English Theoretical Grammar

2. Disjunctive conjunctions: or, either…or, or else, else. They offer some choice between one statement and another.

3. Adversative conjunctions: but, while, whereas. They show that one statement or fact is contrasted with or set against another.

4. Causative-consecutive conjunctions: so, for. They denote consequence, result, or reason.

Subordinating conjunctions generally join a subordinate or dependent clause to a principal clause, or adverbial modifiers to the predicate in a simple sentence, or sometimes they join homogeneous parts.

(d) Polysemy of conjunctions may be demonstrated by the example of the subordinating conjunction ‘that’ which may introduce different kinds of clauses(subject, predicative, object, etc.).

Synonymy of conjunctions is easily seen in such pairs as: in order – so as (that), as if – as though, etc.

Point 2. The preposition. The problem of the meaning of the preposition. The classification of prepositions. Grammatical functions of prepositions. Interconversion of prepositions and other parts of speech.

(a) The preposition is a part of speech which denotes the relations between objects and phenomena. It shows the relations between a noun or a pronoun and other words.

(b) The lexical meaning of some prepositions is quite concrete (e.g. in, below, between, before, after, till, etc.), while that of some other prepositions may be weakened to a great extent (e.g. to, by, of).

(c) According to their meanings prepositions may be divided into:

- prepositions of place and direction (in, on, below, under, between, etc.);

- time (after, before, at, etc.);

- prepositions expressing abstract relations (by, with, because of, etc.).

(d) A preposition does not perform any independent function in the sentence; it either reflects a relation between sentence-members, or is included in a word-combination.

(e) Prepositions may function as other parts of speech (e.g. ups and downs), while other parts of speech may serve as prepositions (e.g. owing to, in spite of).

Point 3. Particles. Grounds for setting off particles as parts of speech. The role of particles in the sentence.

(a) The particle is a part of speech giving modal or emotional emphasis to other words or groups of words or clauses.

(b) The theory of particles has not yet been elaborated well enough. Almost all the particles are homonymous with other parts of speech, chiefly with adverbs (simply), but also with conjunctions (but), pronouns (all), and adjectives (only). The particles ‘else, solely, merely’ have no homonyms. Taking this latter fact into account, as well as the emphasizing and sense-changing functions of the particle, we may set it off as a functional part of speech.

(c) Particles have no independent function in the sentence. Thus they may be treated dubiously: either as independent sentence units, or as parts of the sentence-members they refer to. As the former, they would require a specific name, apart from the traditional five sentence-members, otherwise they should not be considered while analyzing a sentence. As the latter, according to B.A.Illysh, they may lead to a confusion in case of a distant position with regard to the mother-member.

Point 4. The article. The categorial status of the article. The number of articles in the English language. The functions of the article.

(a) The article is a structural part of speech used with nouns.

(b) The categorial status of the article implies that it reflects the category of definiteness or indefiniteness.

(c) Opinions differ as to the number of articles in English. Recently, widespread has been the theory of three articles: the definite article, the indefinite article and the so-called ‘zero’ article. The theory of the zero article is, of course, directly connected with the theory of the zero morpheme. But if we assume that the article is a word, the concept of a ‘zero’ word seems hardly reasonable. Consequently, it appears more feasible to stick to the theory of two articles.

(d) The morphological function of the article is that of indicating the noun. Its syntactical function is that of defining the left border of an attributive word-combination. The main semantic function of the article is that of actualizing the notion; in other words, the article correlates a notion with the reality represented in the given text, i.e. any utterance irrespective of its volume and contents.

Theme 7. SYNTAX.

Point 1. The subject of syntax. The main units of syntax. Syntactic connections. Syntactic synonymy and homonymy. Problems of semantic syntax. Problems of functional syntax.

(a) The subject of syntax is the study of various grammatical structures which are realized as the product of speech-thinking activity of man.

(b) The main units of syntax are the word-combination, the sentence, and the text.

(c) Traditionally, the basic types of connections distinguished in syntax are coordination and subordination. Besides this two-member succession, there is another succession consisting of four members that denote relations called predicative, objective, adverbial and attributive.

Some linguists suppose that the two-member succession may be expanded to a three-member one to include the “interdependence” type, as L.Hjelmslev named it.

(d) Synonymy in syntax implies that one and the same communicative information may be conveyed by means of different syntactic structures (cf.: Having read the book, she took up another one. = As soon as she finished reading the book, she took up another one.).

Homonymy is the coincidence of sound forms of different syntactic functions (cf.: a smoking man – a smoking-room; Watching me closely, the dog slowly retreated. – I noticed a man watching me closely.).

(e) The semantic syntax covers a wide range of problems, among which are the semantics of the word-combination constituents, of the parts of the sentence and of the sentence as a whole, as well as of the role meanings of the sentence components, of the phenomena of the reference, of the presupposition and sequence, etc.

(f) The basic problem of the functional syntax is studying and systematizing various language units (syntactic structures) as they function in the speech-thinking activity of man. This general problem may be subdivided into a number of minor ones, such as the problem of combinability and valency, the problem of syntactical analysis, etc.

Point 2. The word-combination. The theory of the word-combination in linguistics. The classification of word-combinations.

(a) The word-combination is defined in different ways. Some scholars assume that it is a group of words which does not possess any communicative purpose. This definition is, no doubt, correct, but it is not complete. Most linguists are of the opinion that the word-combination is any syntactically organized group of words irrespective of the type of relations on which it is based. But in any case it is a grammatical structure.

(b) The issue of the word-combination was first mentioned by Russian linguists in their early studies of grammar in the 18th century. But it was not until late in the 19th century and especially early in the 20th century that a really scientific theory of the word-combination appeared. It was developed by outstanding Russian linguists F.F.Fortunatov, A.A.Shakhmatov and others. The definition of the word-combination as any syntactically organized group was predominant up to the 1950s. That viewpoint is still shared by Ukrainian linguists (G.G.Pocheptsov and others), and it was supported by Western scholars (L.Bloomfield and others).

In the 1950s a new approach found its way. The term ‘word-combination’ was interpreted as a combination of at least two notional words in subordination. This viewpoint was worded by Acad. Vinogradov and supported by many linguists.

(c) The classification of word-combinations may be based on space-position relations, on the one hand. The resulting types of word-combinations are those based on the linear space-position relations and those based on the sublinear space-position relations (independent and dependent).

On the other hand, the classification may be based on the internal structure of word-combinations. They are then classified as kernel and non-kernel.

Kernel word-combinations are grammatically organized structures in which one element dominates the others. This element is the kernel (the head, according to L.Bloomfield).

Non-kernel word-combinations are not united by any single common structural feature. They are, in turn, subdivided into independent (easy and simple; she nodded) and dependent (\send\ him a letter).

Theme 8. THE SENTENCE.

Point 1.1. Problems of the definition of the sentence. The fundamental features of the sentence. Predication and modality of the affirmation and negation. The correlation of the notions “the sentence” and “the utterance”. The level analysis of the sentence. The structural and syntactic characteristics of the sentence. Principal and secondary parts of the sentence. The complicating elements of the sentence: homogeneous, specifying, and detached parts of the sentence.

(a) The sentence is the immediate integral unit of speech built up of words according to a definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a contextually relevant communicative purpose. Any coherent connection of words having an informative destination is effected within the framework of the sentence. Therefore the sentence is the main object of syntax as part of the grammatical theory.

The sentence, being composed of words, may in certain cases include only one word of various lexico-grammatical standing. (Congratulations! Why? Certainly.)

The actual existence of one-word sentences, however, does not contradict the general idea of the sentence as a special syntactic combination of words. A word-sentence as a unit of the text is radically different from a word-lexeme as a unit of lexicon, the differentiation being inherent in the respective places occupied by the sentence and the word in the hierarchy of language levels.

(b) The sentence not only names some referents with the help of its word-constituents, but also, first, presents these referents as making up a certain situation, or, more specifically, a situational event, and second, reflects the connection between the nominal denotation of the event on the one hand, and objective reality on the other, showing the time of the event, its being real or unreal, desirable or undesirable, necessary or unnecessary, etc. Thus a sentence possesses predication, modality, form and intonation.

(c) The sentence is characterized by its specific category of predication which establishes the relation of the named phenomena to actual life. The general semantic category of modality is also defined by linguists as exposing the connection between the named objects and surrounding reality. However, modality, as different from predication, is not specifically confined to the sentence: it is revealed both in the grammatical elements of language and its lexical, purely nominative elements. Predication and modality of the affirmation and negation are both reflected in language by means of syntactical or lexical devices since they are similar intonationally.

(d) The notions of the sentence and the utterance are very similar and often overlap each other. The above-mentioned definition of the sentence, if compared to that of the utterance as “any stretch of talk, by one person, before and after which there is silence on the part of the person”(Z.S.Harris.”Method in Structural Linguistics”.Chicago.1960,p.14), will show that both units are means of communication. A distinct difference may be seen in the way they are organized. Besides, the notion of the utterance is much wider as the latter may consist of a word, a word-combination (or a phrase), a sentence and even a text.

(e) The level of the sentence, the so-called “proposematic” level, will include smaller levels going upward from the “phrasematic” level through the nomination and predication levels. According to Ch.Fries, the level analysis should also go down to the lexemic level (or rather the level of the parts of speech). The details of this type of analysis were considered in the section dealing with modern methods of grammatical analysis.

(f) The structural scheme of an English sentence is rather simple and fixed. It consists of the principal parts (subject and predicate) and the secondary parts (object, attribute, adverbial modifier). This scheme may be elementary (a simple sentence) or sophisticated (a composite sentence) but its syntactic characteristics are generally the same. Two-member sentences and one-member sentences are vivid examples of purely syntactical opposition, though some scholars treat them as examples of ellipsis.

(g) In a sentence we distinguish the principal parts, secondary parts and independent elements. The principal parts of a sentence are the subject and the predicate. The independent elements are interjections, direct address and parenthesis.

The subject is the principal part of the sentence which is grammatically independent of the other parts of the sentence. The subject can denote a living being, a lifeless thing or an idea. It can be expressed by:

1.                 A noun in the common (nominative) case.

2.                 A pronoun – personal, demonstrative, defining, indefinite, negative, possessive, interrogative.

3.                 A substantivized adjective or participle.

4.                 A numeral.

5.                 An infinitive, an infinitive phrase or construction.

6.                 A gerund, a gerundial phrase or construction.

7.                 Any part of speech used as a quotation, or a quotation group.

8.                 A group of words which is one part of the sentence, i.e. a syntactically indivisible group.

The predicate is the principal part of the sentence which expresses an action, state, or quality of the person, thing, or idea denoted by the subject. It is grammatically dependent upon the subject.

As a rule the predicate contains a finite verb which may express tense, mood, voice, aspect, and sometimes person and number. According to the structure and the meaning of the predicate we distinguish two main types: the simple predicate and the compound predicate.

The simple predicate is expressed by a finite verb in a simple or a compound tense form. It generally denotes an action; sometimes, however, it denotes a state which is represented as an action. There is a special kind of predicate expressed by a phraseological unit, the so-called phraseological predicate.

The compound predicate consists of two parts: (a) a finite verb and (b) some other part of speech: a noun, a pronoun, an adjective, a verbal, etc. The second component is the significant part of the predicate. The first part expresses the verbal categories of person, number, tense, aspect, mood and voice; besides it has a certain lexical meaning of its own. The compound predicate may be nominal or verbal.

The compound nominal predicate consists of a link verb and a predicative (the latter is also called the nominal part of the predicate).

The compound verbal predicate consists of a modal verb (modal expression) or a verb expressing the beginning, repetition, duration or cessation of the action, and an infinitive or a gerund.

There are also mixed types of predicates.

The object is a secondary part of the sentence which completes or restricts the meaning of a verb or sometimes an adjective, a word denoting state, or a noun. There are three kinds of object in English: the direct object, the indirect object, and the cognate object (e.g. to live a happy life).

The attribute is a secondary part of the sentence which qualifies a noun, a pronoun, or any other part of speech that has a nominal character. There is a special kind of attribute called apposition which may be close or loose (detached).

The adverbial modifier is a secondary part of the sentence which modifies a verb, an adjective or an adverb. There exist adverbial modifiers of time, frequency, place and direction, attendant circumstances, degree and measure, cause, result (consequence), comparison, concession and purpose.

(h)              The complicating elements of the sentence are homogeneous members (two or more subjects, predicates, etc.), specifying parts of the sentence (objects, attributes, adverbial modifiers) and detached, or loose, parts of the sentence, i.e. those which assume a certain grammatical and semantic independence. In spoken language they are marked by intonation, pauses, and special stress; in written language they are generally separated by commas or dashes.

Theme 8. THE SENTENCE (continued)

Point 1.2. Models of the sentence. The notion of the syntactic paradigm. The word order in the sentence. Semantic and syntactic characteristics of the sentence. The notion of predicative and non-predicative symbols. Types of predicates. The notion of inclusive and included predicates. The role semantics of the sentence. The notion of presupposition.

(a) The sentence as a unit of information in the speech succession sets off its own generalized model, a typical construction which stands behind the concrete lexico-semantic composition of the utterance bound to its context. This model is a combination of two essential signemic functions of the sentence: the nominative and the predicative. However, different types of sentences have their own characteristic models that are observed in most cases. Thus we may speak of a specific model of a declarative sentence (a fixed word order, a falling intonation), an interrogative sentence (structural or structural and morphological changes, a rising or/and falling intonation), a complex sentence, etc.

(b)             There are some general principles of constructing syntactic paradigms of predicative functions, with a differentiation between syntactic paradigms of the ‘normal’ type and the ‘actual’ type.

The normal paradigm of a sentence should include all forms of its changing, e.g. This is true. – This isn’t true. – Is this true? – This is true, isn’t it?, etc.

The actual paradigm should be based upon a real sentence of the text, e.g. She couldn’t hear it. – Couldn’t she hear it? – She couldn’t have heard it. – It couldn’t be heard by her., etc.

(c)              Arrangement, or order of words is of especially great importance in such languages as English whose inflexion is comparatively scarce and syntactic relations are chiefly expressed by analytical means. Words have to be arranged in a definite order, in a definite succession to express such syntactic relations as, say, attributive, predicative, subject-object relations. It is preferable to distinguish between two sets of phenomena within a sentence:

(1)normal order, which may be either the order “subject-predicate”, as in most declarative sentences, or “predicate-subject”, as in most interrogative and in some declarative sentences (There are many people in the room. There came a thunderstorm.)

(2)inverted order, or inversion, which may be the order “predicate-subject” in a special type of a declarative sentence (Only at sunset did I leave the house.) or “subject-predicate” in a special type of a sentence characterized in general by the order “predicate-subject” (the latter is a very rare phenomenon indeed).

(d)             Taking into consideration the two-aspective character of the sentence as a signemic unit of language, predication should be interpreted not simply as referring the content of the sentence to reality, but as referring the nominative content of the sentence to reality. It is this interpretation of the semantico-functional nature of predication that discloses, in one and the same generalized presentation, both the unity of the two identified aspects of the sentence, and also their different, though mutually complementary meaningful roles.

(e)       The predicate expresses two variants of structural meanings:

- the meaning inherent in the predicate as a definite part of the sentence, i.e. the meaning of the predicative signal;

- the meanings connected with the grammatical categories of a finite verb ( the meanings of mood and tense, voice, person and number), i.e. the meanings of non-predicative signals.

(f)               There are two basic types of predicates: the verbal predicate and the nominal predicate. Some linguists set off a third type of predicates – the phraseological predicate. All the three types have been mentioned and described in detail earlier, in the lecture dealing with the predicate.

(g)              Besides simple predicates consisting of only finite verbs, there may be inclusive and included predicates.

Inclusive predicates are such structures which contain a finite verb and some other parts of speech, e.g. We are sitting. – She had breakfast. – He is supposed to have arrived.

Included predicates are parts of larger structures, e.g. There appeared a young girl in the doorway.

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5