the meaning of the parts of sentence and is described in the notions of “subject”, “predicate”, “object” and so on.

John took a book

is built according to the functional model S-P-O, where S – grammatical subject, P – grammatical predicate, O – grammatical object. Categorial model shows to what part of speech the words in the sentence belong and describes the sentence in terms of “noun”, “verb”, “adjective” and so on.

John took a book.

N₁ + V + Art +N₂

THEME 11. THE PROBLEM OF SENTENCE TYPES.

1. Types of sentences according to structure.

2. Types of sentences according to communicative type of the utterance.

3. Problems of classification of the sentences.

Terms: declarative, interrogative, imperative, exclamatory, subject, predicate, compound nominal predicate, compound verbal predicate, aspectual predicate, simple predicate, objective, subjective, inversion, parataxis, hypotaxis.

1. Types of sentences according to structure

Under sentence we understand the immediate integral unit of speech built up of words according to a definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a contextually relevant communicative purpose.

There are two principles of classification. Applying one of them we obtain a classification into declarative, interrogative, and imperative sentences. We can call this principle that of “types of communication”.

The other classification is according to structure. Here we state two main types: simple sentences and composite sentences. According to Structure the sentences are divided into: simple and composite.

Simple sentences:

According to their structure they are divided into: two-member sentences and one-member sentences.

Two- member sentence has 2 members- a subject and a predicate. They may be : complete or incomplete. It is complete when it has a subject and a predicate. It is incomplete when one of the principal parts or both of them are missing. They are called elliptical. EX. What are you doing? Drinking.

One-member sentences have one member which is neither the subject nor the predicate. They are used in descriptions and in emotional speech. EX. Freedom! Silence.

Simple sentences, both two- member and one-member, can be unextended and extended.

In a sentence we distinguish the principal parts, secondary parts and independent elements.

The principal parts of a sentence are the subject and the predicate. The secondary parts are the attribute, the object and the adverbial modifier.

Composite sentences:

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.

Each predicative unit in a composite sentence makes up a clause in it, so that a clause as part of a composite corresponds to a separate sentence as part of a contextual sequence.

The use of composite sentences, especially long and logically intricate ones, is characteristic of literary written speech rather than colloquial oral speech. This unquestionable fact is explained by three reasons: one relating to the actual needs of expression; one relating to the possibilities of production; and one relating to the conditions of perception.

That the composite sentence structure answers the special needs of written mode of lingual expression is quite evident. It is the type of speech that deals with lengthy reasoning, descriptions, narrations, all presenting abundant details of intricate correlations of logical premises and inferences, of situational foreground and background, of sequences of events interrupted by cross- references and parenthetical comments. Only a composite sentence can adequately and within reasonable bounds of textual space fulfill these semantic requirements.

On the other hand, we must clearly understand that the composite sentence as such is part and parcel of the general syntactic system of language, and its use is an inalienable feature of any normal expression of human thought in intercourse. This is demonstrated by cases of composite sentences that could not be adequately reduced to the corresponding sets of separate simple sentences in their natural contexts. Fictional literature, presenting in its works a reflection of language as it is spoken by the people, gives us abundant illustrations of the broad use of composite sentences in genuine colloquial speech both of dialogue and monologue character.

HISTORICAL SERVEY. The term “Composite Sentence” was used by Poutsma as a common term for both the compound and the complex sentence and it may be accepted by those scholars who edhere to trichotomic classification of sentences into simple, compound and complex. This classification established in the English prescriptive grammar of the mid-19^th century and accepted and developed by the authors of the classical scientific grammar, remains the prevalent scheme of the structural classification of sentences in the grammars of all types in the modern period. A very important syntactic concept which developed along with this classification was the concept of the clause as a syntactic unit, containing a subject and a predicate.

From the very beginning the authors of prescriptive and scientific grammars have intuitively found out the weak link in this classification- the concept of the compound sentence, containing syntactically independent coordinated clauses or sentences. The compound sentence was not felt to be a sentence proper. There were at least three methods employed by the grammarians to find a way out of this difficulty:

1. To explain it away by pointing out the complete independence and the possibility of isolating each member of a compound sentence without any change of its meaning or intonation.

2. By employing new terms to express more exactly the grammatical peculiarity of this combination of sentences.

3. By excluding this concept from the structural classification of sentences.

Structural linguists treat the problem of the compound sentence in different ways. Transformational grammar derives complex and traditional compound sentences from two or more underlying strings or source sentences (double- base transformations), including them into matrix sentence (i.e. principal sentences) as inserts by means of embedding and conjoining transformations.

Composite sentences display two principal types of construction: hypotaxis (subordination) and parataxis (coordination).

By coordination the clauses are arranged as units of syntactically equal rank, i.e. equipotently (равнозначно); by subordination, as units of unequal rank, one being categorically dominated by the other. In terms of the positional structure of the sentence it means that by subordination one of the clauses (subordinate) is placed in a notional position of the other (principal).

The means of combining clauses into a polypredicative sentence are divided into syndetic, i.e. conjunctional, and asyndetic, i.e. non-conjunctional.

According to the traditional view, all composite sentences are to be classed into compound sentences (coordinating their clauses), and complex sentences (subordinating their clauses), syndetic or asyndetic types of clause connection being specifically displayed with both classes.