2. On sentence typology: clause types and clause structure (from “cognitive grammar” by j.R. Taylor)

J.R. Taylor proposes the sentence typology: all the sentences can be classed into single clauses and constructions which are built as combinations of clauses. The main criterion for further division becomes the degree of integration between clauses. The merit of this classification is that it is based on correlation between formal syntactic properties of the sentences and processes of conceptual operations (basically, conceptual integration) which enable the creation of the sentences. The classification is also aimed to show that the distinctions between clause types form a continuum rather than discreet categories, which somehow reflects the work of the human mind.

The notion “clause” is understood as a syntactic structure which designates a single process and should be distinguished from clause fusion – a case of clause combination, based on conceptual and syntactic integration, though both the structures reveal the “syntax of the simple sentence”. Compare: These cars are expensive. These cars are expensive to repair. The clause fusion construction can be “unpacked” into two independent clauses, designating two different processes.

C l a u s e s, c l a u s e s t r u c t u r e

J.R. Taylor defines the clause as a linguistic structure that designates a process, created through the elaboration of the participants in a temporal relation. He observes the internal structure of the clause – its participants, the semantic role of the participants, and their syntactic expression, in relation to the kinds of situations (processes) that clauses designate. The said properties are the basic parameters of clause classification.

According to the process type clauses are classed into those which designate:

- dynamic processes (processes in which something happens, they are change-of-state processes (1-3) and energy input processes (4-5)),

e.g.: 1.The house collapsed.

2. The farmer shot the rabbit.

3. I gave Peter the book.

4. The telephone rang.

5. The light flashed.

- stative processes (there is neither energy input, nor change; a situation simply exists, where certain properties are attributed to an entity (6-7), the disposition of one entity with respect to the other is stated (8-9), an entity is identified (10-11)),

e.g.: 6. The book is 200 pages long.

7.The book is boring.

8. The road follows the river.

9. The picture hangs above the sofa.

10. The cat is the one that stole the liver.

11. The photographer was Beryl.

- cognitive processes (mental and perceptual processes, which can be described in terms of dynamic cognitive processes (12-13) and stative cognitive processes (14-15)),

e.g.: 12. I watched the film.

13. The noise frightened me.

14. I liked the film.

15. I’m afraid of the dark.

-complex processes (processes which are made up of 2 or more component processes),

e.g.: 16. Jane returned the book to the library.

17. They elected him president.

18. I broke the vase.

(The analysis of complex processes in terms of component processes is justified in that it is sometimes possible to focus on just one component in contrast to the process in its totality, e.g.:

19. I almost broke the vase.

20. They didn’t elect Joe president.)

According to the number of participants clauses are classed into one-participant clauses (Intransitives), two-participant clauses (Transitives), three-participant clauses (Double-object clauses). J.R. Taylor addresses the semantic roles of participants and their semantic expression in the clause. The question under discussion is how a participant with a certain semantic role (Agent, Patient, etc) is mapped in to the syntax, that is into particular grammatical relation (subject, direct object, etc.).

Among the semantic roles of the participants J.R. Taylor distinguishes: Agent, Instrument (dynamic processes)

Mover – an entity which changes its location, e.g.: The guests departed (dynamic processes),

Patient - an entity which is affected by the process designated by the verb; the entity may undergo a change in state, it may occupy a new location, it can change ownership, etc, e.g.: John opened the door, The child put her toys away, The building collapsed (dynamic processes),

Locatives – Place, Source, Goal, Path, e.g.: In the study (Place), I moved the books from the table (Source), I put my affairs in order (Goal) (dynamic or stative processes),

Experiencer – an animate entity which is the locus of a cognitive activity or a cognitive state, e.g.: I know, I itch, I heard the noise (cognitive processes),

Stimulus – an entity which causes a cognitive activity or state in the Experiencer, e.g.: I heard the noise, The noise startled me (cognitive processes),

Zero – a participant which merely exists or exhibits a property, but does not interact with another entity, e.g.: Alice is asleep, The book costs 50 pounds (stative processes).

One –participant clause (intransitive) presents a situation as involving only one participant, which is an Experiencer or Zero, a Mover and Patient. There are three types of intransitives: unergatives (a), unaccusatives (b), middles (c):

1. The telephone rang. The child slept;

2. The guests departed. The building collapsed;

3. The book sold well. The car drives smoothly. The ice-cream scoops out easily. The poem doesn’t translate. The food won’t keep. The dirt brushes off easily. I don’t photograph very well.

In (a) the subject exhibits the role of Zero (or Experiencer (the child)), in (b) the subject is a Mover, in (c) the subject is a Patient-like entity.

Two- participant clause (transitive) prototypically involves the transfer of energy from an Agent (the subject) to a Patient (the object), e.g.: The farmer shot the rabbit. The prototypical transitive clause can also be made passive, e.g.: The rabbit was shot by the farmer. A remarkable fact about the schema for a prototypical transitive clause is that it accommodates all manner of relations between entities. The following examples exhibit this fact, though exhibiting fewer and fewer characteristics of a transitive interaction:

I remember the event.

My car burst a tyre.

The road follows the river.

Joe resembles his grandfather.

The road crosses the railway line.

The examples also illustrate a point that the subject can instantiate all manner of participant roles, in addition to its prototypical use to designate an Agent. What unifies the subject is its function – to designate the more prominent entity in the conceptualization.

Three-participant clause (double-object clause) is a clause where a second post-verbal object is obligatory, its presence determines the existence of the clause as such, e.g.:

I’ll mail you the report.

I’ll bake you a cake.

The three participants are the Agent, the thing that undergoes changes at the hands of the Agent, and the person which benefits from the change (Beneficiary). Characteristic of this clause type is that the Beneficiary is construed as the Patient of the interaction and it appears immediately after the verb, as the verb’s object (it means that “my” action directly affects “you”, in that “you” come to receive the report). In the clause we have the two objects, the syntax doesn’t “allow” to omit the intermediate element (Patient) in the action chain (Agent- Patient- Beneficiary) while profiling the relation between the initial and final elements (Agent and Beneficiary) by means of placing the Beneficiary immediately after the verb. In this respect the syntax bears the restrictions imposed by the action chain hierarchy – our mind permits this kind of profile of the situation but can’t leave out the essential, the real patient. Otherwise the object “you” appears as the real patient, which invokes a different situation type.

The same situation can be conceptualized in an alternative way, e.g.:

I’ll mail the report to you.

I’ll bake a cake for you.

Here the Patient is the thing that undergoes changes due to the action of the Agent. The Beneficiary appears in the prepositional phrase, which is often optional, e.g.: I’ll mail the report – is acceptable. Thus, this construction can’t be viewed as a prototypical double-object clause because, strictly speaking, it illustrates a two-participant interaction, profiling the relation between the initial and intermediate elements of the action chain and leaving out the final element. This type of clause, probably, takes the intermediate position between prototypical two-participant clauses (prototypical transitive constructions) and prototypical three-participant clauses, due to the double interpretation of “you”, i.e. either as a Path +Goal or Benificiary, accordingly.

The existence of the two constructions for description of the same situation illustrates a point that the object can instantiate not only the Patient, its prototypical use, but also some other semantic roles.

C l a u s e c o m b i n a t i o n, i n t e g r a t i o n o f c l a u s e s

There are several ways of combining clauses into larger units. The criterion which is used for classification of clause combinations is the degree of integration between clauses. J.R. Taylor distinguishes minimal integration, coordination, subordination, complementation, clause fusion which reveals the highest degree of integration.

Minimal integration. Two clauses are simply juxtaposed, with no overt linking, e.g.: I came, I saw, I conquered. The clauses are in sequential relation to each other – the first mentioned was the first to occur.

Coordination. Each clause could in principle stand alone as an independent conceptualization. The clauses are linked by means of words such as and, but, or, e.g.: She prefers fish, and/but I prefer pasta. A slightly higher degree of integration is possible if both clauses share the same subject, e.g.: I went up to him and asked the way.

Subordination. Here, there are two clauses, but one is understood in terms of a relation (temporal, causal, etc)to each other. Typical subordinators are after, if, whenever, although.

Complementation represents a closer integration of clauses, in that one clause functions as a participant in another. There are different syntactic forms that a complement clause can take. A complement clause functions as the subject or the object of the main verb. The complement clause may appear as:

• an infinitive without to, e.g.: I saw them break into the house;

• “to”-infinitive, e.g.: To finish it in time was impossible. I advise you to wait a while. I want to go there myself;

• “ing”-form of the verb, e.g.: I avoided meeting them. I can’t imagine him saying that;

• subordinate clause, introduced by that or question words e.g.: I hope that we will see each other again soon, I wonder what we should do.

The highest degree of integration (clause fusion) occurs when two clauses fuse into a single clause, e.g.: These cars are expensive to repair. One could “unpack” this sentence into two independent clauses, designating two different processes: “someone repairing the cars” and “this process is expensive”. In the example the two clausal conceptions have fused into one. We characterize the cars as “expensive” with respect to a certain process.