INTRODUCTION

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 459.

Syntax

CONTENTS

ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА АНГЛИЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКА

ИЗДАТЕЛЬСТВО «ВЫСШАЯ ШКОЛА» Москва 1967

Introduction............................................................. 2

The Structure of a Sentence................................ 8

The Classification of Sentences...................................... 11

Combinations of Sentences............................................ 14

The Simple Sentence...................................................... 16

Parts of the Sentence .................................... 16

Primary Parts...................................................... 17

The Subject........................................................... 17

The Predicate ................................................. 18.

Secondary Parts................................................... 19

Complements...... . ................................................. 19

Predicative Complements................................................. 19

Objective Complements........................................... 20

Adverbial Complements .................................... 22

Attributes........................................................ 24

Extensions ......................................................... 25

Connectives.............................................. . . . . 26

Specifiers ................................................ 26

Parenthetical Elements .......................... . 27

Word-Order in Simple Sentences ................................ 27

The Composite Sentence............................................ 30

The Compound Sentence........................................ 32

The Complex Sentence............................................... 32

Direct and Indirect Speech................................ 37

Conclusion.................................................................. 38

SYNTAX

§ 378. The basic unit of syntax is the sentence. There exist many definitions of the sentence, but none of them is generally accepted¹. But in the majority of cases people actually ex­perience no difficulty in separating one sentence from anoth­er in their native tongue. This is reflected in writing, where the graphic form of each sentence is separated by punctuation marks (.!?) from its neighbours.

Though a sentence contains words, it is not merely a group of words (or other units), but something integral, a structural unity built in accordance with one of the patterns existing in a given language. All the sounds of a sentence are united by typical intonation. All the meanings are interlaced accord­ing to some pattern to make one communication.

^{______________________________________________}

¹ See C. Fries, op. cit., ch. II 'What is a sentence?' Here is another brief survey of the problem in Form in Modern English by Brown D. W., Brown С. В., Bailey D., New York, 1958, p. 29: "A wholly satisfactory answer to the question 'What is a sentence?' is yet to be formulated, although hundreds of attempts have been made. Of these, two have been most often used in grammar books: (1) A sentence is a group of words that expresses a complete thought and (2) A sentence is a group of words that contains an unsubordinated subject and predicate. The first of these, a 'notional' definition, fails because it is wholly subjective and begs the question. There is no objective standard by which to judge the completeness of a thought, and ultimately we are reduced to the circular assertion that 'a complete thought is a thought that is complete'. On the other hand, the second definition is not more than half truth, for it rules out all verbless sentences, which, as we have already noted, may be just as 'complete' and independent as the verb sentences."

§ 379. A communication is a directed thought. Much in the same way as the position of a point or the direction of a line in space is fixed with the help of a system of coordinates, there exists a system of coordinates to fix the position or direction of a thought in speech. Naturally, only phenomena present at every act of speech can serve as the axes of coordi­nates. They are: a) the act of speech, b) the speaker (or writer), c) reality (as viewed by the speaker).

If taken in their concrete significance, these phenomena are variables because they change with every act of speech. But if taken in a general way, they are constants because they are always there whenever there is language communication. As constants they are fixed in the language, as variables they function in speech.

§ 380. The act of speech is the event with which all other events mentioned in the sentence are correlated in time. This correlation is fixed in English and other languages grammati­cally in the category of tense and lexically in such words as now, yesterday, to-morrow, etc.

The speaker is the person with whom other persons and things mentioned in the sentence are correlated. This corre­lation is fixed grammatically in the category of person of the verb and lexico-grammatically in such words as I , you, he, she, it, they, student, river, etc. (see § 148).

Reality is either accepted as the speaker sees it, or an attempt is made to change it, or some irreality is fancied. Cf. The door is shut. Shut the door. If the door were shut... The attitude towards reality is fixed grammatically in the cate­gory of mood and lexically or lexico-grammatically in words like must, may, probably, etc.

The three relations — to the act of speech, to the speaker and to reality — can be summarized as the relation to the situation of speech. Now the relation of the thought of a sen­tence to the situation of speech is called predicativity. This is the name of the system of coordinates directing the thought of a sentence and distinguishing a sentence from any group of words. Predicativity is as essential a part of the content of the sentence as intonation is of its form. The sentence can thus be defined as a communication unit made up of words (and word-morphemes) in conformity with their combinability ' and structurally united by intonation and predicativity.

Hence intonation may be regarded as the structural formand predicativity as the structural meaningof the sentence.

§ 381. Within a sentence, the word or combination of words that contains the meanings of predicativity may be called the predication.

In the sentence He mused over it for a minute (Conan Doyle) the predication is he mused. He indicates the person, mused — the tense and mood components of predicativity.

In the sentence Tell me something there is a one-word pre­dication tell containing the mood component of predica­tivity. The person component is only implied ¹. As we know (§ 249), imperative mood grammemes have the lexico-gram­matical meaning of 'second person'.

^{_________________________________________}

¹ "The situation generally makes it so obvious who the second person, subject of imperatives is, that its expression is the exception rather than the rule". (A. Martinet, op. cit., p. 59).

§ 382. The simplest relation to the situation of speech can be found in a sentence like Rain which when pronounced with proper intonation merely states the phenomenon "observed. Does a sentence like this contain the relations to the act of speech, the speaker and reality? Yes, it does. First of all, the noun rain, like any noun, is associated with the third person (§ 148). As for the meanings of mood and tense, the following is to be taken into consideration. " As we know, the general meanings of tense, mood contain three particular meanings each: present — past — future (tense), indicative — imperative — subjunctive (mood). Two of these meanings are usually more specific than the third. The two specific tenses are the past and the future. The two specific moods are the imperative and the subjunctive. Now, when there are no positive indications of any tense of mood the sentence is understood to contain the least specific of those meanings.² In the sentence Rain the present tense and the indicative mood are implied. Cf. the Russian Жара. Позд­но. Он студент, etc.

In the sentence Tea! the imperative intonation expresses the difference in the modal component of predicativity.

Thus, Rain. Tea! are sentences both as to their forms (intonation) and their meanings (predicativity). They are living patterns in the English language because many sen­tences of the same type can be formed. The lexical meaning of Rain is irrelevant (cf. Snow, Hail, Fog) when ,we regard the sentence as a language model, but it is relevant when the sentence is used in actual speech.

^{_________________________________________}

² They correspond to the centre or zero point of the system of coordinates.

§ 383. Of much greater importance are sentences of the type I live. The word I contains the person component of predicativity and the word live carries the tense and mood components. Thus the sentence I live has predicativity plainly expressed by a positive two-member predication.

The sentence I live regarded as a model is much more pro­ductive than the model Rain because the predication can express different relations to the situation of speech: differ­ent persons, different tenses, different moods. It is hardly necessary to say that in actual speech an almost limitless variety of sentences are built on this model by combining words of different lexemes.

§ 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.

The subject tells us whether the predication involves the speaker (I, we ...), his interlocutor (you ...) or some other person or thing (he, John, the forest ...). The predicate may also tell us something about the person, but it usually does not supply any new information. It merely seconds the sub­ject, corroborating, as it were, in a general way the person named by the subject (I am ..., you are ..., he, John, the fo­rest is ...). Neither does the predicate, add information as to the number of persons or things involved. Here it again seconds the subject. In this sense we say that the predicate depends on the subject. But in expressing the tense and mood compo­nents of predicativity the predicate is independent.

§ 385. Since a person or thing denoted by any noun or noun equivalent (except I , we and you) is a 'third person' (see § 148) and a sentence may contain several nouns, there must be something in the sentence to show which of the nouns is the subject of the predication. The Indo-European languages use the following devices:

a) the nominative case (Встретил зайца медведь),

b) grammatical combinability (Цветы солнце любят, Цветы солнце любит ¹). Two windows has this house. (Nursery rhyme).

с) the position of the noun (Бытие определяет сознание).

In English the nominative case has been preserved only with six pronouns. Grammatical cbmbinability, as shown in the previous paragraph, is important, but it plays a much smaller role than in Russian. It is not observed, for instance, in cases like I (he, she, they, John, the students) spoke ... So the position of the noun or noun-equivalent is of the greatest importance.

E.g. John showed Peter a book of his.

When position and combinability clash, position is usually decisive, as in the sentence George's is a brilliant idea, George's are brilliant ideas. The subject is George's, though the predicates agree in number with the nouns idea, ideas. Similarly in What are those things ², The above are samples of minerals, etc.

^{________________________________________}

¹ A. Martinet writes: "Everything would be simpler if the nomina­tive case were always unambiguously distinguished from the other cases. There would then never be any need to resort to the mark of the plural agreement to indicate which noun is the subject". (A Functional View of Language, Oxford, 1962).

² See § 390

§ 386. It would be wrong to maintain that the only func­tion of the main parts of the sentence is to contain the syn­tactical meanings of predicativity. The latter has been defined as the relation of the thought to the situation of speech. So there must be some thought whose relation to the situation of speech is expressed in the sentence in terms of person, tense, mood. Naturally, the main parts of the sentence contain part of that thought, and if the sentence consists of the main parts alone, they contain all the thought. This is the case in a sentence like Birds fly. The subject birds does not only inform us that it is neither the speaker, nor his interlocutor, but some other person or thing that is involved. It does much more. As a noun it names that thing. The predicate fly does not only show the relation to the act of speech and reality. As a verb it names an action characterizing the thing named by the subject.

Thus we may speak of the (1) predicative (structural) and (2) non-predicative (notional) characteristics of the subject birds.

1. It contains the person component of predicativity,

2. It names the thing about which the communication is made. In other words, birds is both the structural and the notional subject of the sentence.

The predicate fly has similar characteristics:

1. It contains the tense and mood components of predica­tivity.

2. It names an action characterizing the thing denoted by the subject.

So fly is both the structural and the notional predicate of the sentence.

§ 387. In the sentence It rains the notional value of the subject is zero since it does not name or indicate any person, thing or idea. This is why it is (not quite adequately) called an 'impersonal' subject. But its predicative (structural) mean­ing is as good as that of any other subject: it shows that neither the speaker nor his interlocutors are involved.

In the sentence He is a student the notional value of is is next to zero, which prevents it from being recognized as the predicate of the sentence. Though is contains the tense and mood components of predicativity like any other predi­cate, it is regarded as only part of the predicate.

One cannot fail to notice that different criteria are used with regard to the subject and to the predicate. It is assumed that the former can be devoid of notional value, while the latter cannot.

When arguing against the traditional view that is in the sentence He is in Moscow is the predicate, A. I. Smirnitsky writes: "We cannot say that is is the predicate because the lexical meaning of this verb is colourless and indefinite".

The reason why modal verbs and other semi-notional verbs are not regarded as predicates is of the same nature.

§ 388. We think it essential to apply the same principles to the subject and predicate alike. The correlation between the structural and the notional in the principal parts of the sentence may be of four types: 1) The structural and the no­tional are united in one word.

E. g. Birds fly.

2) The structural and the notional are in different units.

E. g. It is necessary to act.

3) Only the structural is given in the sentence. E. g. Is it raining? I t i s.

4) Only the notional is present.

E. g. What is he doing? Writing.

The differentiation of the structural and the notional is not an artificial device. As shown below, it is a characteris­tic feature of the analytical structure of the English 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.

To begin with, the overwhelming majority of verb forms in English are analytical ¹. When the predicate is an analytical verb, the structural and the notional parts of the predicate are naturally separated, the former being expressed by a gram­matical word-morpheme, as in the sentences Mother is sleeping, I shall wait, etc.

When the sentence contains a finite link-verb or a modal verb, the structural and notional predicates are different words as in He is late, She can swim.

The structural and the notional (part of the) predicate are often separated in English by adverbs and other words.

E. g. He i s often late.

You must never d о it again. We s h a l l certainly come.

In interrogative and negative sentences the structural (part of the) predicate is usually detached from the notional (part of the) predicate and is placed before the subject or the negation.

Is mother sleeping? Mother is not s l e e p i n g. Shall I wait? You must not с r у.

When the predicate is expressed by a synthetic form and contains no word-morphemes, as in the sentence Birds fly, special word-morphemes do, does, did are introduced to sep­arate the structural and the lexical meanings of the predicate verb in interrogative and negative transforms of the sentence.

D о birds fly? Birds d о not fly. He smiles. Does he s т i l e? He smiled. Did he smile?

The same phenomenon is observed in sentences like Little does he e x p e с t it, indeed. Only then did we b e g i n. Also for emphasis in sentences like We d о l i k e it, But he d i d so want, and the writing said he never would. (Galsworthy).

Now observe the so-called 'contracted forms', so widely used in colloquial English: I'm sure, He's writing, We'll come, You're students, They've left, etc. They are another manifestation of the tendency to bring together the structural meanings by isolating them from the notional (part of the) predicate.

The tendency to detach the structural part of the predicate from its notional one is obvious in disjunctive questions.

He i s working, ins't he? They haven't come yet, have they? You know him, don't you? You can swim, can't you?

The same tendency is evident in sentences like John graduated last year and so did Mary. John hasn't mar­ried yet. Neither has Peter. He was glad the play had ended as it had. (Galsworthy).

But especially manifest is the tendency in short replies of the type He does, They will, etc. When in answer to the question Has John really promised that? we say He has, we repeat the predicative part of the previous sentence, leaving out the notional part.

Thus, we must say that the tendency to detach the struc­tural from the notional is a typical feature of the English predicate, which is connected with the extensive use of gram­matical word-morphemes and semi-notional verbs. The ties between analytical morphology and syntax are obvious.²

^{_____________________________________}

¹ See § 12.

² This is what W. Twaddell says about the function of what he calls 'verb auxiliaries': "Recent research on English verb grammar has increasingly revealed the crucial functions of the auxiliaries as gram­matical sentence elements...". After describing their main syntactical uses he continues: "These four grammatical functions of auxiliaries are a peculiar feature of English grammar. It must be noted that they are not mere 'privileges' for auxiliaries: an auxiliary is an indispensable component in any English construction of sentence negation, interrogation, stress for insistence, and echo-repetition".

§ 390. The subject is in most cases a word uniting the syn­tactical meaning of 'person' with the lexical meanings. But English has developed special word-morphemes to separate them, as in the dialogue below.

— It is necessary to warn her, isn't it?

— It is.

The subject it has no notional value, but it contains the predicative meaning of 'person'. The correlated but detached lexical meaning is in the infinitive to warn. Thus, it has only the form, but not the content of a word. In content it is a grammatical morpheme, and we may, consequently, regard it as a grammatical word-morpheme. But it differs from the grammatical word-morphemes already described in not form­ing part of an analytical word while making part of a sentence. Hence the conclusion that grammatical word-morphemes divide into morphological and syntactical ones. It in the sentences analysed is a syntactical word-morpheme used to detach the predicative meaning of the subject from its lexical meaning.

Another syntactical word-morpheme of this type is there in the following dialogue.

— There is no money in it, is there?

— There is.

As a result of a long course of development this there has lost its lexical meaning, its connection with the pro-adverb there, and acquires the predicative meaning of the subject when it occupies its position. There shows, like most subjects, that neither the speaker not the listener are involved.

In the sentences above there is the subject owing to its position, though the predicate agrees in number with the noun money, which is the notional correlative of there. W. Twaddell writes: "Like the interrogative subjects who (what) which? the empty subject there is itself unmarked for number. A following verb displays the number agreement appropriate to the predicative noun complement or to an earlier noun or pronoun reference. "Who is coming? Which are staying? What's the best way to Newport? What are those things?" — Similarly, "There is a tide in the affairs of men. There are more things in heaven and earth. There happen to be several good reasons. There does not seem to be any objection".

§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.

A. I. Smirnitsky is of the opinion that does ... smile, do ... know and did come (in He did come) are analytical forms of the verb serving to express interrogation, negation, and emphasis respectively. There are good reasons, however, for disagreement, since the do-word-morphemes in the above formations differ essentially from morphological word-mor­phemes.

1) Morphological word-morphemes are combinable, e. g. shall have been asked. The word-morphemes do, does, did form no combinations with any morphological word-morphemes. They appear in the sentence- only in case there are no morphological word-morphemes that could be separated from the rest of the analytical word for syntactical purposes.

2) All the words of the lexemes represented by have, be, shall and will are used as word-morphemes, e. g. have written, has written, had written, to have written, having written. With do it is different. Only those words are used which have the syntactically important meanings of predicativity: do, does, did, not doing or to do. One says Do not come, but not to come (* to do not come is impossible), not coming (* doing not come is impossible).

3) The use of the do-word-morphemes, (unlike that of morphological word-morphemes) fully depends on the type of the sentence ¹. Compare, for instance, do and are in the following questions:

What books doyou sell? What books areyou selling?

What books sell best? What books areselling best?

Thus, the do-word-morphemes are not parts of analytical words that enter the sentence together with the whole word, as is the case with morphological word-morphemes. They are syntactical word-morphemes used in certain types of sentences when the predicate verb contains no morphological word-morphemes.

^{_________________________________________}

¹ H. Gleason writes: "The auxiliary did occurs in English only where sentence structure demands it" (Introduction to Descriptive Lin­guistics, Rev. ed., N. Y., 1961, p. 174).

§ 392. A unit of a higher level, as we know, contains units of the next lower level. A sentence contains words, not mor­phemes — parts of words. So morphological word-morphemes cannot be regarded as parts of the sentence as long as they remain parts of analytical words. In spite of the fact that in the sentence He is writing predicativity is conveyed by he is, we cannot treat is as the predicate because it is part of the word is writing. Only the whole word is writing can be regarded as a part of the sentence. Still, the predicate is writing consists of two parts: the structural part is and the notional part writing. Only when the notional part of the verb is dropped does a morphological word-morpheme become the structural predicate of a sentence, as, for instance, in short answers He is, She has, We shall, etc.

It is not so with syntactical word-morphemes. They are nor parts of words, but parts of sentences, more exactly, structural parts of sentences. In It is cold, for instance, the syntactical word-morpheme it is the structural subject of the sentence. In Does he smoke? the syntactical word-mor­pheme does is the structural predicate.

§393. Every predication can be either positive or nega­tive.

He is. — He isn 't.

It rains. — It does not rain.

Speak! —Don't speak!

The 'positive' meaning is not expressed. It. exists owing to the existence of the opposite 'negative' meaning. The latter is usually expressed with the help of not (n't) which we might call the predicate negation. It is a peculiar unit differing from the particle not in several respects.

a) The particle not has right-hand connections with various classes of words, word-combinations and clauses.

E. g. You may come any time, but not when I am busy. Not wishing to disturb her, he tip-toed to his room. May I ask you not to cry at me? The predicate negation has only left-hand connections with the following 24 words and word-morphemes which H. Palmer and A. Hornby call anomalous finites and J. Firth names syntactical opera­tors: am, is, are, was, were, have, has, had, do, does, did, shall, should, will, would, can, could, may, might, must, ought, need, dare, used ¹. In the sentence, as we know, all these words and word-morphemes are structural (parts of) predi­cates.

b) Unlike the particle not, the predicate negation is regu­larly contracted in speech to n't and is as regularly fused with the preceding structural (part of the) predicate into units differing in form from the sum of the original components do + not = don't [dount], will + not = won't [wount], shall + not = shan't, can + not = can't [ka:nt].

c) The predicate negation remains with the predication when the latter is reduced to its structural parts alone.

E.g. Is mother sleeping? She isn't. He has bought the book, hasn't he?

d) The predicate negation may represent the whole predi­cation like a word-morpheme.

E. g. Are we late? I believe not. Here not substitutes for we are not or we aren't late.

Hence we must regard the predicate negation as a special syntactical unit, as. a syntactical word-morpheme of negation.It differs from other means of expressing negation.

Cf. He d i d n ' t return. There isn't any book on the table. He never returned. There is n о book on the table.

^{_________________________________________}

¹ Here is what \V. Twaddell says on the subject: "True sentence negation requires an auxiliary to precede the signal -n't (not); any other location of 'not' specifically makes the negation partial, affecting part but not all of the sentence. The unstressed suffix -n't is not only the normal negative signal with an auxiliary: it occurs only with auxili­aries and the related copula 'be'". (Op. cit., p. 13).

§ 394. In English there are 'predications' which retain only the notional part of the predicate without its structural part. They are known as secondary predications or complexes(see § 310), and contain a verbid instead of a finite verb.

John smoking

gerundial complexes

John smoking

John smokes John smoking participial complex

John... (to) smoke

infinitival complexes

(for) John to smoke

As we see, the complexes possess only the person component of predicativity. The other two components can be obtained obliquely from some actual predication. That is why the complexes are always used with some predication and why they are called 'secondary' predications. In the sentence I felt him tremble the complex him tremble borrows, as it were, the tense and mood components of predicativity from the predication I felt and becomes obliquely equivalent to an actual predication He trembled into which it can be trans­formed. Thus a complex may be regarded as a transformation (transform) of some actual predication, the verbid acting as an oblique or secondary predicate.

§ 395. The terms 'transform', 'transformational' have become popular among linguists after the publication in 1957 of Syntactic Structures by Noam Chomsky. Chomsky's transformational grammar is a theory for grammatical des­cription of linguistic structure. It is a generating grammar in the sense that it is a body of rules to generate an infinite set of grammatically correct sentences from a finite vocabu­lary. As B. Strong has it, it "combines great precision with a cumbersomeness that unsuits it for ordinary purposes."

In this book we do not deal with transformational grammar as a theory, and we use the term transform as it is defined by R. Long. Transforms are "Syntactic patterns that close­ly parallel other syntactic patterns, from which they are conveniently considered to derive, but that are nevertheless distinct in form and use. Thus the main interrogative Was Jane there? is conveniently regarded as a transform of the main declarative Jane was there. Clauses with passive-voice predicators ¹ are obviously transforms of clauses with common voice ² predicators. I gave him the book can profitably be considered a transform of I gave the book to him, and an economics teacher of a teacher of economics."

Similarly, the sentence The bus being very crowded, John had to stand can be regarded as a transform of the sen­tence As the bus was very crowded, John had to stand or the participial complex as a transform of the subordinate clause.

Likewise can the infinitival complex of the sentence It is not possible for him to do it alone be treated as a trans­form of the subordinate clause in It is not possible that he should do it alone.

The gerundial complex in I resent your having taken the book can be viewed as a transform of the subordinate clause in I resent that you have taken the book.

As we see, the complexes retain the lexical meanings of the clauses, but they are deprived of the predicative (struc­tural) meanings of mood and tense, which they borrow, as it were, from the finite verb.

This correlation of structural and non-structural predi­cations is also part of the system of a language regularly detaching the structural part of the predicate from the no­tional one.

^{__________________________________________}

¹ Predicates.

² Active voice.