3

In the same way the subject may be expressed by a gerund, e. g.:

No use crying over spilt milk. No good doing such things.

Very often the subject that follows the predicative is a whole clause, e.

g.:

Small wonder that we all liked it immensely. What a pity we have missed the train!

Patterns like the following: No, he didn't. Why, hasn't he? are referred by R. L. Allen "semi-sentences".

Such sentence-patterns seldom occur as the first utterance in conversation. They are fairly common in "tag"-questions (You don't know Mr. X., do you?) and in short answers (No, I don't).

Distinction will be made here between finite and non-finite sentences:

No, I don't. Why, did- n't she? Oh, caught in the act? On your way home? About to go there?

Perhaps the most important difference between finite semi-sentences and non-finite ones is that the former show time-orientation, whereas the latter do not.

VERBLESS TWO-MEMBER SENTENCES

Verbless two-member sentences are fairly common in many languages. We do not find here only points of coincidence but also specific features characteristic of any given language with its own patterns of formation and its own types of structural units.

The linguistic essence of such sentence-patterns has been differently treated by grammarians. In books devoted to teaching grammar they are often referred to as "non-sentences", "minor" sentences or "phrases" functioning as communicative units in spite of the absence of the finite form of the verb.

According to O. Jespersen and R. Long, here belong also patterns with "nexus of deprecation".

The frequency value of such syntactic units in Modern English is rather high. In terms of IC's analysis, they may be divided into two types: SP and PS, each of them characterised by various structural elements.

Type SP. The predicate (P) may be expressed by nouns, nounal groups, infinitives or participles, e. g.:

Anything the matter, Michael? (Galsworthy) Next stop — the British Museum?

Weather to stay cold? Your turn to speak. Both engaged?

Gone! The scent of geranium fading; the little dog snuffling. (Galsworthy)

215

The attributive or non-attributive character of the adnominal member may depend on its position as to the nominal one. Thus, for instance, in patterns like No room ready the relations between room and ready are not attributive, because ready does not go patterning as a post-positional attribute.

Patterns like Nice furs here are also two-member sentences because the adverb here may be replaced by the demonstrative pronoun.

Verbless two-member sentences abound not only in literature but in spoken English as well. As could be seen, they are not necessarily elliptical sentences, for very often no unexpressed part is implied. We often find them in a laconic, exclamatory or otherwise emphatic style.

Writers use them as a means to make ideas stand out in vivid, clear relief.

SUBSTITUTION AND REPRESENTATION

A recurrent feature of many languages is the so-called substitution and representation. The regularities of these syntactic processes as immediately relevant to the problem of sentence-patterning merit special consideration in the theory of English structure with its own traits different from practice in other languages.

Observations on the functional use of the verbs be, do, have, shall (should), will (would), can (could), may (might), must, ought, need and dare, used to, pronominal words such as one, it, that, such, so, and the particles not and to give sufficient grammatical evidence to distinguish between substitution and representation as grammatical idiomaticity in this part of Modern English structure.

Syntactic structures with substitution are, in fact, fixed patterns of complete sentences, always anaphoric in character, as distinguished from representation resulting from non-anaphoric omission or ellipsis.

To avoid the repetition of a word that has already been used in the sentence we often use another word which readily suggests the meaning of the given one. This is substitution, which may be well illustrated, for instance, by the use of the prop-word one replacing a preceding noun in patterns like the following: Poor little rabbit! It was such a little one.

Closely related to substitution is representation, but the two processes of replacing syntactic structures are not quite identical.

Representation seems to be intermediate between ellipsis and substitution. In ellipsis a whole syntactic unit is left off and made implicit, in representation only a part of the syntactic unit is left off, the other remains and stands for the whole. Representation is systematic in character and as such is limited by rather a small number of syntactic patterns.

Substitution and representation are closely akin but not absolutely identical.

In actual speech a sentence may be reduced to a single word-form which will suffice for communication expressing the necessary meaning in a given consituation. This may be a noun, an adjective, a numeral or pronoun, a verb or modal words, an adverb or an interjection and words of affirmation and negation.

217

Familiar examples of representation will be found, for instance, in the use of an auxiliary or modal verb instead of an analytical verb-form or a modal phrase of which it is part, e. g.:

Mont caught a little crab, and answered: "That was a nasty one!" "Please row!"

"I am". (Galsworthy)

... "But why not tell them? They can't really stop us, Fleur!" "They can! I tell you, they can". (Galsworthy)

Function verbs become thus sequence-signals by referring back to specific full verbs or verb-headed structures in the preceding sentence.

Soames took some deep breaths, savouring it, as one might an old wine. (Galsworthy)

"Was Wilfrid here to-night?" "Yes— no. That is ----------"

His hands clutched each other; he saw her eyes, fix on them, and kept them still.

"Fleur, don't".

"I'm not. He came to the window there..." (Galsworthy)

The infinitive particle to and the negator not may function similarly:

She was all vitality. What a fine catch for some young fellow some day, and her father would make him rich, no doubt, or help to. (Dreiser)

"If you send me away now, I shall go." "That's what I want to."

"Once I shouldn't have. I should have come back and apologised. I shan't do that now, if you get rid of me." "I don't expect you to", I said.

(Ch. Snow)

..."You need at least six months doing absolutely nothing, and feeding as well as you can — you're definitely undernourished — and without a worry in your head."

"Instead of which," I said, "in a month's time I take the most important examination of my career."

"I should advise you not to." (Ch. Snow)

And here is an example to illustrate the use of the anaphoric word-sub- stitute so:

So Martin thought, and so he spoke when Brissenden urged him to give them hell. (London)

.. .With her cheek to his she said quietly:

"Do you want me to be everything to you before you marry me? If so, I can". (Galsworthy)

With reference to the nominal part of a predicate, so is used with verbs like to be (especially in its non-finite forms), to remain, to seem; it may also occur as a predicative adjunct to an object, and immediately after an adverb.

He had been weak but he will be so no longer.

Drouet's income was insufficient, and likely to remain so.

So is similarly used after verbs like to say, to tell, to think, to hope, to suppose, to believe, etc. In this case it refers to the whole of a preceding sentence.

"The new manager is not as good as we expected".— "Well, I told you so but you would not believe me".

219

"Will your sister be coming to-night?" — "I think so".

"It would be nice if the doctor would let me go out next Sunday.— Let's hope so".

"Is the last train gone?" — "Yes, I'm afraid so".

Compare the following examples with it and that:

The child is nine years old, though you'd hardly think it.

He thinks the war will be over before Christmas.— They all think that. So occasionally precedes the subject of one of these verbs.

We never got on very well together.— So she told me.

In conclusion, attention may be called to the use of so after if.

As in the previous construction, so here refers to a preceding sentence. In the negative its place is taken by not.

He may be innocent, if so, why did he give himself up? If not, why did- n't he try to escape?

Similarly how so? why so?

It will be important to observe that syntactic structures with substitution are, in fact, fixed patterns of complete sentences, always anaphoric in character, as distinguished from representation resulting from non-ana- phoric omission and ellipsis.

INTENSITY AND EMPHASIS

IN ENGLISH SENTENCE-STRUCTURE

Expressive nuances and intensity of meaning can be obtained in any language by linguistic devices of different levels: phonetic, morphological, syntactic and phraseological, by word-building and special intensive words. All these can function as expedients to produce emotive and logical intensity of the utterance. Some of such intensifying forms, established by long use in the language and recognised by their semantic value and purpose, are registered in good dictionaries as intensifiers or intensives. In most cases they have their neutral synonymic alternatives.

Phonetic means are most powerful in expressive connotation. The human voice can always give the necessary prominence to the utterance, indicating such subtle shades of meaning that perhaps no other means can actualise. Modulation features, intonation and stress, pausation, drawling, whispering and other ways of using the voice are known to be most effective in intensifying the utterance logically or emotionally.

A major object in style is to call the attention of the reader in a forcible way to the most important part of the subject — in other words, to give emphasis to what is emphatic, and to make what is striking and important strike the eye and mind of the reader.

The position of words and syntactic structures relative to one another presents quite a special interest. But intensity and emphasis can also be produced in other ways. The selection of such linguistic devices is a factor of great significance in the act of communication. This part of syntax in any language is a source of constant linguistic interest. Syntactic structures are subtle and delicate in their different shades of meaning, and it is not always easy to find the ones that express precisely what we want to say. It is only a matter of having a good command of language and a fairly wide vocabulary; it is also necessary to think hard and to observe accurately.

220

silver furnishing; could a man own anything prettier than the woman sitting at it? (Galsworthy)

In patterns with "implied" or non-grammatical negation the connection between the two sentence elements is brushed aside as impossible; the meaning is thus negative which is the same as questions, often in an exaggerated form or not infrequently given to the two sentence elements separately, e. g.:

"Darling, it was very harmless".

"Harmless! Much you know what's harmless and what isn't". Fleur dropped her arms. (Galsworthy)

"Mr. Copperfield was teaching her. Much he knew of it himself" (Dickens)

By the front door the maid was asking: "Shall you be back to dinner, sir?"

"Dinner!" muttered Soames, and was gone. (Galsworthy)

Cf. «Вы меня нынче совсем измучили», — «Замолчи ради бога». (Полина) — «Как же дожидайся, буду я молчать!» (Н. Островский)

«Да чего ты рассердился так горячо?»... — «Есть из-за чего сердиться!» (Гоголь)

Він відмовився від своїх слів! Не можу повірити!

The implication of affirmative emphatic assertion will be found in examples like the following:

Bicket swallowed violently again. "It's all very well," he said sullenly; "it asn't appened to you!"

Michael was afflicted at once. No! It hadn't happened to him! And all his doubts of Fleur in the days of Wilfred came hitting him. (Galsworthy)

Cf. "Proud? And how's she earned it! Proud! My Gawd." (Galsworthy) Oh? Swine that he was, to have thought like that — of Vic! He turned his back to her and tried to sleep. But once you got a thought like that —

sleep? No. (Galsworthy)

In colloquial English there are numerous standardised types of rhetorical questions expressing a categorial disagreement with the opinion of the collocutor, e. g.:

What business is it of yours? You mind your own affairs.

Doolittle (remostrating). Now, now, look here, Governor. Is this reasonable? Is it fair to take advantage of a man like this? This girl belongs to me. I got her. (Shaw)

Cf. «Ну для чего ты пташку убил? — начал он, глядя мне прямо в лицо.— «Как для чего! ... Коростель — это дичь: его есть можно».— «Не для того ты убил его, барин: станешь ты его есть!» (Тургенев)

«Что ж они и мазут весь увезли?» — недоверчиво спросил кривой Чумаков.— «А ты думал, дед, тебе оставили? Очень ты им нужен, как и весь трудящийся народ» (Шолохов).

French: Moi faire ça? German: Erf So was sagen!

Intensity of meaning can be produced by such special syntactic patterns as:

a) patterns with so-called "appended statement", e. g.:

He likes a low death-rate and a gravel soil for himself, he does. (Shaw) You're the sort that makes duty a pleasure, you are. (Shaw)

222

He used to wolf down a lot in those days, did Dad. (Shaw) b) pleonastic patterns like the following:

Bicket had a thought. This was poetry — this was. (Galsworthy)

c) the use of the verb go functioning as an emphatic auxiliary in idiomatic pattern go and Vfin where there is no idea of real motion attached to the verb go.

Why do you say such things? Why do you go and say such things?

Past Indefinite

He did it. He went and did it.

Present Perfect

He has caught it. He has gone and caught it. Past Perfect

He had caught it. He had gone and caught it.

His grey eyes would brood over the grey water under the grey sky; and in his mind the mark would fall. It fell with a bump on the eleventh of January when the French went and occupied the Ruhr. (Galsworthy)

(Went and occupied = occupied)

"If you're Master Murdstone", said the lady, "why do you go and give another name, first?" (Galsworthy)

(Why do you go and give... = Why do you give...)

"He mustn't catch cold — the doctor had declared, and he had gone and caught it. (Galsworthy)

(She had gone and caught it — he had caught it)

Verb-phrases of this type imply disapproval of the action, its irrelevance or unexpectedness with different shades of subjective modal force depending on the context, linguistic or situational.

...His grandmother turned from the fire: "What have you gone and done now, you silly lad?"

"I fell into a bush," he told her. (Sillitoe)

Intensity of meaning may be produced by patterns with the ing-form following the verb go when the latter is also semantically depleted and is used idiomatically to intensify the meaning of the notional verb, e. g.:

He goes frightening people with his stories.

"I shall see you again before long, my boy!" he said. Don't you go paying any attention to what I've been saying about young Bosinney — I don't believe a word of it!" (Galsworthy)

James was alarmed. "Oh", he said, don't go saying I said it was to come down! I know nothing about it. (Galsworthy)

You'll go burning you fingers — investing your money in lime, and things you know nothing about. (Galsworthy)

Don't go putting on any airs with me. (Mitchell)

Compare the use of the Russian verb взять functioning as an emphatic auxiliary in idiomatic patterns with particles of emphatic precision:

223

возьми и расскажи (возьми да расскажи); взял и рассказал (взял да рассказал); возьмет и расскажет (возьмет да расскажет); взял бы и рассказал (взял бы да рассказал), etc.

Не знаю, чем я заслужил доверенность моего нового приятеля,— только он, ни с того, ни с сего, как говорится, взял да и рассказал мне довольно замечательный случай... (Тургенев)

Most forceful and expressive are idiomatic patterns where the determining and the determined elements of the denotation mutually exchange their respective parts, e. g.: a jewel of a nature, a devil of a journey, etc.

In common use the bearer of a quality is regularly denoted by the basic noun, while the quality attributed to this bearer is expressed by an element developing that basic noun. In patterns like a jewel of a picture the quality is expressed by the basic noun, while its bearer is denoted by the of -phrase developing that noun. This construction is not known in Old English. It has come into the language from French.

Further examples are: a slip of a boy, a slip of a girl, a love of a child, a peach of a girl, a devil of a fellow, a jewel of a cup, a doll of a baby, a brute of horse, a screw of a horse, the deuce of a noise, a deuce of a journey, a devil of a toothache, a devil of a hurry, her pet of a baby, a beast of a cold, the ghost of a voice, the ghost of a smile, a rascal of a landlord, etc. Such grammatical idioms are generally used to express either delight or admiration, scorn, irony or anger.

The idiomatic character of these forcible and expressive phrases offers certain difficulties in translation. The absence of analogous formations in a recipient language suggests the choice of other means to render a given idea in each case, such as, for instance, appositive use of nouns, epithet adjuncts or descriptive translation. Compare the following in Russian and Ukrainian:

224