Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. Учебно-методическое пособие

4.N – V intr. – Adv. Mod. of place – He lives in France.

5.N – V trans. – Obj. direct – Adv. mod. of manner – He treated the boy cruelly.

6.N – V intrans. – Adv. mod. of manner / comp. – She behaved like an angel .

The number of these structural schemes is limited for every language and constitutes its syntactic base. All the variety of sentences that occur in speech appear as the result of various modifications of the elementary sentence. These modifications may either extend or compress the elementary sentence. The most important processes of extending the elementary sentence are the following:

1.Extension. It consists in adding to a part of the sentence a unit of the same syntactic status. As the result of extension we have sentences with homogenous parts.

2.Expansion . It consists in modifying one part of the sentence by another, subordinated to it. Expansion results in the formation of subject, predicate, object and adverbial modifier groups.

3.Compounding consists in changing a part of the sentence (usually the predicate) from simple to compound. The predicate may be compounded by the introduction of either modal or aspective component or both of them at a time.

4.Contamination results in the formation of the so-called double predicate in which the verb becomes syncretic and fulfils a double function: that of a notional verb that of a link verb.

5.Detachment consists in accentuating a part of a sentence and is achieved by a pause in oral speech and by commas or dashes in writing.

6.The ultimate degree of detachment results in parcellation as the result of which the detached part of the sentence is separated from the rest of the sentence by a full stop and forms a separate syntactic structure.

The processes of compressing the elementary sentence are less numerous and include substitution, representation and ellipsis.

Substitution consists in replacing a part of a sentence or a whole sentence by a word-substitute. The most frequent substitutes are: it. this. one, so, do etc.

Representation is a use of a part of a syntactic unit or a or a part of a grammatical form to represent the whole form

Ellipsis is deleting from a sentence one or more parts which are redundant from the informative point of view. The deleted parts can easily be restored either from the previous context or from analogous structures which exist in the language.

Substitution, representation and ellipsis reveal the principle of economy in the language and learning to use these means of compression actually means learning to speak authentic English.

Seminar Class

1.Give the classification of sentences according to their structure. Point out the marginal structural types of sentences. Characterize the essence and give examples of semicompound and semicomplex sentences,

2.Comment on the term “a simple unextended sentence”. Why can it not be used as an instrument of syntactic analysis? Speak about the theory of valency, point out types of valency. What is the structural minimum of the sentence? What is the elementary sentence? Give the list of the most typical structural schemes of sentences in English and elementary sentences based on them.

3.Speak about the processes of extending and compressing the elementary sentence. Give examples of these processes.

Exercises

I. State the structural type of the following sentences.

1. Mysteriously joyful, she went to open the door (A. Carter).

2. The spring came richly and the hills lay deep in grass (J. Steinbeck).

3.I see - Mr. Rochester sitting here, a book and a pencil in his hand; he is writing (Ch. Bronte).

4.She looked first at me, then at the painted lady (Amy Tan).

5.Soames waited breathless at the top of the stairs (J. Galsworthy).

6.Who and what he was Martin never learned (J. London).

7.Stella had been brought up in an orphanage, which my mother seemed to feel was somehow her own fault (A. Miller).

7. And then the weather breaks. In the past it always has (S. Turow).

8.That is no answer, it is very irritating because it is a very evasive one (Ch. Bronte).

9.“How’s work?” “No leads and no results” (S. Turow).

10.I went directly to her office, eleven o’clock one morning

(S. Turow).

11.Rauy Pearson arose and stood staring (Sh. Anserson).

12.How sweet I roamed, or, rather, used to roam (A. Carter)

The central notion of the semantic aspect of the sentence is that of the semantic (deep) structure of the sentence, which is defined as the generalized semantic contents, revealed in the analysis of semantically homogenuous sentences. In other words the semantic structure is just another name for the meaning of the sentence, yet the term ‘semantic structure’ is not redundant, but, on the contrary, it appears to be more convenient as it implies a certain organization and certain relations between its components. The components of the semantic structure of the sentence have been named differently: actants, deep cases, semantic arguments, or semantic roles. The analysis of the semantic structure of the sentence and of the relations between the semantic and syntactic structures makes it possible to consistently differentiate between the primary and secondary semantic functions of the sentence parts and reveal the semantic potential of each part of the sentence as well as to point out and analyze the cases of synonymy and polysemy in the sphere of syntax.

Once it is possible to speak about the semantic structure of the sentence, it is possible to speak about semantic types of sentences and their classification. There are several approaches to the classification of semantic types of sentences. As the sentence is built around the predicate most of the existing classifications are based on the semantic type of the predicate or on the valency characteristics of it. Thus,

W. Chafe differentiates between three semantic types of predicates and, consequently, between three semantic types of sentences: 1) statal sentences – The wood is dry; 2) process sentences – The wood dried; 3) action sentences – Harriet broke the dish.

The semantic classification of sentences worked out by N.D.Arutyunova has at its basis the logical types of situations reflected in the sentence. In accordance with these types it is possible to point out four semantic types of sentences: 1) sentences of nomination – The inevitable happened; 2) sentences of existence – Once upon a time there lived a blind poet; 3) sentences of characterization – He was a real gentleman; 4) sentences of identification – So you are the Holmes.

The sentence possesses the syntactic (formal, or surface) structure which can be observed directly and semantic (deep) structure which is not given by direct observation and can be revealed by means of semantic interpretation of the sentence and its parts. The consistent differentiation between the formal and the semantic structures of the sentence makes it possible to analyze the relations between them. These relations may be of two kinds: symmetrical and asymmetrical. There certainly exists a fundamental parallelism between the parts of the sentence and their semantic roles in the sentence which is reflected in the co called primary semantic functions of the parts of the sentence.

The fundamental parallelism is often broken and as everywhere in the language cases of asymmetry occur more frequently than cases of symmetry. Asymmetry between the syntactic and semantic structures of the sentence may find various manifestations in the sentence. Here are the most typical cases:

1.Not all semantic arguments may be presented in the surface structure of the sentence. Thus, in passive constructions the agent of the action is very often not expressed explicitly.

2.One and the same part of the sentence may carry out different semantic functions in the sentence. Thus, the subject whose primary semantic function is the agent of the action may denote the object of the action, the addressee, the place, the time, the cause, the instrument and the action itself. On the other hand, one and the same semantic function may be expressed by different parts of the sentence, e.g. He smiled sadly. He smiled a sad smile.

3.Sentences may have different syntactical but identical semantic structures: He was a good story teller. He told a story well. The sentences have different syntactic structures, but both express characterization and can be referred to one and the same semantic type of sentences – sentences of characterization.

4.Sentences may have identical syntactic, but different semantic structures, e.g. He told a story well (sentence of characterization) and He told the story well (sentence of nomination).

5.A sentence may be syntactically simple but semantically complex and vice versa. E.g. I married a coward. It’s you who did it. The first sentence is syntactically simple but semantically complex as it presents a combination of two semantic types of sentences: that of nomination and that of characterization. The second sentence is syntactically complex and its semantic structure is simple as it denotes one event of reality and belongs to the semantic type of identification.

The study of the semantic aspect of the sentence, the analysis of the ways of expressing identical semantic functions in different languages helps to point out the cases of similarity as well as the cases of difference between the languages. Thus, one of the most characteristic typological features of the English subject is that it is used in its secondary semantic functions much more frequently than the Russian subject which often results in the fact that Russian learners of English sometimes use structures which are not quite authentic in English.

Seminar Class

1.Point out the scope of problems which are in the focus of semantic syntax. Speak about the semantic structure of the sentence as the central notion of semantic syntax. Compare various definitions of the semantic structure and choose the most adequate.

2.Speak about the problem of semantic modelling in syntax. Analyze various classifications of semantic types of sentences and comment on them.

3.Speak about the relations between the formal (syntactic) and the semantic structures of the sentence. Give examples of these relations.

Exercises

I. Analyze the sentences and state the semantic types of sentences they can be referred to.

1.I struck a match and examined the two massive doors. They were inpenetratable (J. Fowles).

2.The walls were whitewashed and the ceilings were twelve or fourteen feet in height (P. Taylor).

3.The great turkey dance went on for nearly two hours. Wine and more wine, food and more food (R.J. Waller).

4.What a god-awful place. It smells (J. Fowles).

5.“Oh, that is the light in which you view it (Ch. Bronte)

6.There was only one showing of the lion’s claws (J. Fowles).

7.And for a moment he wanted to run, to hide in the shadow somewhere, anywhere. Anywhere that had a warm sun and simple ways (R.J. Waller).

8.Adele is not answerable for either her mother’s faults or yours

(Ch. Bronte).

9.The voice had sounded familiar, but I knew it wasn’t Caroline’s

(P. Taylor).

10.Apparently there had been few, if any, improvements or alterations since the time they were built (P. Taylor).

II. Analyze the sentences and comment on the relations between the syntactic and semantic structures in them.

1.Words are like gods. They are widely accepted as means of creation (C. Laird).

2.Speaking makes a ready man; writing makes a careful man (F. Bacon).

3.He did nothing but smile, a bitter, cunning, tell-you-nothing smile (T. Chamales).

4.His voice was full and manly. He told a story well. He was never dull (S. Maugham).

5.It’s the silences that hurt (R. Kipling).

6.Once upon a time a whale was eating fishes (R. Kipling).

7.She watched him pale-facedly (J. Galsworthy).

8.As he did so there was a cry, an exclamation (J. Fowles).

9.A phone call to the Yard and two hours’ wait had taken care of the problem (E. George).

10.She knew she was marrying a loser (A. Hoffman).

From the point of view of its role in discourse the sentence is defined as a minimum unit of communication. Every sentence is uttered with a certain communicative aim: either to share information with the listener, or to ask for information, or to induce the listener to some action. According to their communicative aim sentences are divided into three types: declarative, interrogative and imperative. As a rule one communicative type differs from another not only in the purpose of communication, but also in structure, intonation and the listener’s response.

The declarative sentence expresses a statement, either affirmative or negative. Declarative sentences are characterized by a direct word order, a falling tone and are correlated with the listener’s responding signal of attention, which may express agreement, disagreement, sympathy, approval, appraisal etc.

The interrogative sentence presents a request for information wanted by the speaker from the listener. It also differs structurally from the declarative sentence by an inverted word order. The usual response to an interrogative sentence is an answer which, together with the question, forms a question – answer dialogue unity. Traditionally interrogative sentences are subdivided into several subclasses: general, special, alternative and so called disjunctive (or tag) questions. This classification however is more structural than communicative in its essence, it reflects the difference in the structure of the questions more than the difference in the communicative intention of the speaker.

The imperative sentence expresses inducement, either affirmative or negative (prohibition) and its communicative function is to induce the listener to perform (or not to perform) an action. Structurally the imperative sentence are usually subjectless and the verb is used in the form of the Imperative mood. They are correlated with the listener’s verbal or nonverbal response showing whether the inducement is carried out or rejected.

The development of pragmatics and the theory of speech acts made it possible to elaborate on the traditional classification of sentences according to the aim of communication and to give a more detailed classification. The speech act is considered to be the minimal unit of communication. If we analyze our speech from this aspect we shall see that all communication can be dissected into such minimal units: when we communicate we inform, state, promise, ask, beg, order, warn, invite, suggest and perform other communicative acts.

In some grammar books the authors point out one more communicative type – exclamatory sentences. However, they can hardly be placed on the same level with the three communicative types because they differ in their communicative status. If the function of the declarative sentence is to give information, the function of interrogative sentences is to ask for information, the function of imperative sentences is to induce the speaker to an action, the function of exclamatory sentences is just to express the speaker’s emotions and that shows very clearly their difference from the three communicative types. The emotive charge, expressed by exclamatory sentences presents an additional feature that may accompany any other communicative type of sentences. So each communicative type of the sentence may be exclamatory and non-exclamatory.

The analysis of communicative types of sentences from the aspect of syntactic structures in which the communicative aims are realized reveals a fundamental parallelism between a communicative function and a syntactic structure. Yet this parallelism is not absolute and in the process of real communication each of the communicative types of sentences may carry out secondary communicative functions, i.e. be transposed into the sphere of other communicative types. Transpositions

on the level of communicative types occur quite frequently and embrace all communicative types of sentences.

Thus, a declarative sentence may be used as a request for information when it is supported by the proper intonation, e.g. So you are familiar with the town? This type of questions is called ‘suggestive’ and in their communicative function they are often close to confirmative questions. Declarative sentences are often transposed into the sphere of imperative sentences. E.g. I want you to be quiet – the meaning of inducement in this sentence is expressed lexically – by the semantics of the verb to want.

Interrogative sentences can be transposed in the sphere of declarative and imperative. The most typical example of an interrogative sentence transposed into the sphere of a declarative sentence is the so called rhetorical question which from the point of view of its communicative function presents an emphatic statement and the formal proof to it is the absence of an answer to such questions

Interrogative sentences of the ‘Will (would) you’ type are regularly used to express inducement, and in this sphere they occur perhaps more frequently than the forms of the Imperative mood, which is in exact accordance with the rules of speech etiquette. E.g. Will you come near the fire, please?. Transposition of imperative sentences into the sphere of interrogative takes place with verbs of speech activity, e.g. “Tell me your name!” communicatively does not differ much from “What’s your name?’.

As is always the case with transposition, the primary communicative meaning of the sentence does not disappear completely but is shifted to the background giving way to the secondary meaning. This interplay of two meanings creates the effect of transpositions and make them an effective means of expressive syntax.

In the process of communication one and the same sentence may be used for making different utterances. Thus the sentence William Shakespeare was born in Stratford-upon-Avon may produce three utterances. If it is used as an answer to the question “Where was William

Shakespeare born?” it is pronounced with the logical stress on the adverbial modifier or the other parts of the sentence may be deleted. If it is used as an answer to a question “Did William Shakespeare live all his life in London?” it is pronounced with the logical stress on the