L e c t u r e 5. Actual division of the sentence. Communicative types of sentences

I. Actual division of the sentence and means of expressing it.

II. Actual division of the sentence in terms of cognitive linguistics.

III. The problem of classification of sentence according to the purpose of

communication.

IV. Communicative types of sentences in Modern English.

I. Actual division of the sentence and means of expressing it.

One of the basic characteristic features of the sentence is its communicative and informative sufficiency. It means that every sentence should convey some new information in the process of communication. The interpretation of the sentence from this point of view requires the division of the sentence into two parts. One of them contains the starting point of communication or that already known to the listeners and the other part conveys new information or that not yet known to the listeners and for the sake of which the sentence is constructed. This interpretation of the sentence has been termed the actual division of the sentence or the functional sentence perspective.

The idea of actual division of the sentence has first been put forward by

W. Mathesius. He termed the starting point of communication the “basis” and the new information the “nucleus”. Recently there came into common use a new pair of terms. They are the “theme” and the “rheme”. The theme denotes the starting point of communication, it is an object or phenomenon about which something is reported. The rheme expresses the information reported, e.g.: Their visit to the Blacks was quiet promising. “Their visit to the Blacks” is the “theme”, the rest part is the “rheme”.

The theme and the rheme of the sentence may or may not coincide with the subject and the predicate respectively. The actual division in which the “theme” is expressed by the subject and the “rheme” - by the predicate is called “direct”. Due to a certain context the order of actual division can be changed into the reverse one, in which the rheme is expressed by the subject, while the predicate exposes the theme. This kind of actual division is “inverted”, compare:

a) This old photo wakes up my memories. – a case of “direct” actual division. The theme is expressed by the subject, while the rheme coincides with the predicate;

b) From behind the corner there appeared a smart car. – a case of “inverted” actual division. The rheme is expressed by the subject.

There are several formal means of expressing distinction between the theme and the rheme. They are word – order patterns, intonation contours, constructions with introducers, constructions with articles and other determiners, constructions with intensifying particles, constructions with contrastive complexes.

With the word – order patterns the rheme is placed towards the end of the sentence, while the theme is positioned at the beginning of it, when it is necessary, the inversion is used, e.g.:

Theme / rheme

1. Jane stood in the center of the large hall.

2. In the center of the large hall stood Jane.

Constructions with introducers, such as the there-patterns and it-patterns,

help to identify the subject of the sentence (or maybe any other part of the sentence within the it-pattern) as its rheme, e.g.:

3. There came a loud sound (rheme).

4. It was him (rheme) who made the party a party.

Determiners, among them the articles, used as means of forming certain patterns of actual division, divide their functions so that the definite determiners serve as identifiers of the theme while the indefinite determiners serve as identifiers of the rheme, e.g.:

5. The man came up to me.

6. A man came up to me.

Intensifying particles identify the rheme, e.g:

7. Even she has done it come.

8. He is being so kind.

9. Only then did he realize the situation.

Syntactic patterns of contrastive complexes, based on some sort of antithesis, are employed to make explicative the inner contrast inherent in the actual division 10. This is a real story, not a fiction.

Intonation presents itself a universal means of expressing the actual division of a sentence in all types of contexts and known as logical accent. It is inseparable from the other rheme-identifying means mentioned above.

The thematic reduction of responses in dialogue speech serves to identify the rheme of the sentence. In these cases the rheme is placed in isolation, e.g.:

11. - Where did you see her last time?

- London.

12 - Shall we go out tonight?

-Yes. The night club.

Thus, we may conclude, that the actual division of the sentence is closely connected with the context of communication and enters the predicative aspect of the sentence. It meets the same function, which is to relate the nominative content of the sentence to reality.

II. Actual division of the sentence in terms of cognitive linguistics.

In the cognitive approach the problem of actual division of the sentence seems to be correlated with the issue of semantic asymmetry of syntactic constructions and principles which govern semantico-grammatical accuracy of syntactic structures.

The semantic asymmetry is understood as semantic nonsynonymy of two sentences which are the inverse forms of spatial or temporal relations.

The semantic asymmetry presupposes semantic and grammatical restrictions imposed by the language system on the process of sentence-formation, and its theme-rheme division accordingly. Compare the sentences:

a) My sister (F) resembles Madonna (G).

? b) Madonna (F) resembles my sister (G). – (b) sentence seems impossible;

c) He had two affairs (F) while he was married (G);

? d) He was married (F) through –a-period-containing two affairs of his. – impossible.

Restrictions imposed by the language come from the restrictions imposed by the conceptual system, by the mechanism of cognitive anchoring, as termed by L.Talmy.

Within the cognitive approach syntactic structures are understood as formal means by which language represents one concept as a reference point or anchor for another concept. According to L.Talmy cognitive anchoring involves the two fundamental functions of attention cognitive system, that of the Figure and that of the Ground. Thus, The theme-rheme division of the sentence, which is a property of the language, is governed by the Figure-Ground Segregation, which is a property of the conceptual system.

Cognitive anchoring and semantic asymmetry is governed by the definitial characteristics of Figure and Ground. In linguistic usage they can be characterized as follows:

In simple sentence the Figure is a moving or conceptually moving entity whose site, path or location needs identification, the Ground is a reference entity whose setting identifies the Figure’s path or orientation. On the syntactic level Figure and Ground are represented by 2 nominals. In complex sentences the Figure is an event whose location in time needs identification, the Ground is a reference event which characterizes the Figure’s temporal location. On the level of syntax the Figure-event is represented in the main clause of a complex sentence, the Ground-event – in the subordinate clause. Compare the sentences:

1. The pen (functions as Figure) fell off the table (functions as Ground).

2. She (Figure) resembles him (Ground). – metaphorical extension to nonphysical situations (relational state, for example), can be taken as derived from smth. like: She is near him in appearance.

3. He exploded after he touched the button. – “the button-touching-event” is Ground (as a fixed, known reference point) and “the explosion event” is Figure (as more prominent with respect to the other).

Thus, the semantic asymmetry, and therefore the theme-rheme division of the sentence, can be highlighted by choosing objects with different capacities to serve as a reference point, and in this respect it is clear why the sentence “My sister (F) resembles Madonna (G)” sounds good, while the inverse form “Madonna (F) resembles my sister (G)” doesn’t. In simple sentences semantic asymmetry is observed in spatial relations between two objects, in complex sentences – in temporal, causal and other type of inter-event relations.

The cognitive functions of Figure and Ground govern the process of conceptual anchoring, they are incorporated in the grammatical constructs of the language system

(the Figure-event as appeared in the main clause of a complex sentence and the Ground-event - in the subordinate clause) and bring down certain restrictions on the process of sentence-formation, and therefore its theme-rheme division.

L. Talmy proposes principles, which govern the asymmetric relations between two events, as represented in a complex sentence:

1. Temporal sequence principle says that in a relation of 2 events the earlier event is Ground and the later event is Figure. In a full complex sentence the Figure-event is in the main clause and Ground-event is in the subordinate clause:

   1. She departed (F) after he arrived (G).

   2. He arrived (F) before she departed (G).

The favored linguistic expression here is that with “after” form. The priority follows from the fact that no language will have simpler means for expressing “before” than for expressing “after”.

2. Cause-result principle says that in a causal relation the causing event is Ground and in a complex sentence is in the subordinate clause and the resulting event is Figure and is in the main clause:

   1. We stayed home (F) because he had arrived (G).

The inverse form is impossible:

1. He arrived (F) to-the-occasioning-of- our staying home.

1. Inclusion principle governs the relation of “temporal inclusion” between 2 events, where a temporally containing event is Ground and appears in the subordinate clause, a contained event is Figure and appears in the main clause of a complex sentence:

   1. He had 2 affairs (F) while he was married (G).

The inverse form is impossible:

1. He was married through (F) –a-period-containing 2 affairs of his.

1. Contingency principle governs the relation of “contingency” between 2 events. An event which is necessary for a second event acts as Ground and appears in the subordinate clause, the second event that is contingent or dependent acts as Figure and appears in the main clause of a complex sentence:

a) He dreamt (F) while (the whole time) he slept (G).

but b) He slept (F) while he dreamt. - impossible.

To sum it all up, the semantic asymmetry of syntactic structures, and therefore their grammatical accuracy, is determined by cognitive functions of Figure and Ground. Figure and Ground govern the process of conceptual anchoring, they are incorporated in the grammatical concepts of the language system (compare the principles which govern the semantic asymmetry: the Figure-event as appeared in the main clause of a complex sentence and the Ground-event - in the subordinate clause) and bring down certain restrictions on the process of sentence-formation, and therefore its theme-rheme division.