§ 415. Let us compare the following pairs of sentences:

Come Do come -

He came He did come

I'll see him I shall see him

It's raining ft is raining

The sentences above can be regarded as opposemes of the category of expressiveness. The two particular meanings are those of 'emphatic' and 'non-emphatic' expressiveness.

'Non-emphatic' expressiveness has a zero form, whereas 'emphasis' is expressed by a strong accent on a word-morpheme (morphological or syntactical). In sentences like He did come a special syntactical word-morpheme is placed before the notional verb to receive the stress.,¹.

Combinations of Sentences

§ 416. The sentence is usually the limit of grammatical analysis. Conrbinations of sentences have never got adequate attention on the part of linguists. Yet the necessity of extending linguistic analysis beyond the bounds of the sentence has of late been frequently emphasized. ²

¹ H. Gleason writes: "The difference between The boy ran away and The boy did run away is not a matter of the presence or the absence of did. Only of the stress position. Did is there only to provide a meaning­ less carrier for that stress in the required position If anything else were available did would not occur. Compare The boy will run away. The boy will run away". (Op cit p 174—175).

² See K. Pike, op. cit., p 30- "We are forced to insist that linguistic analysis must take as part of its essential domain the treatment of units larger than the sentence. Without these higher-level units there are not available adequate matrices for determining sentences themselves."

See also Z. Harris. Structural Linguistics. Preface for the Fourth Impression: "Exact linguistic analysis does not go beyond the limits of a sentence: the stringent demands of its procedures are not satisfied by the relations between the sentence and its neighbors, or between parts of one sentence and parts of its neighbors. There are however structural features which extend over longer stretches of each connected

246

We should naturally consider the analysis of a word in­complete without its combinability. But for some reason the combinability of sentences is not regarded important. One might think that each sentence is an absolutely indepen­dent unit, that its forms and meanings do not depend on its neighbours in speech. But it is not so. As H. Kufner has it, "In a very real sense very few groups of words which we would unanimously punctuate as sentences can really be called com­plete or capable of standing alone ... Most of the-sentences that we speak ... are dependent on what has been said before". ¹

It goes without saying that in a book of this kind the uninvestigated problem of the combinability of sentences cannot get adequate treatment. We can only point out some lines of approach.

§ 417. As we have already noted (§ 399), the demarcation line between a sentence and a combination of sentences is very vague. Some part of a simple or composite sentence may become detached from the rest and pronounced after a pause with the intonation of a separate sentence. In writing this is often marked by punctuation. Here are some examples from A Cup of Tea by Mansfield.

She'd only to cross the pavement.

Give me four bunches of those.

Give me those stumpy little tulips.

But still she waited. And that jar of roses. Those red and white ones.

The connection between such sentences is quite evident. The word-combination those red and white ones can make a communication only when combined with some sentence whose predication is understood to refer to the word-combi­nation as well.

But even in case a sentence has its own predication, it may depend on some other sentence, or be coordinated with it, or otherwise connected, so that they form a combination of sentences. In the first of the examples above this connection is expressed by the conjunction but. The following sentences are connected by the pronominal subjects.

piece of writing or talking. These can be investigated by more differen­tiated tools."

¹ H. Kufner, op. cit., p. 1—2.

247

Rosemary had been married two years. She had a duck of a boy ... They were rich. (Mansfield). ^l

The sentences below are connected by what we might be tempted to call 'pronominal predicates', and by the implicit repetition of the notional predicate (group) of the first sentence.

Come home to tea with me. Why won't you? Do. (Mansfield).

The second sentence might be extended at the expense of the first into Why won't you come? or even Why won't you come home to tea with me! Similarly, the third sentence is understood by the listener as Do come, or Do come home to tea with me. .