- •Теоретическая грамматика английского языка
- •Introduction
- •§ 381. Within a sentence, the word or combination of words that contains the meanings of predicativity may be called the predication.
- •§ 384. The main parts of the sentence are those whose function it is to make the predication. They are the subject and the predicate of the sentence.
- •§ 389. In the sentence Birds fly, as we have seen, the syntactical and the lexical meanings of the subject and the predicate go together. But English has a system of devices to separate them.
- •§391. Let us now consider the grammatical word-morphemes do, does, did in sentences like Does she ever smile? We do not know him, etc.
- •§393. Every predication can be either positive or negative.
- •§ 396. As defined (§ 3), when studying the structure of a unit, we find out its components, mostly units of the next lower level, their arrangement and their functions as parts of the unit.
- •§ 399. Some analogy can be drawn between the structure of a word and the structure of a sentence.
- •§ 401. Depending on their relation to the members of the predication the words of a sentence usually fall into two groups — the group of the subject and the group of the predicate 1.
- •§ 403. Sentences with only one predication are called simple sentences. Those with more than one predication have usually no general name 1. We shall call them composite sentences.
- •§ 409. Not all interrogative sentences are syntactical opposites of declarative sentences.
- •§ 411. The sentences below form opposemes of some syntactical category.
- •§ 415. Let us compare the following pairs of sentences:
- •I'll see him I shall see him
- •It's raining It is raining
- •§ 418. We find no predication in the second sentence of the following dialogue.
- •§ 419. The sentence-words yes and no are regularly used as adjuncts of some head-sentences.
- •§ 421. The traditional classification of the parts of the sentence is open to criticism from the point of view of consistency.
- •§ 425. The subject of a simple sentence can be a word, a syntactical word-morpheme or a complex.
- •§ 426. We may speak of a secondary subject within a complex. In the following sentence it is the noun head.
- •§ 429. If we compare the subject in English with that of Russian we shall find a considerable difference between them.
- •§ 430. The predicate is the member of a predication containing the mood and tense (or only mood) components of predicativity.
- •§ 431. The predicate can be a word or a syntactical word-morpheme. When it is a notional word, it "is not only the structural but the notional predicate as well.
- •Objective Complements (Objects)
- •§ 448. Like other parts of a simple sentence (clause), objective complements may be expressed by complexes and are then called complex objects.
- •Adverbial Complements (Adverbials)
- •§ 454. Below are some specimens of quantitative adverbial complements.
- •§455. Circumstantial adverbials, or as a. I. Smirnitsky calls them, adverbials of situation, comprise:
- •§ 457. As follows from the string of examples given above, in simple sentences adverbial complements are usually adverbs, nouns (mostly with prepositions), verbids and verbid complexes.
- •§458. Comparing English adverbials with those in Russian one can see that despite some common features (meaning, types), they are in a number of points different.
- •§ 459. Attributes are secondary parts of the sentence serving to modify nouns or noun-equivalents in whatever functions they are used in the sentence.
- •§ 460. Attributes are formally indicated only by the position they occupy, save the demonstrative pronouns this, these, that, those which, besides, agree in number with the word they modify.
- •§469. Connectives are linking-words considered as a secondary part of the sentence. They are mostly prepositions and conjunctions.
- •§ 472. The articles resemble particles in being semi-notional and in functioning as specifiers. But they specify only one part of speech, nouns. In this they resemble attributes.
- •§ 473. Parenthetical elements are peculiar parts of the sentence.
- •§ 474. In accordance with their meanings parenthetical elements fall into four major groups:
- •§ 475. In a simple sentence parenthetical elements may be expressed by individual words (modal words, adverbs, nouns) and word-combinations of different nature.
- •§ 476. In most cases parenthetical elements are connected in sense with the sentence as a whole, that is why they have no fixed position in the sentence.
- •I. The Position of the Subject and the Predicate in the Sentence
- •§ 477. We have already dwelt upon the fact that in Modern English syntactical relations of words in the sentence are very often indicated by the position the words occupy in the sentence.
- •II. The Position of the Object
- •§ 479. The direct object is usually placed after the verb unless the indirect object precedes it.
- •§ 480. Sometimes the object is pushed to the front of the sentence. It occurs:
- •§ 482. The indirect object cannot be used in the sentence without the direct object. The indirect object is regularly put before the direct object as in That gave me a new idea.
- •§ 483. In most cases they follow the direct object, though for stylistic purposes, I. E. For emphasis and expressiveness, they may be placed at the head of the sentence.
- •§ 487. The position of an attribute depends both on the head-word and on the attribute. If the head-word is a pronoun, the attribute is, as a rule, postpositive.
- •§ 488. In postposition attributes often acquire what we might call a 'semi-predicative' connotation.
- •§ 489. If there are two or more prepositive attributes to one and the same noun their order is dependent upon a number of factors which appear to be semantic and stylistic rather than grammatical.
- •§ 491. As to the position of the other parts of the sentence, see the combinability of the corresponding parts of speech.
- •§ 497. The compound sentence usually describes events in their natural order, reflecting the march of events spoken of in the sequence of clauses.2
- •§ 498. The principal clauses of complex sentences are usually not classified, though their meanings are not neutral with regard to the meanings of the subordinate clauses.
- •§ 502. Subordinate clauses are connected with the principal clause by conjunctions, conjunctive and relative pronouns or asyndetically.
- •§ 506. The mood of the predicate verb of a subordinate clause depends on the principal clause to a greater extent than its tense.
- •§ 507. The subject clause is the only one used in the function of a primary part of the sentence.
- •§ 519. A variety of attributive clauses is the appositive clause, which formally differs from an attributive clause in being introduced by a conjunction (that, if, whether).
- •§ 520. Extension clauses are postpositive adjuncts of adjectives, adverbs and adlinks.
- •§ 521. Most authors who do not regard parenthetical elements as parts of the sentence treat It is past ten, 1 think as a simple sentence. We do not find this view convincing.
- •§ 522. In most cases parenthetical clauses are introduced asyndetically, though now and again the conjunctions as, if, etc. Are used.
- •§ 523. Sometimes subordination and coordination may be combined within one sentence, in which case we may have compound-complex and complex-compound sentences.
- •§ 524. Among the composite sentences of English and other languages we find a peculiar type differing from the rest.
- •§ 525. There is no agreement as to the syntactical nature of a sentence like He said, "I love you".
- •§ 526. Let us compare the two sentences:
- •§ 527. The introductory part of direct speech may precede the quotation, follow it, or be inserted in it.
- •§ 528. The so-called 'indirect speech' does not differ grammatically from the conventional types of sentences.
- •§ 529. The "rules for changing from direct into indirect speech" found in most English grammars are rules for reducing two predicative centres to one — that of the author.
- •Conclusion
- •§ 535. The syntactical system of a language is, as a rule, closely connected with its morphological system. The structure of the sentence and the structure of the word are interdependent.
- •§ 537. The role of grammatical word-morphemes is even greater in English syntax than in morphology.
- •§ 539. It is owing to most of the features described above that Modern English is spoken of as an analytical language.
Objective Complements (Objects)
§ 443. Objective complements (objects) may be defined as noun (or noun-equivalent) adjuncts of objective verbs, denoting the object of the action or its subject (the by-phrase). Our definition does not differ essentially from that given by A. I. Smirnitsky: «Дополнение — это второстепенный член предложения, обозначающий предмет, участвующий в процессе, причем это обозначение не связывается с выражением предикации».
From the definition given it is clear that the object is not bound with any definite part of the sentence, it is attached to the verb.
In the following examples objective complements are associated with different parts of the sentence.
Writing letters for the homesick patients was her self-imposed duty. (Randall).
The object is attached to the subject.
He carried out experiments in surgery. (Daily Worker). It is connected with the predicate.
Adrian was filled not with futile rebellion. (Galsworthy).
The object is connected with the predicative complement.
There was no time to see h e r. (Jerome). Her is an objective complement connected with the attribute.
§ 444. In English, objects are primarily divided into prepositional and prepositionless. The latter are, according to their meaning and position in the sentence, further divided into direct and indirect objects.
The direct object denotes something (or somebody) directly affected by the action of the verb. The indirect object usually denotes the person for whose benefit the action is performed or towards whom it is directed: He sent me (indirect) a letter (direct).
The indirect object usually precedes the direct object and cannot be used without it. In He sent me "me" would be understood as a direct object.
The prepositional object with to (the so-called to-phrase) and for (the for-phrase) are often grammatical synonyms of the indirect object. Accordingly, the sentence I offered the student my book can be transformed into I offered my book to the student, I bought him a toy into I bought a toy for him. The direct object is used with a much greater number of verbs than the indirect object, has practically no structural synonyms, and is often so closely connected with the verb that the meaning of the latter is vague without its object. The sentence I made, for instance, is not clear unless the objective complement a shelf or tea or a report is added.
§ 445. Sometimes a verb may take two direct objects, e. g. They asked him questions. Though this sentence is structurally similar to They gave him books the functions of him in the two sentences are different. In the first sentence it can be used without the second object (Don't ask him), in the second it cannot. The same in the corresponding passive constructions: He was asked but not He was given. So in the first sentence him is a direct object, in the second — an indirect one.
§ 446. Besides the direct and indirect objects linguists distinguish the so-called cognate object. In the sentences She slept a sound sleep. We live a happy life the verbs to sleep and to live, usually subjective, seem to take direct objects. But these objects are of peculiar nature: they do not denote anything that is outside the action and affected by it, as is the case with most objects. The nouns sleep anf life are cognate with the verbs to sleep and to live, i. e. they are of common origin and kindred meaning. They modify the verb rather as adverbials than as objects. Cf.: She slept a sound sleep. = She slept soundly. We live a happy life. = We life happily.
Here is one of the links between objective and adverbial complements. Another link is a case like They passed a mile in silence where a mile may be taken for a direct object to the transitive verb to pass, or, in accordance with the meaning of the noun mile, for an adverbial complement of place. Cf. They walked a mile. He passed five years in the Far North.
§ 447. Objective complements, as defined, may be nouns or noun-equivalents. Among the latter we may count the gerund, and the infinitive, alone or together with their subject-words (i. e. the whole complex).
A. I. Smirnitsky is of the opinion that, unlike the gerund, the infinitive cannot function as an objective complement. The arguments are as follows.
a) Since it is never preceded by a preposition, it cannot be a prepositional object, and prepositionless objects exist only as contrasted with prepositional ones.
b) The infinitive is sometimes used in positions where no noun objects are used, e. g. I am glad to) see you.
c) In sentences like I want to go there the infinitive does not denote the object of the action of wanting (as in the case of I want a book). It rather unfolds the content of that action.
There is no denying the fact that the infinitive differs from the noun in many respects, including the features mentioned by A. I. Smirnitsky, but we do not think this prevents the infinitive from being an object when it is the complement of an objective verb. The infinitive is not preceded by prepositions and has the verbal meaning of 'action' when discharging other functions in common with nouns. Cf. a book to read and a book for Sunday, he came for a book and he came to study. But A. I. Smirnitsky does not deny the infinitive the functions of an attribute or an adverbial on the same grounds. Moreover, he reminds his readers that the infinitive is nominal by origin, and the particle to is a preposition by origin, and that accounts for the fact that the infinitive as an attribute is placed in the same position as a noun with a preposition.
In a sentence like His intention was to write a book the very possibility of connecting the noun intention and the infinitive to write with the help of the link-verb to be proves the nominal character of the infinitive. The same in the sentence To write a book was his а т b i t i о п. Similarly in the sentence His intention to write a book was not realized, where to write is a kind of apposition to the noun intention.
We think that the nominal nature of the infinitive, sufficiently well preserved to allow its being used as a subject, an attribute, a predicative and an adverbial complement, suffices to make it an objective complement in cases like I promised him to come (cf. I promised him a fair hearing). I forgot to shave (cf. I forgot the key), etc.