CHAPTER 3. THE VERB AND ITS GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES 17 страница
Language as a system presents an integral whole in which everything is interconnected and interdependent, so nothing can happen in one place without echoing in another. The loss of the significance of agreement and government as the grammatical means of expressing syntactic relations between the components of a phrase which was the result of the loss of inflections was compensated by the growing significance of the two other means: adjoining and connection [>Ipu,eBa 1961, 17, 23]. Adjoining and connection became the leading grammatical means of expressing syntactic relations in English. In Russian adjoining is actually defined negatively as absence of both agreement and government whereas in English the essence of adjoining consists in the position of the subordinated word (preposition or postposition) and is actually related to the fixed word order which as we already know came to replace the free word order after the loss of inflections. It is worthwhile to return to the problem of case. If case is understood as a category of deep syntax expressing the relations between the action and its participants (see ch. 4), then adjoining is one of the means to express case relations: an object is placed in postposition to the head verb, the indirect nonprepositional object precedes the direct object, the adverb of manner and degree follows the verb etc. Of special importance is one variety of adjoining called enclosure (saMtiKamie) which arranges the relations in a noun phrase. Its essence consists in the fact that any part of speech, a phrase and even a whole sentence placed in between (enclosed) the determiner and the head noun becomes an attribute to the head noun. We have already spoken about it in the previous chapter. Now let us just have a few examples of enclosure: a yes man, a carrot-and stick policy, a know-nothing face, a head-in-the-sand attitude, a little-eaten lunch. Yet, despite the length of such attributes the general rule of attribute placement is observed here: single attributes are placed in preposition and extended attributes - in postposition to the head noun. Despite their length, prepositive attributes enclosed in between the determiner and the head noun are perceived as single attributes and for this reason they are always hyphenated to look like one word, even if a prepositive attribute is expressed by a sentential structure. E.g. It seemed a gesture designed largely for its effect, a listen-to-me-young-man movement worthy of the schoolteacher she had once been (E. George).
Connection, i.e. the expression of syntactic relations with the help of functional words is another very important means of expressing syntactic relations between the components of a phrase. The role of connection also grew after the loss of inflections when the morphological means of expressing grammatical relations were replaced by syntactic means: position in the sentence and prepositions. In Russian prepositions just accompany morphological expression of case and modify the case meanings (compare: menezpoMMa cecmpbi, mejiezpOMMa om cecmpbi}, and in English prepositions serve as the main markers of the semantic role of the word, e.g. to write with a pencil, to work as a waitress, to live in Paris etc. As prepositions came to replace the morphological markers of case, i.e. morphological government, it is probably possible to speak about prepositional government in English, especially in the case of the so called verbs with inherent prepositions, e.g. look at, approve of, remind of, depend on etc. Connection and adjoining are interrelated as the use of a preposition is related with the position of components within a phrase. These two means of expressing syntactic relations play the main role in the English language as. a language with marked isolating and analytical tendencies.
CHAPTER 7. THE COMPOUND SENTENCE
1. The nature of the composite sentence. The peculiarities of the structural, semantic and communicative aspects of the composite sentence.
2. The types of the composite sentence. The problem of asyndetic type of connection between the clauses in a composite sentence.
3. The compound sentence. The semantic relations between the components of a compound sentence.
4. The semicompound sentence.
The composite sentence is a polypredicative syntactic unit composed from two or more clauses (analogous in their syntactic structures to simple sentences) which constitute a syntactic, semantic and communicative whole. A
composite sentence is built on the basis of simple sentences, but it is not a mere combination of simple sentences, but a qualitatively new syntactic unit of a higher syntactic sublevel. Simple sentences united into the structure of a composite sentence have a special name in English - they are called clauses. Being a qualitatively new syntactic unit the composite sentence is characterized by certain structural, semantic and communicative peculiarities. From the structural point of view the composite sentence is characterized by the presence of two or more primary predicative lines. It is a polypredicative structure whereas the simple sentence is a monopredicative structure. From the semantic point of view the difference between the simple and the composite sentence lies in the fact that the simple sentence denotes one situation of reality (unless it contains implicit predication) and thus has one underlying semantic structure whereas the composite sentence denotes two or more situations of reality and expresses various relations between them which reflects various types of logical relations between events of reality perceived and conceptualized by our mind. E.g. It was odd because to all appearance he was not a bad sort (S.Maugham). The two events presented in the sentence are connected by causative-consecutive relations, which the speaker establishes between them on the basis of his knowledge of the world. And this feature constitutes the main semantic peculiarity of the composite sentence. Thus we may say that the composite sentence reflects by means of the language structure the complexity of the relations in the objective reality and the complexity of the conceptual picture of the world existing in the human mind. From the communicative aspect the composite sentence may present a combination of two different communicative types of sentences but once they are combined within a composite sentence and become clauses, they lose their independent communicative status and the communicative status of the resultative composite sentence is established on the basis of the clause which has the status of the principal clause. E.g. Do you think we should postpone the decision? - an interrogative clause; If you want to see the results be patient for a while - an imperative sentence. Another peculiarity of the communicative aspect of the composite sentence lies in the fact that it is characterized by several levels of actual division. The first level of actual division is drawn between the clauses. And here the order of clauses follows the general rule: in the neutral style the clause which comes first is the theme and the clause which comes last is the rheme. E.g. I had read Main Street when I was in high school (J. Steinbeck) Here the principal clause presents the theme and the subordinate clause is the rheme. And each clause in the structure of the composite sentence has its own level of actual division - its own theme and rheme or only the rheme. In the given example the theme in the principal clause is / and the rheme is Main Street (the predicate presents a transition from the theme to the rheme), and in the subordinate clause the rheme is in high school. In the sentence As he shut the door he saw Ole Andreson with his clothes on (E. Hemingway) - the order of clauses is different which signals a difference in the actual division - the subordinate clause is the theme and the principal clause is the rheme. The fact that certain types of subordinate clauses (e.g. object and attributive clauses) usually follow the principal clause and not precede it only testifies to the fact that, like secondary parts of the sentence, they usually carry new information, i.e. fulfil the function of the rheme.
Composite sentences are most characteristic of literary written speech rather than colloquial oral speech. Of course composite sentences do occur in oral speech but they differ considerably in length and complexity from sentences in written literary speech. Most scholars recognize now that written speech is not just a recorded version of oral speech but the two kinds of speech have considerable difference if only because oral speech depends on the sound and written - on the sight. Sound is limited both spatially and temporally and therefore cannot be preserved (of course in modern age it can but originally it could not which affected the peculiarities of oral messages) whereas written speech is not limited by time or space, and written messages, as they are preservable through time and space, can be reread, dissected, analyzed over and over which allows them to be very lengthy and very complicated in their structure (for detailed treatment of the difference between oral and written speech see: [Chafe 1994, 41-50]). A written text, therefore, may abound in lengthy descriptions, digressions, reasoning, logical suppositions and conclusions. - and all this complexity can be best presented within the structure of a composite sentence. E.g.
There is a tine in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must make himself for better or worse at his portion; that though the wide universe is fool of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which ig given to him to till (R. W. Emerson)
It is true, though, that modern fiction as compared to classical literature is characterized by the tendency to use less complicated and shorter sentences.
2. According to the basic semantic difference in the relations between clauses, that of coordination/subordination the composite sentence is divided into two types: the compound sentence based on coordinative semantic relations between the clauses, and the complex sentence based on the semantic relations of subordination. Coordination reflects the most general types of logical relations between situations and events: conjunction, disjunction, juxtaposition, cause and consequence. Subordination reflects various relations of dependence between events: condition, result, cause etc. As a rule, the principal clause presents the main event and the subordinate clause - the dependent event which explains or modifies the main event. The meaning of coordination/subordination is manifested by special words - the conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs and pronouns which carry a double function: 1) they connect the clauses into one whole; 2) they specify the type of semantic relations between the clauses. Conjunctions thus serve as explicit markers of the semantic types of relations between the clauses. Some scholars point out a third type of a composite sentence, based on asyndetic connection of the clauses [Fax 2000, 738]. The question concerning the nature and the status of asyndetic composite sentence has been under debate for quite some time (for detailed analysis see: [Ilyish 1971, 318-327]. We believe that the opposition syndetic/asyndetic concerns the formal means of expressing •semantic relations between the clauses rather than the character of these relations. In the case of syndetic sentences the semantic relations between the clauses are expressed explicitly, by the conjunctions and conjunctive words, and in the case of asyndetic sentences there are no formal means. This may be either the result of deliberate deletion of conjunctions for the sake of economy which frequently occurs in oral speech (e.g. This is the book I want, He said he would be lafe; Should he come earlier, tell him to wait), or the semantic relations are expressed implicitly, they are inferred from the semantic interpretation of the contents of the clauses. E.g. / talked to her in English, she answered back in Chinese(Amy Tan); I don't want to be an English writer; I want to be a European one (J. Fowles).Follow the accident, fear the fixed plan - that is the rule(Idem).
In fact the semantic relations between the clauses in an asyndetic composite sentence are similar to the semantic relations between sentences in the structure of a whole text where separate sentences are connected into one whole text on the basis of various semantic relations between them. E.g. He gasped. He understood everything - the two sentences are connected by causative-consecutive relations.
The borderline between coordination and subordination is not very rigid. As we have already mentioned there are sentences which, according to their formal markers (conjunctions) refer to the complex type but semantically are closer to the compound sentence. Such are sentences with attributive continuative clauses in which the meaning of subordination is weakened and which are semantically closer to a compound sentences. E.g. She may have other ideas; to be a blue stocking, for instance, in which case I must give her the chance (L. Lee). Another example of the kind: English does, in fact, encode other social distinctions such as gender in its third person pronouns while Finnish does not (S. Romaine). The conjunction while in the quoted sentence expresses juxtaposition rather than time and the sentence, though formally refers to a complex sentence is semantically closer to a compound one.
On the other hand, the relations of cause and consequence may be coded both by a compound and a complex sentence which brings them very close and makes them mutually transformable. E.g. I was busy, so I could not go to the party — As I was busy, I could not go to the party.
The fact that causative-consecutive relations are presented by both types of the composite sentence may be explained by the importance of these relations in the real world and in the human consciousness. The majority of events happening in the real world are connected by cause and consequence relations and language responds to it accordingly. Even if two events just follow each other the underlying relations between them are often causative-consecutive, e.g. The sun set and it grew dark. The rain stopped and the sun began to shine. He missed the bus and was late for work. So, because, of the importance of these relations they are coded by both types of the composite sentence. In the complex sentence they are presented more vividly due to the semantics of the conjunctions, in a compound sentence or in a sequence of simple sentences they may be less vivid, but they are still expressed.
In speech, especially in written, literary texts we often come across mixed types of sentences which combine both subordination and coordination. E.g. He never really expected an offer: hysteria and not hope had dictated his behavior, and it took him a long time to realize that he was not being mocked (G. Greene); They complained that he was conceited; and since he had excelled only in matters which to them were unimportant, they asked satirically what he had to be conceited about (S. Maugham). Whenever Garret found himself thinking about her, he remembered either the way she looked that night or how she looked the very last time they went sailing (N. Sparks).
3. The compound sentence is a syntactic unit which consists of two or more clauses joined together on the basis of coordinate relations. Coordination reflects equal relations between two or more thoughts integrating them into one syntactic whole. Though the sentences name two or more events of reality which are not subordinated to one another, yet when they are joined together and make up a compound sentence they partially lose their independent status and become clauses. The first sentence becomes the "leader clause" and the others are "sequential clauses". The leader clause is structurally more independent whereas the successive clauses are more dependent which is manifested by the fact that they may contain anaphoric elements, substitutes and they may be elliptical. E.g. He had heard too many chilling stories about him, and he had reason to believejhem ( S. Sheldoh). Bran Gwen never smoked cigarettes, yet he took the one offered, fumbling painfully with thick fingers, blushing to the roots of his hair (D.H. Lawrence). They never seemed happier, nor their marriage healthier, than those two summers (J. Updike). Yet the degree of dependence between the clauses in a compound sentence is much weaker than the dependence between the clauses in a complex sentence. The underlying principle of coordination finds its manifestation in the fact that the clauses in the structure of a complex sentence may have similar syntactic structures ( form parallel syntactic constructions) and may contain semantically related words that form synonymic, antonymic or hyponymic relations. E.g. Down, down, down we fall into that terrifying, wildly inconsequent, yet perfectly logical world where time races, than stands still; where space stretches, then contracts (V. Woolf). We can draw a certain analogy in the relations between the clauses in a compound sentence and the relations between homogeneous parts of a sentence which are also characterized by a certain semantic proximity based on synonymic, antonymic and hyponymic connections.
The semantic relations between the clauses within a compound sentence present the result of the interaction between three layers: the semantics of the conjunction, the semantics of the grammatical components of the sentence and the semantics of the lexical composition of the sentence. By the grammatical form of the sentence components we first of all mean the tense-aspect forms of the verb because the verb in its finite form establishes the semantico- syntactic centre of the sentence. As it is rightfully pointed out by Y. A. Levitsky, the semantics of the grammaticaj forms of the sentence, due to its general and abstract character, points at only two types of semantic relations: simultaneity and succession of events presented in the sentence [jicbhijkhh 2003, 315]. E.g. / knew that he was praying and I kept still (S. Leacock) - simultaneity; He was only in it a second and then he was out again (Idem) — succession . The more explicit and specific markers of coordination are the coordinative conjunctions and, but, or, nor, either... or, neither... nor, for, and adverbial sentence-connectors, such as yet, thus, so, consequently, nevertheless, however, therefore. The basic difference between the conjunctions proper and adverbial connectors lies in the fact that the position of the latter in the sentence (with the exception of so and yet) is not as rigidly fixed as that of the conjunctions proper. The conjunctions and adverbial connectors carry out not only the formal function of coordination but have their own semantics (which is of a very general nature) which indicates the character of semantic relations between the clauses and in its turn - the character of relations between the situations of reality established by the speaker in the perception of reality and verbalization of those situations.
In general the semantic elaboration of coordination is less elaborate then subordination. Traditionally scholars point out four types of semantic relations between the clauses of compound sentences which are marked by the prototypical conjunctions: copulative (the conjunction and), adversative (but), disjunctive (or), causative-consecutive (for, therefore, so). Let's have examples of each type of semantic relations:
Дата добавления: 2019-02-12; просмотров: 291; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!