TYPES OF SYNTACTIC CONNECTION
Traditional grammar singles out 3 types of syntactic connection: 1) coordination, 2) subordination, and 3) interdependence (or correspondence).
Coordination
Coordination is such a device that links up elements of the same rank. The typical morphological way of expressing coordination is the conjunction 'and', e.g.:
soft and low (H. Field).
Enumerative intonation plays an important role in joining the components of asyndetic syntactic units, e.g.:
my husband, my family, my home (R. MacDonald).
According to V.A. Beloshapkova, coordination can be 'open' and 'closed'. 'Open' coordination unites any number of components and we can always add at least one more, e.g. in laughed and shouted and sang (W. S. Maugham), there are three components, but we can add a fourth: laughed and shouted and sang and danced
'Closed' coordination always unites two components, e.g.:
It's too bad, but I can't do anything about it now (R. Gordon).
'Open' coordination can be both syndetic and asyndetic. 'Closed' coordination is always syndetic.
'Open' coordination makes use of copulative and disjunctive conjunctions. Cf:
presidents and kings and movie stars (W. Saroyan),
moon or no moon (W.S. Maugham).
'Closed' coordination prefers adversative conjunctions, e.g.:
nothing but a memory (W.S. Maugham).
'Open' coordination allows the occurrence of conjunctions before any component of the syntactic unit, e.g.:
and the women, and the children, and the animals (G.S, Lewis).
m 'closed' coordination the conjunction always introduces the second component.
192
193
Subordination
Subordination links up elements of different ranks which are called 'head' and 'adjunct', e.g.: a long silence (H. Innes), where silence is the head, and long is an adjunct.
There are several kinds of subordination. First, subordination falls under predetermined and free. Tn predetermined subordination, the head predetermines the form of the adjunct. For instance, by the meaning of 'thingness' the noun is predisposed to combine with an adjective. In inflected Russian, the noun head also predetermines the morphological categories of the modifying adjective (case, number, gender), e.g.: b mf&ocmnoM MO.wanuu (H.M. ^epHbiuieBCKaa), where the adjective mmocmnuu is in the prepositional case, singular number, and neuter gender because the same categories are to be found in the head noun MoJivanue.
In analytical English, the noun head only fixes the place of the modifying adjective. Single word adjectives usually occur in preposition to the noun they modify, e.g.:
|
|
|
a long way (E.R. Braithwaite).
In free subordination, the form of the adjunct is predetermined not by the head but by the semantics of the adjunct, e.g.:
the table at the window (if it is at the window),
the table in the corner (if it is in the corner),
the table near the door (if it is near the door), etc.
Second, subordination can be obligatory and optional. In the case of obligatory subordination, the head regularly combines with a certain adjunct. Thus, neither in English nor in Russian can we use the verb 'be' (naxodumbcx) without this or that locative. Cf.:
to be in Moscow — HaxoaHTbca b mockbc,
to be on the beach - HaxOAHTtcs Ha niisBKe,
to be in the yard - HaxoOTTbcs bo .asope, etc.
Taken in isolation, the verb 'be' (naxodumbCfi) is structurally and semantically incomplete.
Optional subordination is characterized by a much less rigid connection between the head and the adjunct. For instance, nouns can combine with adjectives, but this combinability is optional, not obligatory. Thus, we can say: Wait, Harry. Your father and I are going to buy you a nice bicycle soon (L.A. Hill), using an adjective-noun word combination nice bicycle,, or: Harry, your father and I
194
ore going to give you a bicycle next month ... (L.A. Hill), using only the head noun bicycle.
Predetermined subordination is often obligatory; free subordination is often optional. However, the two pairs of notions sometimes diverge. On the one hand, subordination can be predetermined but optional (for example, the combinability of nouns with adjectives). On the other hand, subordination can be obligatory but free (for example, to be in Moscow). It is obligatory in the sense that without an adjunct the infinitival head loses its structural and semantic completeness. However, it is by no means predetermined, Cf.:
to be in Moscow,
to be on the beach,
to be in the yard, etc.
Morphologically, subordination is generally subdivided into agreement, government, and adjoinment. We find agreement in those cases where the head makes the adjunct take a similar morphological form. Agreement is typical of Russian and other inflected languages, e.g.: xopoiuan no^o^a, xopoiuuu nenoeeK, xopotuee nnambe, where the adjective xopouiuu agrees in gender, number, and case with the following nouns.
|
|
|
In Old English, adjectives also agreed in gender, number and case with the following nouns. The loss of inflections, however. caused an almost complete disappearance of agreement, so that now only the demonstrative pronouns this and that agree in number with their headwords. Cf.:
this house - these houses (R. Murphy),
that house - those houses (R. Murphy).
Agreement refers to predetermined but optional subordination.
In government, the adjunct does not reproduce the morphological categories of the head, but its form, nevertheless, is predetermined by the head. Thus, the English notional verb demands the use of the following personal pronoun in the objective case, e.g.:
Teach me (I. Shaw).
Government falls under several types: prepositional and non-prepositional, verbal and nominal, strong and weak. Taking into consideration the way in which the components are joined together, we can draw a distinction between non-prepositional and
195
prepositional government. Non-prepositional government is achieved directly, without any prepositions, e.g.:
Tell me (Miss Read).
Non-prepositional government is characteristic of inflected languages. It is widely spread in Russian, e.g.: juo6uji demeu (H.M. HepHbimeBCKaa), and was often resorted to in Old English. In analytical Modern English, the sphere of non-prepositional government has narrowed to three cases:
1) the use of the objective case of personal pronouns after
notional verbs in the function of object, e.g.:
She followed me upstairs (Gr. Greene);
2) the use of the objective case of the interrogative pronoun
who in the function of object in formal English, e.g.:
Whom did she go out to meet? - You think she -went to meet someone? -Ido (A. Christie);
3) the use of the objective case of the relative pronoun who in
the function of object or attribute, e.g.:
/ asked her whom Mark had married (P.P. Read).
The great whom he adored laughed at him (W.S. Maugham).
|
|
|
The use of the objective case of the interrogative and relative pronoun who should be qualified as variable government because of the rising tendency to use in the functions of object and attribute the nominative case form who instead of the objective case form whom. Cf:
Who could she trust? (A. McCall).
You know who I mean, don 'tyou? (Ch. Hobhouse).
I don't like people who lose their tempers easily (M. Swan).
In prepositional government, the dependent component is joined to the head by means of a preposition. Since prepositions constitute a characteristic feature of analytical languages, English makes a wide use of prepositional government, e.g.:
I'm looking for Ann (R. Murphy).
The morphological nature of the head gives us an opportunity to single out nominal and verbal government. Cf.:
Key to the Door (A, Sillitoe) — nominal government.,
ate them (Th. L. Thomas, K. Wilhelm) - verbal government.
With regard to the structural and semantic necessity of the adjunct, government is classified into strong and weak, (The
196
distinction goes back to A.M. Peshkovsky.). Strong government is predetermined and obligatory, e.g.:
// suits them (S. Gainham).
I belong to another world (O. Henry).
Weak government is structurally free and optional, but communicatively very important, e.g.:
a man of the eighteenth century (St. Ellin).
Since the so-called weak government is structurally free and optional, V.V. Vinogradov, A.M. Mukhin and a number of other linguists exclude it from the sphere of government.
By the way, in the opinion of A.M. Mukhin, who follows L.V. Scerba, government, by which he understands strong government, belongs to the lexical, not the morphological or the syntactic level of the language.
Semantics does play an important role in government (no wonder mat government is reflected in dictionaries: vt - verb transitive, vi - verb intransitive). However, the form of its realization should not be disregarded either.
Adjoinment is such a device in which the components of syntactic units are joined without any change in the morphological forms. Their dependence finds its expression in meaning, word order, and function. Since English is very poor in inflections, adjoinment constitutes the most usual type of linking syntactic components, e.g.:
|
|
|
longpractice (J. Braine),
trembled slightly (H. Innes).
Adjoinment generally refers to free optional subordination.
In addition to agreement, government and adjoinment, some linguists single out enclosure, when an element is inserted between the other components of a syntactic unit. The most widely known case of enclosure in English is the putting of a word between an article and the noun to which the article belongs, e.g.: a strong woman (I. Shaw), where the adjective strong is enclosed between the indefinite article and the noun woman. The majority of linguists, however, regard enclosure as a subclass of adjoinment.
Subordination realizes the following syntactic relations: 1) attributive (e.g.: an old man - J. Braine); 2) objective (e.g.: left his table ~~ Th. L. Thomas, K. Wilhelm); 3) adverbial (e.g.: Please listen carefully - R. Murphy).
197
Apposition
Tradition says that subordination also realizes appositive syntactic relations. This view does not stand criticism for subordination presupposes dependence of one element on another and the components of apposition are logically equal because they have the same referent, e.g.:
Uncle Andrew was very tall and very thin (C.S. Lewis).
Uncle Andrew
Referent
Apposition, in our opinion, forms a specific type of syntactic connection, clearly distinct from subordination.
Correspondence
Correspondence (the term of L.S. Barkhudarov) links up interdependent elements. Correspondence realizes predication. In predication, the verbal component says something of the nominal component. Predication can be primary and secondary. Primary predication forms a sentence because its components (the subject and the predicate) comprise explicit markers of the predicative categories of modality, tense and person: the subject in Modern English usually renders the predicative category of person (first, second, third), the predicate - the predicative categories of modality (real, non-real) and tense (present, past, future), e.g.: / saw it in London (J. Braine), where the subject / renders the predicative category of the first person, the predicate saw - the predicative categories of real modality and past tense.
Secondary predication is heterogeneous. One can differentiate between two types at least: bound secondary predication and absolute secondary predication. Bound secondary predication forms a unit inside primary predication. It is usually called a complex part of the sentence. Cf.:
198
They were heard talking together (W. Collins) - complex
subject.
The only thing to do is for you to whip him, Edward (K. Mansfield) - complex predicative.
She heard him open the door (St. Heym) - complex non-prepositional object.
She waited for him to reply (Longman Essential Activator) -complex prepositional object.
There was need for him to be economical (J. London) -complex attribute.
The boy stood aside for me to go by (J. Galsworthy) -complex adverbial.
Absolute secondary predication is more independent: it modifies the primary predication as a whole, e.g.:
Charlie -watched her, his face dark with hatred(A. Maltz).
Isolation
G.N. Vorontsova singles out a third type of secondary predication - free secondary predication. To free secondary predication G.N. Vorontsova refers:
1) loose attributes, e.g.;
It is a fine summer morning - sunny, soft and stttl (J.K. Jerome);
2) loose appositives, e.g.:
It was Margot, a neighbor and a friend (J. Irving);
3) loose situational modifiers, e.g.:
Last night, everything was closed (R. Lardner).
Loose attributes, appositives, and situational modifiers do introduce an element of additional predication into the basic syntactic unit. However, as the so-called free secondary predication lacks a nominal component of its own, we can hardly refer it to interdependence (or correspondence). This type of syntactic 'connection' should rather be called isolation (o6oco6jieHue}.
Accumulation
The representatives of the St. Petersburg linguistic school single out a fourth type of syntactic connection - accumulation.
199
Accumulation links up elements whose connection becomes evident only when we take into consideration a third element that does not make part of the group. For instance, there seems to be no connection between the components in the combination 'his friend a letter'. But the preceding verb 'to write' shows that they are syntactically connected:
(to write) his friend a letter.
What type of syntactic connection is it? It is clearly not coordination because the components are not equal in rank and cannot be joined by means of the conjunction and. It is not subordination either as the components cannot be analyzed in terms of 'head' and 'adjunct'. Perhaps, it is interdependence? The answer is 'no', for each noun can function without the other. Cf:
to write his friend,
to write a letter.
Nevertheless, these nouns are syntactically connected because their position is fixed. If we change their order, we must change the form of one of them. Cf.:
(to write) his friend a letter —> (to write) a letter to his friend.
The term 'accumulation', suggested by the St. Petersburg linguistic school, reveals the amorphous nature of this type of syntactic connection. On the sentence level, accumulation can be found in the following cases:
1) in chains of prepositive attributes expressed by different
parts of speech, e.g.:
... and then to her own surprise she burst into tears (N. Cato) - her is a determiner, own is an adjective;
2) in combinations of semantically heterogeneous objects, e.g.:
/ brought him a present (B. Gutcheon) - him is a personal
object, a present is a non-personal object;
3) in combinations of objects and situational modifiers, e.g.:
/ leave home at eight-thirty (J. Cheever) - home is an object, at eight-thirty is a situational modifier of time.
Parenthesis
Somewhat apart from the above-mentioned types of syntactic connection stands parenthesis. Parenthetic elements are traditionally described as having no syntactic connection with the basic structure
200
of the sentence. The traditional conception seems open to criticism. Parenthetic elements are really never integrated into sentences in the sense that they could be omitted without affecting the structure of the sentences or their meaning. But as parenthetic elements function only inside sentences, they cannot be said to have no connection at all with them [B.A. Ilyish]. A.M. Mukhin regards parenthesis as a specific type of syntactic connection that he calls 'introductory syntactic connection'.
Parenthesis introduces the following elements into the structure of the basic syntactic unit:
1) modal elements showing the speaker's attitude to the
thought expressed in the basic syntactic unit, e.g.:
This is perhaps his finest novel yet (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English);
2) connective elements showing the connection of thoughts,
e.g.:
In the first place, I don't want to go, and in the second place,
lean't afford to (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English);
3) insertions (ecmaeKu) giving additional information related
to, but not part of the main message comprised in the basic syntactic
unit, e.g.:
One of the first to make it in modern times (some Greeks had known it long before) was Leonardi da Vinci (Biber et al.).
The parenthetic nature of modal and connective elements is universally recognized. The type of syntactic connection with the basic syntactic unit of insertions still presents a debatable problem. In Western European and American linguistics, insertions are not differentiated from parenthetic elements. A distinction between these two types of parentheses is drawn in Russian linguistics. The following criteria, according to Russian scholars, help us differentiate insertions and parenthetic elements.
1. The structural-semantic criterion: a considerable diversity
of insertions versus the stereotyped nature of parenthetic elements.
2. The criterion of position: insertions cannot be used at the
beginning of the basic syntactic unit, while parenthetic elements can
occur in any of the following positions: initial, medial, and final.
3. The prosodic criterion in speech and the punctuation
criterion in writing. In speech, insertions are marked off by longer
pauses than parenthetic elements. In writing, they are marked off by
201
punctuation marks of strong separation: parentheses and dashes while parenthetic elements are marked off by punctuation marks of less strong separation — commas.
4. The communicative criterion: insertions can function as the rheme or part of the rheme in the basic syntactic unit, while parenthetic elements are never rhematic.
All these arguments sound rather convincing, but they provide no answer to the question: What type of syntactic connection are insertions introduced into the basic syntactic unit by? In our view, it is a variety of parenthesis because just like parenthetic elements, insertions are never integrated into the structure of the basic syntactic unit.
E. Novoseletskaya draws a distinction between three kinds of insertions: informative, auxiliary, and modal. Informative insertions create a secondary information plane in regard to the main information comprised in the basic syntactic unit, e.g.:
We'll see if Mary Drawer (that's the niece) can give us any help (A. Christie).
Auxiliary insertions are typical of scientific texts. As a rule, they contain reference to; 1) the source of the given information, 2) the part of the paper where the information is given, and 3) nonverbal components of the text: graphs, tables, diagrams, etc. that illustrate the given information, e.g.:
The relative stability is even more pronounced in the heavy nuclei (see Table 2.1) (J.M. Irvine).
Modal insertions express the speaker's attitude to the information comprised in the basic syntactic unit, e.g.:
... our experienced officer was now of opinion that the thief (he was wise enough not to name poor Penelope whatever he might privately think of her!) had been acting in concert with the Indians ... (W. Collins).
Phatic elements serving to establish, keep up and terminate the verbal act of communication, for example, direct address, interjections, and formulas of etiquette are heterogeneous. Those phatic elements that do not form a separate sense-group and are pronounced in the same way as the unstressed syllables of the preceding sense-group, in our opinion, are introduced into the sentence by means of parenthesis, e.g.:
Cream and sugar? — Cream, please (P. Viney).
202
Parenthetic phatic elements usually occur in the middle or
final position.
Those phatic elements that form a separate sense-group and possess an independent intonation pattern are introduced into the sentence by means of accumulation and can be used in an absolute
position, e.g.:
Let us know if there's anything we can do. - Thank you, I'll do that (N. Church, A. Moss). -> Thank you. I'll do that.
To sum up. Seven types of syntactic connection can be singled
out:
1) coordination,
2) subordination,
3) apposition,
4) interdependence (or correspondence),
5) accumulation,
6) isolation,
7) parenthesis.
But there is nothing magical in the number 'seven'. Linguists are free to make any modifications in the suggested classification that they think necessary.
The communicative function of language is realized on the syntactic level. That's why syntax studies language units that are used in the process of communication and their constituent parts. They are words, word forms (cnoeoi^opMU\ word combinations, clauses, and 'communicatives'
2. WORD AND WORD FORM
The word is essentially a lexical unit. The word form is essentially a morphological unit. It is a word in this or that grammatical form, e.g.: now, hodkom. The syntactic aspect of words and word forms manifests itself in their ability to combine with other words and word forms. Grammars of inflected languages, such as Russian, devote special sections to a study of the syntax of word forms. Since Modern English is very poor in word forms,
203
|
|
|
|
English grammarians do not regard a word form as a specific syntactic unit.
WORD COMBINATION
Дата добавления: 2018-09-22; просмотров: 8006; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!