THE STRUCTURE OF A SENTENCE

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 608.

§ 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.

Many linguists think that the investigation of the compo­nents and their arrangement suffices. Thus Halliday writes: "Each unit is characterized by certain structures. The struc­ture is a syntagmatic framework of interrelated elements, which are paradigmatically established in the systems of classes and stated as values in the structure. ... if a unit 'word' is established there will be dimensions of word-classes the terms in which operate as values in clause structures: given a verb /noun/ adverb system of word classes, it might be that the structures ANV and NAV were admitted in the clause but NVA excluded".

Now 'a syntagmatic framework of interrelated elements' may describe the structure of a combination of units as well as that of a higher unit, a combination of words as well as a sentence or a clause. The important properties that unite the interrelated elements into a higher unit of which they become parts, the function of each element as part of the whole, are not mentioned.

Similarly, Z. Harris thinks that the sentence The fear of war grew can be described as TN₁PN₂V, where Т stands for article, N for noun, P for preposition and V for verb.

Such descriptions are feasible only if we proceed from the notion that the difference between the morpheme, the word and the sentence is not one of quality but rather of quantity and arrangement.

Z. Harris does not propose to describe the morpheme (as he calls it) is as VC, where V stands for vowel and С for con­sonant. He does not do so because he regards a morpheme not as an arrangement of phonemes, but as a unit of a higher level possessing some quality (namely, meaning) not found in any phoneme or combination of phonemes outside the morpheme.

Since we assume (§§ 1, 2, 3) that not only the phoneme and the morpheme, but also the word and the sentence are units of different levels, we cannot agree to the view that a sentence is merely an arrangement of words.

In our opinion, The fear of war grew is a sentence not because it is TNPNV, but because it has properties not inher­ent in words. It is a unit of communication and as such it possesses predicativity and intonation. On the other hand, TNPNV stands also for the fear of war growing, the fear of war to grow, which are not sentences.

As to the arrangement of words in the sentence above, it fully depends upon their combinability. We have TN and not NT because an article has only right-hand connections with nouns. A prepositional phrase, on the contrary has left-hand connections with nouns; that is why we have TNPN, etc.

§ 397. The development of transform grammar (Harris, Chomsky) and tagmemic grammar (Pike) is to a great extent due to the realization of the fact that "an attempt to describe grammatical structure in terms of morpheme classes alone — even successively inclusive classes of classes — is insuffi­cient".

As defined by Harris, the approach of transformational grammar differs from the above-described practice of charac­terizing "each linguistic entity ... as composed out of specified ordered entities at a lower level" in presenting "each sentence as derived in accordance with a set of transformational rules, from one or more (generally simpler) sentences, i. e. from other entities of the same level. A language is then described as consisting of specified sets of kernel sentences and a set of transformations".

For English Harris lists seven principal patterns of kernel sentences:

1. NvV (v stands for a tense morpheme or an auxiliary verb, i. e. for a (word-) morpheme containing the meanings of predicativity).

2. NvVPN

3. NvVN

4. N is N

5. N is A (A stands for adjective)

6. N is PN

7. N is D (D stands for adverb)

As one can easily see, the patterns above do not merely represent arrangements of words, they are such arrangements which contain predicativity — the most essential component of a sentence. Given the proper intonation and replaced by words that conform to the rules of combinability, these pat­terns will become actual sentences. Viewed thus, the patterns may be regarded as language models of speech sentences.

One should notice, however, that the difference between the patterns above is not, in fact, a reflection of any sentence peculiarities. It rather reflects the difference in the combina­bility of various subclasses of verbs.

The difference between ''NvV and 'NvVN', for instance, reflects the different combinability of a non-transitive and a transitive verb (He is sleeping. He is writing letters. Cf. To sleep, to write letters). The difference between those two patterns and 'N is A' reflects the difference in the combina­bility of notional verbs and link verbs, etc.

A similar list of patterns is recommended to language teachers under the heading These are the basic patterns for all English sentences:

1. Birds fly.

2. Birds eat worms.

3. Birds are happy.

4. Birds are animals.

5. Birds give me happiness.

6. They made me president.

7. They made me happy.

The heading is certainly rather pretentious. The list does not include sentences with zero predications or with partially implied predicativity while it displays the combinability of various verb classes.

S. Potter reduces the number of kernel sentences to three: "All simple sentences belong to one of three types: A. The sun warms the earth; B. The sun is a star; and C. The sun is bright." And as a kind of argument he adds: "Word order is changeless in A and B, but not in C. Even in, sober prose a man may say Bright is the sun."

§ 398. The foregoing analysis of kernel sentences, from which most English sentences can be obtained, shows that "every sentence can be analysed into a center, plus zero or more constructions ... The center is thus an elementary sen­tence; adjoined constructions are in general modifiers". In other words, the essential structure constituting a sentence is the predication; all other words are added to it in accordance with their combinability. This is the case in an overwhelming majority of English sentences. Here are some figures based on the investigation of modern American non-fic­tion.

§ 399. Some analogy can be drawn between the structure of a word and the structure of a sentence.

The morphemes of a word are formally united by stress. The words of a sentence are formally united by intona­tion.

The centre of a word is the root. The centre of a sentence is the predication.

Some words have no other morphemes but the root (ink, too, but). Some sentences have no other words but those of the predication (Birds fly. It rains. Begin.).

Words may have some morphemes besides the root (un­bearable). Sentences may have some words besides the predi­cation (Yesterday it rained heavily.).

Sometimes a word is made of a morpheme that is usually not a root (ism). Sometimes sentences are made of words that are usually not predications (Heavy rain).

Words may have two or more roots (blue-eyed, merry-go-round). Sentences may have two or more predications (He asked me if I knew where she lived.).

The roots may be co-ordinated or subordinated (Anglo-Saxon, blue-bell). The predications may be co-ordinated and subordinated (She spoke and he listened. He saw Sam did not believe).

The roots may be connected directly (footpath) or indirectly, with the help of some morpheme salesman. The predications may be connected directly (7 think he knows) or indirectly, with the help of some word (The day passed as others had passed.).

The demarcation line between a word with more than one root and a combination of words is often very vague (cf. blackboard and black board, brother-in-law and brother in arms). The demarcation line between a sentence with more than one predication and a combination of sentences is often very vague.

Cf. She'd only to cross the pavement. But still she waited. (Mansfield).

§ 400. As we know, a predication in English is usually a combination of two words (or word-morphemes) united by predicativity, or, in other words, a predicative combination of words. Apart from that the words of a predication do not differ from other words in conforming to the general rules of combinability. The rules of grammatical combinability do not admit of *boys speaks or *he am. The combination *the fish barked is strange as far as lexical combinability is concerned, etc.

All the other words of a sentence are added to those of the predication in accordance with their combinability to make the communication as complete as the speaker wishes. The predication Boys play can make a sentence by itself. But the sentence can be extended by realizing the combinability of the noun boys and the verb play into The three noisy boys play boisterously upstairs. We can develop the sentence into a still more extended one. But however extended the sentence is, it does not lose its integrity. Every word in it is not just a word, it becomes part of the sentence and must be evaluated in its relation to other parts and to the whole sentence much in the same way as a morpheme in a word is not just a morpheme, but the root of a word or a prefix, or a suffix, or an inflection.

§ 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.

Sometimes there is a third group, of parenthetical words, which mostly belongs to the sentence as a whole. In the sentence below the subject group is separated from the pre-dicate group by the parenthetical group.

That last thing of yours, dear Flora, was really remarkable.

^{________________________________________________}

¹ These groups are regarded as the immediateconstituents of a sentence. L. Bloomfield says: "Any English-speaking person, who concerns himself with this matter, is sure to tell us that the immediate consti­tuents of Poor John ran away are the two forms poor John and ran away."

§ 402. As already mentioned (§ 54), the distribution and the function of a word-combination in a sentence are usually determined by its head-word: by the noun in noun word-combinations, by the verb in verb word-combinations, etc.

The adjuncts of word-combinations in the sentence are added to their head-words in accordance with their combina­bility, to develop the sentence, to form its secondary parts which may be classified with regard to their head-words.

All the adjuncts of nounword-combinations in the sentencecan be united under one name, attributes. All the adjuncts of verb(finite or non-finite) word-combinations may be termed complements. In the sentence below the attributes are spaced out and the complements are in heavy type.

He often took Irene to the theatre, instinctivelychoosing the modern Society playswith the modern Society conjugal problems. (Galsworthy).

The adjuncts of all other word-combinations in the sen­tence may be called extensions. In the sentences below the extensions are spaced out.

You will never be free from dozing and dreams. (Shaw).

She was ever silent, passive, gracefully averse. (Gals­worhty).

The distribution of semi-notional words in the sentence is determined by their functions — to connectnotional words or to specifythem.¹ Accordingly they will be called connec­tives or specifiers. Conjunctions and prepositions are typical connectives. Particles are typical specifiers.

The peculiarities of all these words and combinations of words as parts of the sentence will be discussed in the corres­ponding chapters of this book.

^{______________________________________________}

¹ See A. Martinet. A Functional View of Language. Oxford, 1962, p. 52: "If in a phrase such as with a smile, ... smile is considered the centre of the phrase ... a is centripetal ... with centrifugal: a is connected with the rest of the sentence only through smile, which it helps to specify; with connects smile with the rest of the sentence".